Porfirio Díaz's Rule
History of Mexico |
Pre-contact Mexico
|
Spanish rule
|
First Mexican Republic
|
Second Federal Republic
|
1864-1928
|
Modern Mexico
|
Timeline |
After Benito Juárez's death in 1872, Porfirio Díaz took over as Mexico's leader. As allies the two men had fought against the French in the Battle of Puebla, but once Juárez rose to power Díaz tried to unseat him. Díaz began his tenure as president in 1876 and ruled until May 1911 when Francisco I. Madero succeeded him, taking office in November. Díaz's regime is remembered for the advances he brought in industry and modernization, at the expense of human rights and liberal reforms.
Díaz's rule from 1876 to 1910 has become known as the Porfiriato era. Díaz had a strict "No Re-election" policy whereby presidents could not serve consecutive terms in office. He followed this rule when he stepped down (1880) after his first term and was succeeded by Manuel González. Gonzalez was controlled by Diaz and was commonly known as Diaz's puppet. The new president's period in office was marred by political corruption and official incompetence. When Díaz ran in the next election (1884), he was a welcome replacement. In future elections Díaz conveniently put aside his "No Re-election" slogan and ran for president in every election.
Diaz was an early liberal, but changed his views after Juarez took office. He became the dictator against whom he had warned the people. Through the army, the Rurales—a paramilitary force that kept order in the countryside—and gangs of thugs, Diaz frightened people into voting for him. When bullying citizens into voting for him failed, he simply rigged the votes in his favor. He justified his stay in office by claiming that Mexico was not yet ready to govern itself; only he knew what was best for his country and he enforced his belief with a strong hand. "Order followed by Progress" were the watchwords of his rule.
While Díaz's presidency was characterized by promotion of industry and the pacification of the country, it came at the expense of the working class. Farmers and peasants both complained of oppression and exploitation. The economy took a great leap during the Porfiriato, as he encouraged the construction of factories, roads, dams, industries and better farms. This resulted in the rise of an urban proletariat and the influx of foreign capital (principally from the United States).
Part of his success in maintaining power came from mitigating U.S. influence through European investments—primarily from Great Britain and Imperial Germany. Progress came at a price, however, as basic rights such as freedom of the press were suspended under the Porfiriato. The growing influence of the U.S. was a constant problem for Díaz.
Wealth, political power and access to education were concentrated among a handful of families, overwhelmingly of European descent, known as hacendados, who controlled vast swaths of the country by virtue of their huge estates (one family, the Terrazas, had one estate in Sonora alone that comprised more than a million acres). Most people in Mexico were landless, laboring on the vast estates or in the mines for little more than slave wages. Foreign companies, mostly from the United Kingdom, France and the U.S., also exercised power in Mexico.
Díaz changed land reform efforts that were begun under previous leaders. His new "reforms" virtually undid all the work by leaders such as Juárez. No peasant or farmer could claim the land he occupied without formal legal title. Helpless and angry small farmers and landless peasants saw no hope for themselves and their families under a Diaz regime, and came to the conclusion that a change of leadership would be the only route that offered any hope for themselves and their country. Such famous figures in Mexican history as Francisco I. Madero, Pancho Villa and Emiliano Zapata would launch a rebellion against Díaz, all of which eventually coalesced into what became known as the Mexican Revolution. More than 95% of Mexico's land was owned by less than 5% of the population. This vastly unequal distribution of land—and, therefore, wealth—had plagued Mexico for many years, to the anger and dismay of the working classes, as this corrupt system allowed the rich to get richer while ensuring that the poor remained poor, or got even poorer. Workers on the vast "haciendas" were often treated like slaves, being beaten for the slightest infraction—real or imagined—and murders of workers by their "masters" was not uncommon. Another way to ensure that farmers and workers were kept under the thumb of the wealthy classes was to make sure that any debt incurred was passed down from generation to generation, thereby ensuring that it would never be paid off and the farmers would be kept in perpetual debt bondage.
Most historians mark the end of the Porfiriato in 1911 as the beginning of the Mexican Revolution. In a 1908 interview with U.S. journalist James Creelman, Díaz stated that Mexico was ready for democracy and elections and that he would step down to allow other candidates to compete for the presidency. Growing "old and careless", Díaz figured he would retire to Europe and allow a younger man to take over his presidency. Because of the turmoil this caused, Díaz decided to run again in 1910 for the last time, with an eye toward arranging a succession in the middle of his term.
Madero ran against Díaz in 1910. Diaz thought he could control this election as he had the previous seven. Although similar overall to Díaz in his ideology, Madero hoped for other elites to rule alongside the president. Díaz did not approve of Madero and had him jailed on election day in 1910. Díaz was announced the winner of the election by a "landslide", providing the initial impetus for the outbreak of the Revolution. When it became obvious that the election was fixed, Madero supporter Toribio Ortega took up arms with a group of followers at Cuchillo Parado, Chihuahua on November 10, 1910.
Read more about this topic: Mexican Revolution
Famous quotes containing the word rule:
“My reason, its true, controls my feelings, but whatever its authority, it doesnt rule them so much as tyrannize them.”
—Pierre Corneille (16061684)