Coahuila in the Porfiriato, 1893-1911: a study of political elites
Experience the future of the Tulane University Digital Library.
We invite you to visit the new Digital Collections website.
Description
Traditionally, historians have used a national perspective and a nondemocratic-democratic dichotomy to analyze Mexican political history. This tendency was especially evident in studies of the dictatorship of Porfirio D(')iaz (1876-1911). The nondemocratic-democratic framework led historians to overlook the basic authoritarian nature of Mexican politics and to incorrectly view the Porfirian regime as an aberration in Mexico's democratic development. The national perspective caused them to formulate interpretations based on gross averages which neglected the basically regional and local character of Porfirian national political and economic consolidation. In contrast, this study emphasized the continuity of Mexican political development in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. A very successful authoritarian regime rules Mexico today, and Porfrio D(')iaz laid the foundations of that regime. In addition, the study maintained that the regime's internal dynamics could best be understood by a close examination of the interplay between the national administration and a regional elite. Therefore, the thesis utilized a contemporary model of authoritarian government, the regional perspective, and a specialized methodology--prosopography or collective biography--to examine the Porfirian regime in the state of Coahuila from 1893 to 1911 This tripartite approach revealed a detailed picture of a regional elite, Porfirian administration, and local revolutionary impulses. Prosopography of 220 elite members demonstrated that the Coahuilan political elite was drawn from the dominant entrepreneurial and professional strata. A tightly knit group connected by kinship, personal and economic ties, this political elite occupied important positions in the political and economic spheres simultaneously. The authoritarian leader effectively manipulated and controlled the political elite in an intensely personalistic system. D(')iaz and his politicos strictly controlled and parceled out perquisites and privileges. The regime encouraged and manipulated intense political competition among the various elite fractions. D(')iaz tied factional leaders to the regime to prevent them from developing an independent political base. The local fractions' linkage to competing factions in the national administration accentuated the impartial pose which D(')iaz assumed and facilitated his divide and conquer strategy For thirty-four years, Mexicans acquiesced in Porfirian authoritarian rule in exchange for political stability and impressive economic growth. Porfirian modernization, ironically, brought about the regime's demise. Development created new groups which intensified political and economic competition. Economic crisis in 1907-1911 made increased political participation for both new and old groups imperative. Consequently, in those years, the Porfirian regime faced an increase in the scope of political mobilization. In Coahuila, two tendencies, radical and liberal, challenged the Porfirian regime. Magonismo, the radical tendency, representative of groups which had been isolated from political power, gravitated rapidly toward an attempted revolution, but failed. The liberal tendency, composed of the pro-Porfirian reyismo and the anti-Porfirian anti-reeleccionismo, attempted gradual political reform, but failed. Reyismo, controlled by an important and aggressive segment of the Coahuilan elite, constituted a powerful internal chanllenge to the Porfirian regime. In the past politically astute, D(')iaz, however, failed to recognize the significance of increased political mobilization. The regime not only refused to co-opt but also persecuted the reyistas, driving them into the anti-reeleccionista camp. This action antagonized an important regional elite at a time when increased politicization of the populace required unity. The result was revolution in 1910