WHY MEXICO, CHAPTER 5 (Part II)

Who are the Political Class? Why do politicians cheat so much? Why is there so much insecurity, migration, and unemployment?

CASE No. 1. PLAN OF AYALA VS PLAN OF SAN LUIS POTOSI.

History as it happened.

   Francisco Madero wrote the Plan of San Luis to overthrow Porfirio Diaz. He promised to defend the rights of rural workers and Native communities. He did not fulfill those commitments.

   Zapata felt betrayed, he wrote the Plan of Ayala against Madero and returned to war. Villa did not follow Zapata because Madero was very dear to him.

   Find below the most important paragraphs of the Plan of Ayala.

   "The Mexicans led by Don Francisco I. Madero shed their blood to conquer their freedom and claim their lost rights. The sacrifice of the Mexican people was not to empower a man who abandons the legal principles he promised to defend under the motto “Efficient Vote and No to Reelection”. The name of this person is Don Francisco I. Madero. He instigated an unwarranted war that caused bloodshed and innumerable disasters, which were useless, because his hidden reasons were his personal interest, his unmeasured ambition, his tyrannical instincts and his deep contempt for the law ... we declare the citizen Francisco I.  Madero incapacitated to fulfill the objectives of the Revolution that he initiated… due to the reasons mentioned, we decided to expel the citizen Francisco I. Madero from the Presidency of the Republic, and we commit ourselves to make it happen… the Nation is fed up with cheaters and liars who promise freedom and when in power they become tyrants…”

   Zapata fought against the federal army of Madero led by Victoriano Huerta.

   When Huerta betrayed Madero, that did not make any difference for Zapata, he just kept fighting. Now Villa followed Zapata to war moved by his hatred towards Huerta, who killed his beloved Madero.

   Carranza also fought against Huerta.

   Huerta resigned from the presidency, Carranza was named provisional president, and when he was in office he denied recognition to Eulalio Gutiérrez, who was elected president of the Republic at the convention convened by Carranza himself.

   Villa and Zapata returned to the war, now against Carranza.

   Zapata was killed in an ambush authorized by Álbaro Obregón, who was the Commander in Chief of Carranza's army.

   Villa agreed to demobilize his troops after the death of Carranza.

History as taught.

   Books and scholars mention that the “Plan of San Luis” fulfilled all its objectives. People are told that what caused poverty and injustice were the economic and political systems implemented by Diaz, and that Madero ended them.

   The official narrative suggest that the Plan of Ayala inspired the Revolution against Diaz, its text is not studied in schools. It is implied that Madero, Carranza, and Obregon, shared goals, and that they fought together with Zapata and Villa.

   Text books mention that later on Zapata and Villa fought against Carranza. Although without looking at the context and the transcendence of the issue.

             

CASE No. 2. THE WAR OF VENUSTIANO CARRANZA AGAINST VICTORIANO HUERTA.

History as it happened.

   The day after the coup of Huerta against Francisco I. Madero, the council of Concepción del Oro (in the Mexican state of Zacatecas) issued a declaration that says:

“… we reject the government of traitor General Victoriano Huerta. And we grant General Eulalio Gutierrez the rank of Supreme Chief of the Constitutionalist Army…”

   Madero was assassinated two days later, and all state governors, including Carranza, recognized the treaty between US Ambassador Henry Lane Wilson, Victoriano Huerta and Felix Diaz, where they name Huerta president of Mexico.

   Carranza remained silent for two months, until the U.S. withdrew its recognition to Huerta.

   It was then that Carranza launched his Plan of Guadalupe to overthrow Huerta, naming himself Supreme Chief of the Constitutionalist Army (legitimate title of Eulalio Gutierrez).

  

History as taught.

   History does not mention Eulalio Gutierrez, and gives all merits to Venustiano Carranza.

   Also states that Carranza was the only one who reacted against the murder of Madero by Huerta, and took steps to restore democracy.

CASE 3. WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DURATION AND VIOLENCE OF THE REVOLUTION?  

History as it happened.

   Porfirio Díaz resigned from the presidency SIX MONTHS after the proclamation of Madero, declaring that "... me keeping in office means more bloodshed, diminishing the nation's credit and wealth, dismantling its production facilities and exposing Mexico to the possibility of international conflicts"

   In November 1911 Madero became President of Mexico, he did not keep his promises and Zapata returned to war.

   Madero was murdered fifteen months after his inauguration and Huerta became president. Zapata continues fighting, Villa seeks revenge for Madero's murder, and Carranza fights to become President of México. All three fought Huerta for different reasons.

   In August 1914 Carranza becomes provisional President and calls for presidential elections.

   A convention for the election of a new president takes place in Aguascalientes.

   All revolutionary leaders (among them Zapata and Villa) were summoned.

   Eulalio Gutierrez (legitimate Chief of the Constitutionalist Army), was elected President of the Republic. Carranza did not recognized him and remains in office for nine years.

   Villa and Zapata fought Carranza for eight years.

   Villa begins the decline after been defeated by Obregón in an epic battle.

   Zapata was killed in an ambush authorized by Carranza.

   The followers of Obregon killed Carranza in May 1920.

   The war continued for NINE YEARS after Porfirio Díaz was overthrown. The casualties were almost two millions.

History as taught.

   Dates and events were scrambled or hidden.

   The official history says that Diaz was responsible for all the deaths of the revolution, and that Madero, Carranza, Villa, Zapata, and Obregón, shared the interest of freeing Mexico from the dictatorship of Porfirio Diaz.

   The chronicles repeat again and again that, The Mexican people banished Diaz and stopped injustice and humiliations, fighting with pride and courage.  

ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO DESCRIBE THE INVOLVEMENT OF POLITICAL SUBCULTURE IN MEXICAN CULTURE

   The previous description was "The involvement of the political class in Mexican culture, is that of an oligarchic group who distort historical events, to legitimate their ambitions"

   It was not satisfactory because it does not provide a basis for a viable solution.

   To find a better option I got involved in a deeper analysis of the history of the Mexican Revolution.

   I did so, I was overwhelmed by the lies and cynical statements of historians and politicians.

   Suddenly, I realized that the problem is not the way in which politicians distort history to legitimize themselves, but the way in which they behave.

   They have learned for generations that creating alternate realities gives them access to power, and then they feel they have the right to act as dictators, not as delegates of power.

   Additionally, they believe their own lies and can not see the truth, even if the truth spits them in the face.

   Politicians have distanced themselves from people and do not seem to realize that most of their lies have never been validated by popular common sense.

   Government speakers proclaimed "Thanks to the Revolution, farmers own the land they seed" farmers said: "We were better when we were worse off."

   Historians named Carranza "the defender of democracy", and people invented the verb "carrancear" which means to snatch without rights.

   The politicians said that "The Revolution provided well-being to the people", people insisted that when Díaz was in charge "they could tie dogs with longaniza (long pork sausage)", pointing out that even the dogs were well fed. Politicians launched a campaign to teach reading and writing, such campaign ended and the government declared that there were no more illiterates, now it is known that graduates of many government elementary schools are semi-illiterate.

   I had enough data and I stopped looking for more, I better tried to define the problem.

   I focused on what are more frequently mentioned as the most important problems of Mexico: Insecurity, unemployment, and migration.

   Some say that those are just symptoms. I liked the idea and began looking for the problem or problems causing such symptoms.

   I put together an answer, and let me tell you that I also found that everyone, except me, knew it.

   The origin of the problems of Mexico is the lack of commitment of the politicians.

   Now I see that it is obvious. I think I was unable to find the answer earlier because somehow I became infected with the superficiality of politicians.

   My next step was to ask the people around me to identify the cause of the problems Mexico was facing. I could not stop making fun of my presumptuous initial focus as social science researcher.

   I learned this:

   In México, the difficulty of succeeding only with one’s own effort and the greedy loans of banks and big stores, are the origins of insecurity, unemployment and migration.

   I felt as if I had discovered warm water. Now everything seems obvious.

   I had new and rich information to solve de enigma of the involvement of the Political Subculture in the Mexican Culture, but everything has to be reorganized.

  As I mentioned, all Mexicans are influenced by all subcultures (Native, Conquerors, Defeated, and Politicians). I discovered that those who, apart from not working in politics are more influenced by the Political Subculture, identify themselves as Civil Society.

   The members of this Civil Society, despite their profile, deny belonging to the Political Class, and stay away from Native Subcultures, except to help or sympathize with them.

   The story of this group begins when the government decides the cooptation of Civil Societies (civilians organized to run nurseries or to protect abandoned children, battered women, homeless people, victims of violence, people whose human rights were violated, etc.)

   At the end of the twentieth century the government began to sponsor and so moderate, all kinds of Civil Societies. The beneficiaries of this policy, instead of continuing to pressure the government to be efficient, changed to demand more budget to do what the government is supposed to exist for.

   Very soon, the empowered Civil Societies began to use the name Civil Society for the population within their area of influence.

  The idea was accepted immediately by those whom the Revolution left between the always poor and the newcomers to the political scene.

   Civil Society became very active expressing their uneasiness with government doings, although most protests are address against political opponents of the President of the Republic. Unfortunately Civil Society is also lost in the alternate realities created by the Political Class.

   Civil Society do not realize that they were coopted by the government they were willing to oppose.

   Lopez Obrador, the now President of the Republic, has decided to stop transferring public money to Civil Societies. This decision faces a very strong opposition from the so called Civil Society, because they do not understand that such a change is giving them back the freedom to demand the government to assume the roll of provider of security, health, and welfare.

   Civil Societies were very active in providing the services they were pay to do, and kept silence on all sort of acts of corruption of the government, when speaking out could jeopardize their budget.

   They have tolerated corruption, but I do not think it is fair to assign to the Civil Societies or the Civil Society any responsibility in the problems created by the Political Subculture, since they are nothing more than circumstantial victims.

   Leaving politicians as the sole acting force of the political subculture I came to the conclusion that:

   The Mexican politicians are causing most of Mexico's problems by focusing on getting power instead of benefiting people. They are also the only ones with the means to solve such problems.