No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Political Democracy and the Mexican Constitutionalists: A Re-Examination
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 December 2015
Extract
The Mexican Constitutional Congress of 1916-1917 represents in many respects a culmination of the struggle begun before 1910 against the dictatorship of Porfirio Díaz. The Constitutional Congress was not only a culmination of the violent phase of the Mexican Revolution. It also involved a codification, if not a crystallization, of goals and perspectives that either pre-date 1910 or emerged during the struggles of 1910-1917. These struggles involved competing mobilizations within the Revolutionary coalition and, finally, a civil war within the Revolution between the forces of the Convention (the unstable coalition between the Zapatistas and the Villistas) and those of the Constitutionalists. The Constitutional Congress takes place after the military victory of the Constitutionalists and delegate eligibility was restricted to those who had actively supported the Constitutionalists. The radical economic nationalism and other innovative features of the Constitution have captured the attention of commentators. While the interpretation of the economic nationalism and other features remains the subject of considerable dispute, the notion that the Constitutionalists had a democratizing thrust in the political realm has remained unchallenged. Our analysis of both the articles and, more importantly, the debates at the Constitutional Congress leads us to challenge the premise of a democratizing impulse. This is not to say that the Constitutionalist delegates were for dictatorship, but it is to suggest that compared to the Constitution of 1857, the Constitutionalists do not emerge as radical democrats but as elitists that are fearful of mass participation as well as fearful of the possibility of a new dictatorship. We will examine the debates on four issues for this purpose: (A) suffrage; (B) literacy requirements to serve as a Deputy (member of Congress); (C) directness of electing officials; (D) no re-election.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Academy of American Franciscan History 1977
References
1 I have discussed this debate in Chapter II, “Competing Interpretations of the Mexican Revolution,” in Roman, Richard, Ideology and Class in the Mexican Revolution: A Study of the Convention and the Constitutional Congress (Berkeley: Ph.D. dissertation in Sociology, 1973).Google Scholar
-
2
2 “Art. 35. The prerogatives of citizens are
-
I.
I. To vote at popular elections.
-
II.
II. To be eligible for any elective office and be qualified for any other office or commission, provided they have the other qualifications required by law.
-
III.
III. To assemble for the purpose of discussing the political affairs of the country.
-
IV.
IV. To serve in the army or national guard for the defense of the Republic and its institutions, as by law determined.
-
V.
V. To exercise the rights of petition in any matter whatever.”
This translation of article 35 from the 1917 Constitution and all others subsequently presented (unless otherwise noted) are from the translation by Branch, H.N. appearing in Cleland, Robert Glass (ed.), The Mexican Year Book, 1920–1921 (Los Angeles: Mexican Year Book Publishing Company, 1922), pp. 116–153.Google Scholar Also, unless otherwise noted, we are presenting the final adopted versions of the various articles.
For Constitutional antecedents and some background to the various articles, a useful source is Derechos del Pueblo Mexicano: México a Través de sus Constituciones, 8 vols. (México: XLVI Legislatura de la Cámara de Diputados, 1967). For background on article 35, see volume V, pp. 319–355. For the 1857 Constitution version, see ibid., p. 328, item #37.
3 The five voting against article 35 were Fajardo, Labastida Izquierdo, Martín del Campo, Carlos Villaseñor and Jorge Villaseñor. There may have been a number of delegates not voting on this article as 168 delegates voted on other articles about the same time but only 141 voted on this one. Diario de los Debates del Congreso Constituyente, 1916–1917, II, 997.
4 For Carranza’s statement see ibid., I, 393-394 and for his proposed article 35, see ibid., I, 510. For the First Commission’s brief on article 35, see ibid., II, 829–830.
5 Ibid., II, 829–830.
6 Ibid., II, 994.
7 The strike and its suppression by the Díaz regime was one of the famous precursors to the Revolution and was an important symbol in revolutionary ideology.
8 Juan Bojórquez, Crónica del Constituyente (México: Editorial Botas, 1938). Bojórquez’ book like several others on the Constitutional Congress is almost solely a retelling of what took place at the Congress with little interpretation or analysis. Bojórquez was an alternate delegate and active participant in the Congress. He does label each of the delegates as a Jacobin, moderate or neither. His characterizations would probably reflect the Jacobin faction's view of the leanings of various people.
9 Múgica is universally accepted as the floor leader of the left tendency. Múgica’s position on this question, on trade unions, and so forth indicate the need for a redefinition of the content of this left tendency.
10 For the proposed article 55, see Diario de los Debates del Congreso Constituyente, 1916–1917, 11, 177–178. It stated: “Article 55. In order to be a deputy (member of Congress—RR) the following requirements are necessary: 1. To be a Mexican citizen by birth or nationalized Latin American, in the exercise of their rights, and to know how to read and write.” (Emphasis added and the translation is mine—RR.) Fraction 1 as finally adopted read: “They shall be Mexican citizens by birth and in the enjoyment of their rights.” From Branch, p. 128. The inclusion of “nationalized Latin Americans” caused a big debate.
11 Fraction 1 of article 55 in the 1857 Constitution simply required: “to be a Mexican citizen in exercise of their rights.” Derechos dei Pueblo Mexicano, VI, 75, item #46. For antecedents and background to article 55, see ibid., pp. 65–104. For the debate on fraction I of article 55 in the 1916–1917 Constitutional Congress, see Diario de los Debates del Congreso Constituyente, 1916–1917, II, 176–218.
12 Ibid., II, 181–183.
13 Ibid., II, 188–192 and 194.
14 Ibid., II, 183–184 and 193.
15 Ibid., II, 201–203.
16 “Art. 54. The election of representatives shall be direct, in accordance with the provisions of the electoral law.” Branch, p. 128. The proposed article 56 read: “The Senate shall be composed of two members for each state and two for the Federal District, named in direct election. The Legislature of each state shall declare elected to the one that had obtained the absolute majority of the total of the votes that could have been cast, in conformance with the respective electoral rules, and in case there is no candidate having obtained such a majority, it (the state Legislature) will elect from among the two that had the most votes.” (Emphasis added—RR.) Diario de los Debates del Pueblo Mexicano, VI, 179–192.
17 Diario de los Debates del Congreso Constituyente, 1916–1917, II, 265–266 and 267.
18 Ibid., II, 267–271.
19 Ibid., II, 268.
20 Ibid., II, 262–265, 266, 267, 268.
21 The provision that a President could never be re-elected is contained in article 83. The relevant passage is in the first sentence of the article: “Art. 83. The President, … shall serve four years and shall never be reelected.” Branch, p. 136. The discussion of article 83 is in Diario de los Debates del Congreso Constituyente, 1916–1917, II, 591–594 and the vote is on p. 639 of this volume.
22 Ibid., II, 592 and 593.