This volume on the Mexican political system in Ensenada, Baja California, is significant for Latin Americanists since it not only provides an interesting recent view, but also offers description which historians can utilize to interpret local Mexican development during the 1960s.
Because of the volume’s main title—and because it is dedicated to Camilo Torres—the reader might expect to find strong criticism of the political system as it is manifested at the local level. Professor Ugalde’s conclusions, however, are hardly critical at all. Although he mentions corruption, unethical influence, and catchwords such as “cooptation,” he concludes that there is very little conflict, mainly because the system has been so successful in resolving the labor- management conflict. Thus (p. 180), “the official Party, as a symbol of the Mexican Revolution, has legitimized the demands and aspirations of the labor movement and has given the political system the brokers who have facilitated interaction and communication between the leaders of different socioeconomic groups. . .. [And although] several authors have argued that the development of a stable political system in Mexico would require internal democratization of the PRI and development of a multiparty system . . .[this] study suggests that a multiparty system would only have fragmented the Mexican society and probably would not have allowed for a peaceful routinization of the labor-management conflict. The basis for a pluralistic society would not have been developed under a multiparty system in Mexico.”
Given much of the secondary literature which suggests that the Mexican political system faces crisis, especially over the development of internal democracy within the PRI, this book is not only suggestive and surprising, but especially important in that it deals with a community in a state where the PRI has faced some of its most serious opposition.
With regard to scope and methodology, Ugalde’s study is limited to an examination of labor management relations and the functioning of local, state and federal government in relation to (a) community-development problems, and (b) political contests between the PAN and the PRI. Basically this is a qualitative study in that in his research the author emphasized non-standardized interviews, attendance at local organization meetings, and study of official acts; however, he does present some limited data which indicate, for example, that although local PRI and PAN leadership is one-third worker-based in each party, the PAN finds its greatest concentration (55%) of leaders among businessmen and merchants, whereas the PRI also looks to professionals and semi-professionals for its leaders.
There are several strengths and weaknesses in the study. On the one hand, Ugalde shows that central planning in Mexico City often is blind, insensitive, and inefficient with respect to the needs of Ensenada. Also, he finds that membership in the PRI frequently is a mere formality and that its union strength includes (without much protest) employers as well as employees. On the other hand, he suggests that a disproportionate amount of local expenditure is absorbed by wages and salaries (which implicitly involves a distinction between current and capital expenditure), but he does not indicate how the wages were distributed by function (which is more pertinent for understanding the social role of the PRI about which the author is concerned). In addition, Ugalde does not substantiate his assertion that Mexican development is not limited by scarce financial resources. In the same vein, he discusses several conflicts (e.g., pp. 43, 143, 147) without any assessment of outcomes.
On balance, the work is useful and makes it increasingly clear that community studies can be undertaken successfully without the need for clumsy attempts to hide the name of the place studied, attempts for which no convincing justifications have been forthcoming. Furthermore, Ugalde calls into question results found in other studies of Mexico at the local as well as national level.
