Latin-American Studies

Latin America has always been seen as a continent where in the 19th and 20th centuries the formal architecture of democracy has been a thinly veiled faade for civilians and military tyrants. Such a view on the origin of democracy specifically in Mexico is misleading (Leslie, 2007). The process of looking for democracy, representative regimes, and affirming the rule of the low as per the constitution has been uneven and in relation to this let us consider the Mexican revolution.

The Mexican revolution sprung up as a result of tremendous disagreement among the Mexican people over the dictatorship of President Porfirio Diaz who stayed in office for 31 years (Franklin, 1934). In his tenure, power was concentrated in the hands of a select few citizens had no power to express their opinions or even select public officials. Wealth was circulating among the rich few who were oppressors, and injustice was like a way of life. Early in the 20th century, a new generation of young leaders arose who wanted to be involved in the political life of the country but their thirst was quenched by political leaders who were embezzled in power and it is only by shed of blood that they would have relinquished their positions (John, 1995). The group of new generation believed that the only way that they would get to be heard is through making sure that president Diaz is not in office

One of the strongest believes that President Diaz should renounce his powers and not seek a re-election was Francisco Madero. In conjunction with other young leaders he created anew anti re electionist party and went around the country selling his ideas to people who were willing and motivated to embrace change. Madero was a firm supporter of democracy and of forcing the government to adhere by strict limits of the law, made him a threat before President Diaz. Shortly before the 1910 elections, Madero was apprehended in Monterey and imprisoned in San Luis Potosi. After Diaz was reelected, Madero fled to the US for self exile (Franklin, 1934). While in the Us he made major pronouncements involving that he was the president till, new elections are held, returning all land convistigated from peasants, an a limit of a one presidential term. The pronouncements formed the basis of the Mexican revolution as from 20th November 1910.

As from 14th November Cuchillo Parado in the state of Chihuahua led a small group who took arms to withdraw President Diaz. When President Diaz learnt of this he responded swiftly and the small group was made to pay by their lives and this formed the basis for Madero to persuade Pascual Orozco and Francisco Villa to join in the revolution. Even though they were not good in military they were excellent strategists and they earned allegiance of people from the northern Mexico who were fed up with the way the ranchers and landlords ran the area.

In March 1911, Emilliano Zapata led the peasants in demanding for their rights which sparked an armed revolt in many parts of the country. The maderista troops inspired by the national hunger defeated the army of President Diaz within a record time of six months then President Diaz resigned and fled to exile in France where he died in 1915.

The Mexican revolution in the twentieth century
Revolution remains an elusive subject of prime importance in the post cold war era. Even though communism in general and Marxist-Leninist theory has lost much of their credibility, the continuation of massive social and economic problems provides an environment in which political unrest and social revolution refuse to disappear. Under the conditions presented above of the Mexican revolution between 1910 and 1940, marks a new significance because it was one of the last major revolutions before the onset of the cold war and the worldwide fascination with the Marxist-Leninist formula for revolution. John, 1994)

Even though Mexico had a small but active communist organization after 1918, the revolution lay just on the edge of the reach of the Comintern and other influences emanating from the Soviet Union. Mexico produced a large scale revolution in which Marxism Leninist theory and praxis amounted to only one of the many radical and reformist influences that intermingled in a complex and often contradictory movement.

The World War II and the cold war brought a similar ideological shift in the United States as in Mexico (John, 1995). The parallel changes created a setting for retrospective reappraisals of the Mexican history as from 1910 to 1940. Commentators who have looked back over those years often found specific changes to have been less radical and the movement in general less revolutionary than had earlier observers however the revolution and the discussions it stimulated among writer and policy makers in the United States provide a useful legacy for the post-Cold War Era (John, 1995).

From the discussion presented above it is evident that Mexican revolution was the first major revolution which overturned a previously relatively stable society and substituted new institution for those who were discredited.

Changes in other countries
However how much we can the Mexican evolution as yearning for democracy there are other countries where the trend also prevailed (Leslie, 2007). Even in some democratic periods many countries in the region can be characterized by semi-democratic mode of governance because on the constraints in the constitution, contestation and fraud and manipulation of electoral results. For example in Argentina, Brazil and Peru in the 1930s, had hybrid democratic-authoritarian regimes, noteworthy for the persistent interference in politics of the military and powerful economic interests, and by frequent direct military intervention. In the three fore mentioned countries there was also the proscription for particular long periods of time because of a leader or a movement i.e. the Peron and the peronists in Argentina, the communist party in Brazil and the Haya de la Torre and APRA in America. It can be connoted that the process of appraising democracy is reversible Not only for Argentina, Brazil and Peru, but in the early 1970s countries with long traditions of constitutional rule and respect for the electoral process such as Chile and Uruguay experienced profound regime breakdowns (Leslie, 2007).

Conclusion
The Mexican revolution is no more the prototype for other revolutions than was tat of Russia, China or Cuba. It was a genuine revolution that deserved a place in serious comparative analyses that can yield helpful insights into events in other areas and circumstances (Franklin, 1934). The role of national governments and the nature of socioeconomic change will continue to spark debates among the liberals and conservatives as well as radicals. The work of American Observers on the Mexican revolution, obscured by half century of Cold war polemics is relevant to if not resonant with a world of ever more closely connected nations dominated by huge economic and media systems imposed uneasily upon hopeful but insecure and often resentful people.