In 1976, Mexico's dominant Institutional Revolutionary party (PRI) informally convened an inner-circle elite of power brokers who devised reforms for the political system. As a result, by 1978 four political parties had grown to eight on the ballots of 29 of the 31 states. Soon the number of non-PRI deputies in the lower house of the federal congress would constitute almost one-fourth of the membership. But the input proved to be cosmetic rather than substantive in terms of policy.
In 1985, at a Latin American Studies Association conference, a panel yielded several papers about the attempt to broaden the base of political participation in Mexico. Judith Gentleman, a political scientist at the State University of New York at Geneseo, commendably augmented these papers with additional contributions from other scholars, edited into a volume that gives a comprehensive analysis of Mexico’s recent political development.
With the characteristic delay of academic books, the publisher did not bring out this volume until 1987. But the manuscript was locked in place before newer contributions could be added about the controversial and violently contested statewide and municipal elections of 1985, 1986, and 1987. Some of the rigged-vote tabulations of these more recent elections would have added to the overall effect of this volume as a realistic reference. Nevertheless, the editor did sense the limited nature of Mexico’s pluralism and wisely rounded up contributors who could bring into focus the degree of hierarchical relationships in public life.
Veteran Mexicanists Martin Needler, Dale Story, and Roderic Camp evaluate the challenge to the PRI in recent years within a context of a political culture which always includes crises. John Bailey notes the PRI’s earlier attempts to broaden the base of popular participation within the party, and to create the impression that opposition parties serve more than a ceremonial function of pluralism within the legislative branch. But as Bailey points out, presidential patronage remains the mechanism for ensuring widespread cooperation from various sectors on key matters.
As any Mexicanist knows, the congress performs the ritualized task of debating at length trivia, dutifully chronicled in detail by newspapers and magazines. But the chief executive and his cabinet formulate and carry out policies, in a system of executivism. With the exception of the federal Supreme Court, the judiciary is staffed with politicized arbitrators who never stray far from establishment norms. On occasion, however, the Supreme Court does offer a writ of amparo that overturns an executive-branch action on constitutional grounds. Had a chapter on this phenomenon been included, this well-edited volume would have been even more incisive.
An especially useful view from a veteran Mexican top-level bureaucrat, Miguel Basáñez, guides us through the maze of Mexican public opinion surveying. He found a strong correlation between party sympathies and occupational categories. The PRI’s strength centers in public officials and farmers, whereas the PAN can count most of all on those in the business community, reflecting that party’s attunement to the private sector. The Marxist PSUM must rely on alienated political leaders, academicians, and economic and social marginals. As one who conducted TV-radio audience polls for Radiómetro, I can attest to the accuracy of Basáñez's assessment of the difficulty of surveying in Mexico. We found built into the Mexican collective psyche a suspicion of anyone telephoning or inquiring at the door about anything, if the interviewer is a stranger.
As the Salinas administration prepares to guide Mexico for the next six years, students of Mexican politics trying to relate voting abstentions, vocal cynicism, and the contradictory nationalism and cultural pride still evidenced in this nation will profit by consulting this coherent collection of analyses from 11 scholars who share one common assessment about Mexico: its political system, despite its tribulations, retains considerable staving power.
