Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T07:57:38.239Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Elites, Revolution, and Authoritarianism: Political Recruitment in Mexico, 1900-1971

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2022

Peter H. Smith
Peter H. Smith*
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

One of the most pervasive phenomena in the modern political world is authoritarianism—regimes characterized by “limited pluralism,” identifiably and analytically distinct from democratic or totalitarian types of rule. Well over a third of the contemporary nation-states, mostly in the developing regions, fall into the authoritarian category—and this fact alone would seem to call for intensive research. Nevertheless, despite the obvious importance of the problem, we know relatively little about the origins, dynamics, and stability (or instability) of such regimes. There is a particularly urgent need for empirical research to test, refine, and amplify hypotheses that now exist.

Type
Research Reports and Notes
Information
Latin American Research Review , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , Spring 1975 , pp. 183 - 186
Copyright
Copyright © 1975 by Latin American Research Review

References

Notes

1. See Juan J. Linz, “An Authoritarian Regime: Spain,” most easily consulted in Mass Politics: Studies in Political Sociology, ed. Erik Allardt and Stein Rokkan (New York: The Free Press, 1970), pp. 251-83 and 374-81.

2. According to Jean Blondel, who does not follow Linz's definitions, about 30 percent of the world's political systems were “authoritarian” as of 1972—and another 30 percent were “populist” (including Mexico). Blondel, Comparing Political Systems (New York: Praeger, 1972), Appendix.

3. See Melvin Croan, “Is Mexico the Future of East Europe: Institutional Adaptability and Political Change in Comparative Perspective,” in Authoritarian Politics in Modern Society: The Dynamics of Established One-Party Systems, ed. Samuel P. Huntington and Clement H. Moore (New York: Basic Books, 1970), pp. 451-83.

4. Juan Linz has based a typology of authoritarian regimes upon this same question. Linz, “Notes Toward a Typology of Authoritarian Regimes,” (Paper presented at the 1972 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C.).

5. Peter H. Smith, “Continuity and Turnover within the Mexican Political Elite,” (Paper presented at the IV International Congress of Mexican Studies, Santa Monica, California, October 1973).

6. Peter H. Smith, “Making It in Mexico: Aspects of Political Mobility since 1946,” (Paper presented at the 1974 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, Ill.).