Blog 8

            One thing that has played a significant role throughout history is political violence.   While there are many different forms and causes of political violence, one thing we know for certain is that its effects can be extremely detrimental and play a critical role in shaping the future for each particular state that it affects. David J. Samuels defines political violence as, “the use of force by states or non-state actors to achieve political goals (Comparative Politics, 258).  The Mexican Revolution is a prime example of an act of political violence in which insurgents sought to overtake government authority through armed conflict.

            Was the Mexican Revolution really a revolution? To address this question more fully it is best to understand what the components of a revolution really are.  Samuels states and defines revolutions as, “armed conflict within a sovereign state between insurgents and the state, in which both the insurgents and the state claim the allegiance of a significant proportion of the population; authority over the state is forcibly transferred from the state to the insurgents, and the insurgents subsequently bring about wholesale political change” (Samuels 269).  Many of the events that took place in the Mexican Revolution fit in with Samuel’s definition of a revolution.  The revolution began in 1910 with a young man named Francisco I. Madero, who came from a wealthy family in northern Mexico.  His intent was to run against Porfirio Diaz, the incumbent of many years, in the next election.  To insure that Madero didn’t win, Diaz had him thrown in jail and declared himself the winner.  Madero did escape from jail and issued a “letter from jail” called the Plan de San Luis Potosi, with its main slogan “free suffrage and no-reelection.” This letter declared the Diaz regime illegal and called for revolt against Diaz.  Although it wasn’t at first intended as a major socioeconomic revolution, it gained the support of many disadvantaged Mexicans, mainly peasants farmers, miners and other working class individuals, who eventually formed an army and under Madero and led many attacks against Diaz.  Madero continued to gain support and eventually defeated the Mexican Federal Army and seized control of the government.  Diaz was later replaced by Madero who went on and established a liberal democracy and gained support from other countries and leaders (Wikipedia.org). This example confirms and re-enforces Samuels definition of a revolution.  However, sources claim that although the Mexican Revolution started as a revolution, it ended around ten years later in the form of a civil war because of continued combat and contention among different parties.

            According to John Mason Hart in his book, Revolutionary Mexico, he states several factors that led into the Mexican Revolution. Examples of these factors include peasant and industrial working class repression and deprivation, peasant displacement, and the failure of the national government to meet the political and economic demands and challenges (Hart 9).  These factors are what motivated the Mexican people to rally together in support of Madero’s intentions to remove Diaz from office and to seize political power and authority.  The Mexican Revolution is a classic example of political violence and marks a defining and critical time in Mexico’s history.

           

                                                          Works Cited

Samuels, David J. “Comparative Politics”

Hart, John Mason. “Revolutionary Mexico: The coming and process of the Mexican Revolution.” The Regents of the University of California. 1987.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Revolution