8/3/2019 2503736 La

1/33

Explaining Sociopolitical Change in Latin America: The Case of MexicoAuthor(s): Viviane Brachet-MarquezSource: Latin American Research Review, Vol. 27, No. 3 (1992), pp. 91-122Published by: The Latin American Studies AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2503736 .

Accessed: 29/09/2011 16:41

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Latin American Studies Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Latin American Research Review.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=lamerhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2503736?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2503736?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=lamer

8/3/2019 2503736 La

2/33

EXPLAINING SOCIOPOLITICALCHANGE IN LATIN AMERICA:The Case ofMexico*

Viviane rachet-MdrquezEl ColegioeMexico

Since Mexico declared its independence fromSpanish rule, thecountryhas experienced two extendedperiods ofpolitical stability hatareatypical fLatinAmerican ocieties. The first, nown as thePorfiriato,extendedfrom 875 to 1910. Thesecond,whichwas heraldedby theRevo-lution of1910 and consolidatedin the 1920s, still holds sway in the lastdecade of the twentieth entury.The weaknesses of the Porfiriato avebeen analyzed amply, hanks n greatpartto thehindsightprovided bythe revolution hat nded the era. Untilrecently, owever,most works ontwentieth-century exico have focusedon the exceptional tability fthepostrevolutionary egime.This approach has left argelyunresearched(Knight1989) or merely abeled as "crises" (Needler 1987) the recurrentepisodes of union insurgency, opular protest, lectoralopposition,andother ignsofpressureforpolitical hangethathavepunctuatedMexicanhistory ince the Revolution.Consequently, nalysts who have recentlyundertaken hearduoustask ofdiagnosingat whatpointsthis mposingedificemight "give" have been unable to benefitfrom nsightsof workcarried ut npreviousdecades.In the nterval etween 1982 and 1988, the erosion of support forthe official arty from heright s well as the eft)gradually ecame morevisible, culminatingn whathas been called the "political earthquakeof1988" (Lerner de Sheinbaum 1989; Cornelius, Gentleman, and Smith1989). Since then, analyzing politicalchange in Mexico has become asurgentas analyzing stabilitywas prevalent n the past. Yet unlike theprocess in previous decades, this new focus of researchhas not beenaccompaniedbya renewalof theconceptualarsenal thatmosteffectivelyexplained stability.n practice, histendencyhas created a styleofanaly-sis that schewsexplicit eference o theanalyticalmodelsinvogue inthe1960s and 1970syetcannotavoid using thekeyterms createdby these

*I would ike o thankDiane Davis, JoseAntonioAldrete,BarbaraHelfferich, obertKauf-man,LARR EditorGilbertMerkx, nd theanonymousLARRreadersfor heir omments nearlier ersionsof this rticle.91

8/3/2019 2503736 La

3/33

LatinAmerican esearch eviewmodels. Such an approach leaves unclear which assumptions,key ana-lytical ools, and centralpropositionsof these models are still onsideredfruitfulnd which ones are being questioned.Despite visible signs of wear, the Mexican politicalsystem n theearly 1990s stillappears to be defying oliticalchange. This descriptionfits ven after decade of accumulation risismarkedbymassive capitalflight, oweringforeigndebt, record unemployment, hree-digit nfla-tion, rampantde-industrialization,nd a ruthlessmonetary tabilizationprogramthathas "liberalized"everything ut wages and salaries. Littlehas changed in the nstitutional rrangements hat definethe scope andlimits f tatepower,despitereiterated romises rom boveto democratizeand modernizepolitical nstitutions. hat s to say,nothinghas changedin the formal rrangements hat ostensiblygovern Mexico. The PartidoRevolucionario nstitucionalPRI) still allies themajority fvotes by theusual illegalmeans,as evidenced since 1986 nvariousgubernatorial lec-tionsand the1988nationalpresidential nd legislative lections.'And thenew administration f Carlos Salinas de Gortari 1988-1994)took officeright n cue, despite evidence of massive electoralfraud.This apparentreturn o previous patternshas, insome cases, encourageda return o thestudyofstabilitynd continuity, hichhave been viewed alternativelysa "new presidentialism" Salazar 1989;Monsivais 1990)2or as a drift o-ward a more exclusionaryregime Meyer 1989). Until 1989 the generalconsensus held that a return o the statusquo ante was unlikely Corn-elius, Gentleman,and Smith1989; Garrido1989; Loaeza 1989a, 1989b;Meyer 1989).Nevertheless,fewobservershave been willingto spell outwhatprinciples fchangeunderliethearray ffuture cenariosthathavebeen proposed. One may therefore peak of a crisis n interpretation,manifestedby the unwillingnessto refer ystematicallyo an existingfundof nalytical ools,despitethefact hat hese tools constituteheonlyinstrumentsresently vailable.Rather hanpursue thegame oftrying ofirst-guess hat Mexico'spoliticalfuturemightbe, this articleproposes first oreassess thepoten-tial foranalyzing politicalchange of the models that were available toanalystswhen they began to turnto thisproblem.The discussion willnext examine theways in which these models have influenced current

1. In order o estimate he extent fthe electoral raud erpetratedn 1988, FranciscoBaezRodriguez (1988) selecteda randomsample of 300 for the29,999 pollingplaces forwhichfigures re available out of a totalof 55,000). He then substituted heresultswhere the PRIreceived unanimous vote for henearestpollingplacewith vote count imilar o the aver-age of the entire one. The resulting ote for he PRI varies between41.3 percent nd 38.8percent, hat s, well short fthe bsolute majority hat tclaims to haveobtained takenfromMeyer1989,326).2. See also AlbertoAziz Nassif,"Modernizacion presidencialista,"Jornada, 7 Oct. 1989;and AdolfoAguilarZinser, Desconcertante ceptaciondel nuevo presidencialismo," xcel-sior, 3 Sept. 1989.92

8/3/2019 2503736 La

4/33

EXPLAINING SOCIOPOLITICAL CHANGEdebates on political hangeand then show what benefits ould be derivedfrom heirmore systematic se. This retrospective xercise hould help toplace the various conceptionsofpolitical hange found n the iteraturentheir proper theoretical perspectives, thereby clarifying he currentdebate over that process. The goal here is to help overcome thecurrenttheoreticalmpasse.FOUR PERSPECTIVES ON POLITICAL PERMANENCE AND CHANGE

Everycontributiono thestudyofMexican politics mplicitlyr ex-plicitly efines set ofcentral rocessesand structuresnMexico'spoliticalmakeupbased on a numberofconceptualtools and theoretical ssump-tions.This sectionproposes to define hese basic conceptionsand exam-ine their mplications or nalyzing politicalchange. In theprocess, thisconceptwill itself ssume differentmeanings according to the perspec-tive fromwhich it is being investigated.3 our broad paradigms will bedefined.The first s theclientelistic erspective,which ocates the majormechanism ofpolitical ntegration fMexican societyin the formationand continuedreproduction fnetworksof patron-client elations. Thesecond approach to be defined s thepluralistperspective,whichgivesprimacy o individualsas causal factorsnpolitics nd explainsevents asoutcomesof nterests nd values (Alford nd Friedland1985,4). Thisper-spectiveviewsMexicansociety s a complex et of nteractingggregatesthat ompetefor enefits etrespect hegeneral"rules of hegame"incor-porated in common values. The thirdperspective s the authoritarian-corporatist iew,which focuses on the state as the dominant factor nexplaining olitical utcomes.Defined ast s the classview,whichregardstheprocessofcapitalaccumulation n a worldscale and theclassrelationsderivedfrom tas thekeytounderstandingMexico's historical rajectory.TheClientelisticerspective

Clientelism efers o thestructuringfpoliticalpower throughnet-worksof nformal yadicrelations hat ink ndividualsof unequal power3. The discussion n this ection s based in parton a previouspublication hat coauthoredwithKaren Kovacs (Brachet-Marquez nd Kovacs 1990).Thenotion hat ociological nquiryis based on fundamental heoretical erspectives hat pecify nits of analysis, evels of ab-

straction, nd key processes has been widely debated. This articleowes itsmain debt toRobertAlford nd RogerFriedland 1985),who distinguish mong "pluralist," "manage-rial," nd "class" perspectives.The fundamental ifferenceetween my pproachand theirsis that do not defineperspectives n generalbut nreference o the single empirical ase ofMexico. I am therefore efiningnot metatheoreticalools but strategies oranalyzingtheMexican case. Also, I make no claim that hese strategies epresent he sum totalof ntellec-tual toolsavailable, simply hat heyhave been and are still eingused de facto.93

8/3/2019 2503736 La

5/33

LatinAmericanesearch eviewin relationships fexchange.4n clientelistictructuresfauthority,oweris vested in the topindividual the boss, sovereign,or head of clan) whopersonallydecides how todistribute esources ccording opersonal pref-erences. When applied toMexico,thisperspective epresents he state sa top-down pyramid headed by the chief ofthe executivebranch,whodirectly r indirectly ispenses favorsto those below throughcomplexpatron-clientetworks hat inkthe top ofthesocial structure othebase.Civil society,n contrast, s perceived as a fragmented et of vertical e-lationships inhibiting he formationof horizontal interest groupings,whether ased onparty r social class. This form fpolitical rganization,which was understood nitially s a typical rait f premodernoligarquicsocieties,was finally ecognized as a more or less permanentfeature fLatin Americanpolitical ystems.Whereaspatron-clientetworkshavebeen identified s a source ofpraetorianismnotherLatin American ocieties Chalmers 1977), nMex-ico ithas been understoodas a keymechanismofpolitical ntegrationnda sui generismode ofbureaucratic ule Grindle 1977a). Analystsof Mex-ican clientelismhave emphasized the key role played by patron-clientnetworks n various aspects of the political ystem. Clientelismprovidesthe nformal ackupofpresidential ower Gonzalez Casanova 1970;CosioVillegas 1973; Kaufman1975) while articulating oliticaldemands frombelow via "power brokers" Gonzalez Casanova 1970). Clientelismalsoinfluencesprocesses of policy mplementation Poitras 1973; Greenberg1970;Grindle1977b)and linksthe official arty o thecore state pparatusas well as to the masses (Stevens 1977). In Brandenburg 1964), clien-telism s themain theoreticalnsightemployedto analyze the nature ofMexicanpolitics.Mexico is described as being governed by a powerfuland tightlyntegrated lite-the "revolutionary amily"-made up of thecaudilloswhoparticipatedntheRevolution.Thiselitemakesalldecisionsin a consensualfashion, eavingfewoptionsfor he masses to voice theirgrievances xceptby asking forpersonal favorsdispensed from he top.Whetherookedupon as channeling emands from hebottom othetop or as prompting esponses from bove, the mechanismsgoverningclientelism eematfirstll-chosen s sources of mpetusfor hange. In thefirstnstance, he nabilityf hosemakingdemandstoorganize constitu-ency horizontallyimits heir olitical trength. ikewise, tateresponsetodemands on a case-by-casebasis via clientelistichannels increases itscapacity opostponegeneralizedreforms hatwould meetthese demands.Even in cases whereorganizing constituencys made possible throughofficial hannels, as with abor interests, ollectivedemands forchangehave been viewed as periods of "letting ff team" rather han as pres-

4. Clientelism nd patrimonialism illbe consideredsynonymousnthisdiscussion.Forthe nthropological pproach toclientelism n theMexican context, eeFoster 1967a,1967b).94

8/3/2019 2503736 La

6/33

EXPLAINING SOCIOPOLITICAL CHANGEsures ikely oeffect ealchange Gonzailez Casanova 1970). Although hisproblemhas been exemplifiedmore oftenn therelationship etweenthestateand subordinateclasses, it seems an equally likely onsequence ofthe structuringf nformalinkages betweenprivate nterprise nd stateofficialsFagen and Tuohy1974).This outcome eads to case-by-case m-plementation f rules regulating conomic activities nd to the limitedability f different usiness interests o createrepresentative odies andpressure hestate nto taking pecificmeasures.When viewed as an institutional rocessmanipulatedby thestate,clientelism eemsto offermoreways ofmanaging nequality nd thesocialconflictstgeneratesthanways oftransformingociety.When incorpo-rated nto theauthoritarian-corporatistrgument, s in Kaufman 1975),clientelisms said toaccountfor heorientation fMexicanpolitics owardmaintaining he status quo. The absence of interestgroups capable ofexerting ressureson thestate,whichthisperspective akesas axiomatic,makes the initial mpetus of reformist olicies depend entirely n thepersonality nd values of top elites,whether he values oftherevolution-ary family Brandenburg1964) or thepersonality nd experience ofthepresidentGrindle 1977b).Toexamine hepotential fclientelismor nalyzing hange, cholarsmust ook forthecircumstancesn which clientelism ails to function spredicted.One might sk, for xample,whether he survival fclientelismduring ecessions can generatepressures for hange byretarding, atherthanoiling, hemachineryf tatedomination ver ociety. his maybe thecase when themachinery fpatronage ndbribes lows downduring imesofeconomic carcity,s itundoubtedly as since 1982. Becausefewer oodsand services anbe distributedhrough ersonalfavors, hebattleswagedto obtain suchfavorsmay become fiercernd theresulting istributionfbenefits venmoreunequal. Under uchconditions, lientelism esemblesa lottery ystemwithfewer ndfewerwinners.Thisperceptionscertain oreducethenumber fpersonswilling o buy tickets r votefor hePRI. Ac-cording o thishypothesis, lientelism reatespressuresfor hangebornofthefrustrationsfthose who no longerhave access to scarce favors.Clien-telism lso createscounterpressuresor hestate to override oterprefer-ences or to propose reforms o win back popular support.For studyingsuchpressures, heanalytical ramework f clientelismtself ffers sefultools thathaveremained argely nused. Analysts hereforeeed tostudytheconditionsunderwhich clientelism xacerbates, ather hanpacifies,aspirations rom elow.A case in pointmaybe thecurrent ppeal of thestrong nti-corruptiontandtakenbythePartidodeAccionNacional PAN)among themiddle sectors hit hard by the economic crisis of the 1980s.Similarly,he appeal among votersof the PartidoRevolucionarioDemo-craticoPRD), despite ntimidationnd fraud, epresents significantewfacet fMexicanpolitics hatmaybe related otheerosion of lientelism.

95

8/3/2019 2503736 La

7/33

LatinAmerican esearch eviewIn short, lientelism epresents logic ofpolitical rganization hatemphasizes personal oyalties ndvertical elationshipss thecentral rin-

ciple of politicalorganization. To the extent hatthis ogic has been suc-cessfully ntegrated nto formalrelations of political power in Mexicansociety Grindle 1977a), t can therefore e seen as reinforcinghe statusquo. At the same time, political oyalty ased on patron-client elationscontains he seeds of ts own destruction-and hence ofpolitical hange-to the extent hat trelies on the fiscal capacity of the state to distributefavors nd benefits.ThePluralist erspective

Pluralismhas endureda long period of academic discredit ollow-ing the triumph ftheauthoritarian-corporatistiew inthe 1970s. Never-theless,withthe return fmorecompetitive lectoralprocessesin severalLatinAmerican ountries, emocracyhas been put back on the agenda fordiscussion. The processes throughwhichdemocratic ransitions avere-cently mergeddiffer astlyfrom he firstwave ofpostwardemocratiza-tion of the 1960s. Yet t s stillnecessary to recall earlierpronouncementson democratizationoassess the mportancencontemporary nalysesofthe key conceptsand fundamental ssumptions underlying hese earlierviews, ifonly to discoverin what ways theyhave changed in presentanalyses.The pluralist erspectivewas initially xported oLatinAmerica sthetheory fpolitical nd economicdevelopment, lso knownas "mod-ernization heory" Huntington1968;Almondand Powell1966;Almondand Verba 1963; Pye 1966; Rustow 1967). Packenham (1973) discernedthreemajor ntellectual raditions nmodernization heory: he economictradition ositinga positivecorrelation etween economicdevelopmentand thepossibility fdemocratizationAlmondand Coleman 1960; Cut-right 963;Dahl 1970; Hagen 1963); thesocial systemic pproach holdingthata numberofglobal social conditionswill lead to democracy urban-ization, iteracy,xposureto mass media,betterwelfaremeasures,and soon) (Coleman 1960); and thepoliticalculture pproach thatemphasizesthe mportance f values for hedevelopmentofdemocracy Verba 1967;Almondand Verba1963; Pye 1966).What makes theseapproaches "plu-ralist" s their haredrepresentationfpoliticaldevelopment s a processofpeaceful change towarddemocracyand stability ooted in economicdevelopment s well as in their orrespondingnegativeevaluationof n-tensepoliticalconflict nd revolution.All threeperspectivesare said tohave been paradigmatically epresented n Lipset's PoliticalMan (1960).This workheld thatthe conditions for the development of democracywere wealth,a capitalist conomy, nd literacy the economic approach),an open class systemand participationn voluntaryorganizations the96

8/3/2019 2503736 La

8/33

EXPLAINING SOCIOPOLITICAL CHANGEsocial systemic pproach), and an egalitarianvalue system the politicalculture pproach) (Packenham 1973, 208-9).

Scholars adopting the pluralistperspective n studyingMexico ni-tially ooked for evidence of a general process of political developmentunder the nfluenceofthe Revolution.This debate centered on whetherthe Revolutionhad accelerated the process of dislocation of the "unin-stitutionalized" prerevolutionarypolitical system that had prevailedbefore 1917, or whether postrevolutionary olitics represented a con-tinuation f heprerevolutionarypraetorian"politicalprocess.Ofpartic-ular nterest o these scholarswas the creation fthe official arty hatwasperceivedas reflecting change from lientelistic o democraticinkagesbetween publicofficialsnd thegeneral population. Forthose nclinedtointerprethisdevelopment s a step towarddemocracy Cline 1962; Scott1964; Huntington 968),thePartidoNacional Revolucionario PNR)-andits heirs, he Partido de la Revolucion Mexicana (PRM) and thePRI-wasviewed as the aggregating orce hat atisfied the majority f the strong-est nfluence ssociations, dissatisfyings fewas possible" (Scott 1964,8).Simultaneously,heprocessofacceleratedurbanization nd industrializa-tionthatbegan in the 1940s was understoodas a fundamentalfactornpreparing the laboring masses of Mexico to become fullyparticipatingcitizens n a democratic ystem.For these observers ofMexican reality,what the Revolutionhad achieved was a transformation rompersonaluninstitutionalizedremodern olitics o a "highly omplex, utonomous,coherent ndflexible olitical ystem .. with a demonstrated apacity ocombinethereasonably highcentralization fpower and the broadenedparticipation f social groups nthe system" Huntington1968, 316-17).This synopsis of the underpinningsof pluralism as expressed byearlytheoristsdemonstrates hatpolitical change lies at the heartof itsclaims. The logic underlying hisview is that ociety s the source of suchchange,based on theevolvingvalues of ndividuals as incorporatedntointeractingrganizedgroups. To think f he state s the mpetusofdemoc-ratization ould therefore iolate hebasic precepts f hisparadigmunlessanalystsunderstand the state as an arena ofcompetingelitesfollowingdifferentpolicy currents" Maxfield 1990) and emerging tatedecisionsas theresultofthese nternaldivisions.TheAuthoritarian-Corporatisterspective

The debates over authoritarianismnd corporatism ave expresseddifferent,ut often complementary, imensions ofthe relationshipbe-tween stateand society n Latin America. These argumentshave beenvirtually omingled n studies ofMexico, referringn one hand to thelimitations n politicalpluralism, he concentrationfpower nthepresi-dency, nd low levels ofpoliticalmass mobilization Linz 1975, 255) and97

8/3/2019 2503736 La

9/33

LatinAmerican esearch eviewon the otherto the creation and dominationby the state of "singular,compulsoryhierarchicallyrderedand differentiatednits .. granteddeliberaterepresentativemonopolywithintheir respective categories"(Schmitter 974,93).In several LatinAmerican ountries, he shift rom he moderniza-tionperspectiveto authoritarian orporatismwas prompted by violentregime hange. InMexico twas theconceptual fallout rom hese externalsocial conflagrationshat ed toa newreadingofthe natureofthepoliticalsystem.In contrastwithparadigmatic ases likeBrazil and Argentina,Mexican authoritarianismould not be viewed as a sudden reaction o aturbulent opulist period or a crisis ofaccumulation. Rather, t was cre-ated deliberately y the state n securing tsown consolidationafter heRevolution.Mexico's uthoritarianism as also viewed as having nheritedsome ofthetraits f thepersonalistoligarchic rderthatpreceded it-theabsenceofmeaningful lections, hepractice f lectoral raud, hepredom-inance of executivepower,and presidentialpaternalism Meyer 1977)-hencethe mportance f clientelism s a principle f political ntegration.At the same time,popular support of the official artywas essential un-like thecountries uledby military ictatorships), characteristichat etMexican authoritarianismpart Stepan 1978;Kaufman1977; Reyna 1974,1977). The principles fcentralizedpolitical ontrol nd decision-makingembodied in the authoritarian-corporatisterspectiveon Mexico wouldalso appear at first ightto ill equip thismodel for analyzing politicalchange (Kaufman1973, 1975). Its characteristics ave been identified sdemobilizingpopular sectors Stavenhagen 1976; Stepan 1978;Kaufman1975) and defusing social conflicts y providing selective responses topressures from elow (Gonzalez Casanova 1970; Stevens 1977; Kaufman1975).Theinclusionary atureofMexico'sregime, ather hanopening upthepower structureo themasses, has been interpreteds co-opting op-ular eaders and thereby epriving hegrassrootsoftheir apacity o voicegrievances. venorganizedbusinessgroupscan be relegated o the imitedroleofnegotiating he "mere details" ofpresidentialdecisions Kaufman1975),whilesubordinategroups havebeen reduced to acceptingpassivelythe benefits estowed on them n the absence of anysustained demands(Grindle 1977b, 108). Opposition groupswere bracketedas exceptionaland therefore heoretically nsignificant,whetherthey originated frombelow (as intheperiodicresurgence funion activismnthe1940s, 1950s,and 1970s or the ruralguerrillamovementsof the 1970s) or fromothergroups (like Almazenismo in 1950, Henriquismo n 1952, or the studentuprisingof1968). The fact hat most ofthese commotionshave been se-verely epressedseemed to confirm hepowerofthe state nd itscapacityto enforce he statusquo (Stevens 1974).The reforms hatfollowed uchsocialexplosions,ratherhanundermining elief nunlimited tatepower,98

8/3/2019 2503736 La

10/33

EXPLAINING SOCIOPOLITICAL CHANGEappeared to be clevermaneuvers formanipulatingbasically weak anddisorganizedfoci f ocial dissentand bringing hemunder controlwithmixture frepression nd co-optation.These limiting spects, combined withthose contributed y theclientelistic iew,have greatlyhampered the potentialof the authoritar-ian-corporatist erspectiveforforeshadowing hecomplexity f the pres-sures forpolitical hangethatMexico experienced n the1980s.This wasparticularlyrue f heexplosionofdemocratic emands CorderaCampos,TrejoDelarbre, ndVega1988)that hestatehas attempted nsuccessfullyto control ia limited lectoralreforms ince the ate 1970s Gomez-Tagle1988).Yetdespite these imitations, he authoritarian-corporatistiew stillconstitutes hemaintheoretical eference ointofmanyrecent nalyses(Story1986;Gentleman1987;Cornelius1987).The reasons for ts ongev-ity renot difficulto fathom:despite theundeniable signs thatMexico'spolitical ystem s changing,authoritarianorporatism tillprovidestheclosest pproximationo the main nstitutionalmechanisms hat rekeep-ing Mexico's rulingregime n place in the early1990s. The question thatmust be raised is whether hisperspectivecan also help analysts under-stand whatpressuresforchange thissystem of political organization sundergoing,despiterestoration ftight tate controlfollowing he 1988presidential lection.Althoughpeacefuldemocratic ransitions re no longerunthink-able after ecenteventsin Eastern Europe, it s neverthelessmprobablethat highly ntrenched ystem ikethe one rulingMexicosince the 1920swill be thewilling rchitect f tsown dissolution. Thus the contributionthat the authoritarian orporatistview can make to studying politicalchange must be sought n thestrategies dopted by thepoliticalelite toretainpower.Nevertheless, s withclientelism, nalystsmust also con-sider heconditionsunderwhichauthoritarian-corporatistontrolswouldbe weakened to thepointofushering nnew forms fpoliticalorganiza-tion.Two kindsofprocessesofpolitical hangemaytherefore e consid-ered: changes engineered from hepresidency,whichmay be labeled asthe transformationfauthoritarianism,nd the conditions eadingto theweakeningofauthoritarianism.In the nitial ormation fMexico'spostrevolutionary egime, tatemanagers (the president n most cases) were perceived as shaping thepolitical ystem:creating he official arty, hanging tsmembership byincludingand excludingthemilitary,ncorporating easants and labor,and so on), introducing eforms, nd restructuringheeconomy.Yet al-though uch actionsrepresent olitical hange, their mplicit verallobjec-tive s toconsolidatestatepower.Nevertheless, ystemreform,ven if tsefficacysuncertain,must learly e partoftheanalysisofpolitical hange.Presently,he reform f the official arty ostensiblyundertakenby theSalinas deGortari dministrationonstitutes et nother ttempttchange

99

8/3/2019 2503736 La

11/33

LatinAmerican esearch eviewfrom bove, one thatrepresentspoliticalchange insofar s it mplies thetransformationf authoritarianism.his reformffortmayalso have im-portant mplicationsforregime change if it failsto achieve its goal ofrestoring he hegemony f the official arty.Alternatively,olitical hange can be predicatedon the weakeningof the mechanismsthathave heretofore ontributed o the stability fauthoritarian orporatism n Mexico. Crises hold the potentialforregimedissolution nsofar s they re accompaniedby factors hatprovideoppor-tunitiesfor he entry fnew political actorsand the success ofalternatepolitical xpressions.Examplesareintra-elite truggles nd economicdif-ficulties.As Miguel de la Madrid's sexeniowas drawing to a close, manysigns suggestedthepossibility fa democratic reakthrough. utas someauthorshave noted,the erosionofa power systemdoes not usually pro-vide sufficienteason for ts demise Stepan 1985; Foweraker 989).Actualbreakdowncan usuallybe pinpointed accurately nlyafter thas takenplace (Knight 1989, 459). Yet the analysis ofpolitical change cannot belimited to predicting ctual changes, short ofbeing a mere exercise nguessing. Itmustbe able todefineregimedebilitation,ven if hissymp-tom s not followed mmediately y regimedissolution.Analysis of theweakeningof the mechanismsthatmaintain uthoritarian orporatismnMexicomust herefore e an important spectof ssessing political hange.In short, uthoritarianorporatism,s it hasbeen applied toMexico,refersto a logicofpoliticalpowerthatplaces thesource ofchange at thetop ofthepoliticalhierarchy,ither s thedirect esult freforms ras the failureof statemanagersto control hesystemduringparticular onjunctures.TheClass Perspective

Capitalismas the centralobject of studyof the class perspectivedenotes a global process of interaction etween a material base and asuperstructureor "mode ofproduction")thatsimultaneously roducesits own conditionsofdevelopmentand thecontradictoryensions for tsown transformation. etthese broadprinciples re insufficientoexplainthe fact,unpredictedby Marx,thatcapitalistdevelopment n theperiph-eryfolloweda path different rom hat takenby WesternEurope. Whythishas been so and how the inesof nteraction etween early- nd late-developingcapitalism houldbe conceptualizedarequestionsat the coreofthe class debateregarding atin America.

Thisarticle's nterestnextractingheconception fpolitical hangethatmaybe derivedfrom hisgeneraldebate must excludeall studiesthatfailto considerpolitics s theoretically ignificant,hosethat inMarxistterms) entirely ubsume social formations nder the notion of mode ofproduction, understanding them as mere instances of the global pro-cesses takingplace on a world scale. Thiscriterionhusexcludesfrom he100

8/3/2019 2503736 La

12/33

EXPLAINING SOCIOPOLITICAL CHANGEpresentdiscussion a substantialportionof the iteraturehatwould con-siderMexico or any other ormationn the capitalistperiphery) s a merepointofarticulationn a worldwide machinery, ith no capacity o trans-formtself r affect he courseofcapitalism.This approachfirstnd fore-most excludes the dependency approach as representedby theworksofAndre GunderFrankand ImmanuelWallerstein. ut t must also excludethe more historically riented approach to dependency,exemplified yCardoso and Faletto (1968), because it has failed to yield any detailedstudiesof nternal lass struggles n Latin Americancountries n generaland Mexico nparticular. shalltherefore ngage inthe debate overpoliti-calchangeonlywithworksthat ecognizethe specificityfMexican polit-ical institutions-particularlyhe state-or the capacity of class strugglesto "act decisively o affecthecharacter nd shape of thedevelopmentofproductive orceswithin ociety" Petras1981, 152).The backdrop against which studiesof Mexico from he class per-spectivemustbe interpreteds the debate overthebirth rtransformationof thecapitalistmode ofproductionunder the mpetusof the Revolutionof 1910, especiallytheproblemofagency in thisprocess. Althoughnoconsensus existson whether he Revolutionrepresented he transition ocapitalism r simply new phase of thehistorical rocess,5nearly very-one agreesthat heRevolution recipitated eep socialand economic rans-formationsystimulatingorces hat ransformed exicointoa predomi-nantlycapitalist ociety.6 he question of the political eadershipof thebourgeoisie n thatprocessremainshighly roblematic, owever:thePor-firian ompradorourgeoisiethatheldbarely10percentofnationalwealthin 1910 Gilly1971)was notthe majorforce ehind the nsurrection, hichwas actually composed of peasant, worker, nd "petty bourgeois" ele-ments.What aterbecame theMexican bourgeoisie s thereforemore gen-erally onsideredto be the heirrather han the source of the Revolution.In attempting o solve this riddle, two possible interpretationshave been offered.One attributes o the state the main role in simul-taneouslycreating bourgeoisie and expanding capitalism.The secondinterpretationpholdstheprinciple fthepolitical eadershipofclasses intheconduct ofthe state,albeit n the context fa fragmented ominantclass thatmustmake compromiseswith otherclasses or withthe state

5. The world-systems pproachcontends that apitalism oincidedwith the formation fthe nternationalmarket round the sixteenth entury Wallerstein 974). According o thishypothesis,Mexico has been capitalist incethehacienda systemwas created n the seven-teenth entury. onsequently, heRevolution n 1910merelymarked new phase of capitalaccumulation hifting rom n emphasis on export griculturalommodities o one on indus-trial roduction. oreign apitalalso presentsproblemsof nterpretation.he mining ectorin 1910 was fully apitalist utalso entirelynforeign ands. Some authors herefore o notincludethis ector s partofMexican capitalism.6. Cordova 1985, 1986) s theonlyauthor fMarxist tripe odisagree withthe consensusthat heRevolution epresented major change.

101

8/3/2019 2503736 La

13/33

LatinAmerican esearch eviewitself. n the first erspective,the Revolution s considered a bourgeoisrevolution nsofar as it ultimately enefited that class, but the state isperceivedas exercising eadership overall classes through politicalbu-reaucracy,hence its being defined as either "Bonapartist" (Leal 1974,1986; Hodges and Gandy 1979; Semo 1985) or "paternalist" Cordova1985,1986). The second interpretationracesdifferenthases of capitalistexpansionsince the Revolution o thechangingcharacter ftheclass alli-ance undergirding tate power (Cockroft 983). In both approaches, therelative utonomyof the state-its capacity to manage the economy andclass conflictswithrelative ndependencefrom ominant lasses-is per-ceivedas stemming rom he absence of class hegemonynMexico.

The major political hangesinMexican history ontemplated romthe classperspective re thoseprecipitated y economicchanges:first hetransitionrom ommodity xport o mport ubstitution,nd second,theshift o export-ledndustrialization.While thefirst rend ed to the riseofa nationalbourgeoisieallied withtransnational apital,the second isviewed as having been dominated by transnationalizedmonopoly cap-ital. Although the state can temporarily elay these general economicchanges and the class alignmentsassociated with them,it must even-tuallygive ntomarket orcesor suffer he consequences. Thispointhasbeen underscored y thepolitical nd economiccrisesexperiencedduringthe administration f Luis Echeverria 1970-1976), which AmericoSal-divar ttributes o the conflictive oexistence fvarious "class projects" nthepoliciesof "shareddevelopment."Thisunresolved conflict ventuallycrystallizedmonopoly capital's opposition to the administration's oli-cies, leadingto thefiscaland political risisof1976 Saldivar 1985).Like-wise, the state strategy o borrow norder o carry ut economic projectsand social reformsndependently f the bourgeoisie (oftencitedas evi-dence of state autonomy n otherperspectives) eventuallybackfired yleadingto fiscalcrisisand capital flight Fitzgerald1978; Hamilton1985)and finally o the acute and protracted ebt crisisof the 1980s (Alvarez1987). The class perspectivegenerallyviews politicalchange as a conse-quence ofglobaleconomic ransformations.n theBonapartist nterpreta-tion, he tatebecomes thehistorical ubject hatpursues objectives, orgesits own political ohesion through he official arty, nd generally mposesitsconceptionofnecessary nterventions n all classes alike (Leal 1986;Cordova 1985, 1986). Accordingto thisview,class struggles re indefi-nitely rozen, eavingto the statethe taskofensuring ccumulation boveand beyondthewills of dominantor dominated classes. Changes in thekind and direction f state nterventions re therefore ased on teleolog-ical assumptions thattreat he state as a monolithic ntity ndowed withan inherent ationalitywithrespect to the overall requirements f Mex-ican capitalism.The dismal failureofthe administrations f Jose Lopez102

8/3/2019 2503736 La

14/33

EXPLAINING SOCIOPOLITICAL CHANGEPortillo 1976-1982) nd Miguel de la Madrid (1982-1988) to ensurestableconditions fcapital accumulation,however,would seem to limitgreatlythe potentialofthis approach for studyingpoliticalchange in the 1980sandbeyond.TheBonapartist iewofMexico also fails o specify he waysin which dominant classes are kept on the margins of politics. n otherwords, it overlooksMarx'sstipulation hatBonapartism s an inherentlyunstable formofgovernment, esorted to only brieflyn times of crisisand with theexplicit cquiescence ofthe bourgeoisie. Once the crisis sover, t s assumed that hebourgeoisiewillregain tscapacity o nfluencestatepolicies Marx 1972).When theclass perspective enters n class struggles s the crucialdynamic ocialprocess, political hange becomes synonymouswith trug-gles forhegemony mong various fractions f the dominantclass, as be-tween nationaland transnational apital duringthe import-substitutingphase of capitalistdevelopment. Accordingto this perspective, he stateis assumed to carry ut a class "project,"which mplicitly efines t as aninstrument f the victoriousfraction r alliance. For example, state pol-icies are viewed as alternating etween serving he nterests fa coalitioilof small business and labor on one hand and thoseof argenational andtransnational apital on the other Cordera and Tello 1981). This thesis,however, s difficulto reconcile with the generally accepted idea thatdominated lasses inMexico haveno political ole,7mainlybecauseMarx-ist orthodoxy ejects he possibility f a proletarian evolution akingplacebefore apitalismhas been fullydeveloped. Only a fewdissidents assertthat heproletariat layeda role n shapingMexicanpolitical nstitutionsand that ts struggles gainst capitalismwere eitherdefeated Cockroft1972)or nterruptedGilly 1971).But even these nterpretationsubscribeto a passive role forthese classes once theRevolutionhas been institu-tionalized. This view impliesthatfor hemostpart,the iteraturenalyz-ingMexico from class perspective doptsfor ts own use thecorporatist-authoritarian ision of docileand co-opted proletariat ith ittle apacityto destabilizeor transformhe political ystem.Despite these imitations, he class perspective s an indispensableingredientnanalyzingpolitical hange inMexico. By emphasizing grow-ing inequalitieswithinMexicansociety, his view focuses on theprocessof class polarization hat epresents potential hreat o the statusquo.POLITICAL CHANGE IN THE 1980S: IN SEARCH OF EXPLANATORY SCHEMES

Despite the opportunitiesforstudying political change open tostudents fMexicanpoliticsvia thesefour asic perspectives, hesepoten-7. Saldivar 1985), for xample, studies the decade of renewalof union insurgency, ethedevotes not single chapter o thatphenomenon.

103

8/3/2019 2503736 La

15/33

LatinAmerican esearch eviewtialitieswent argelyunexploiteduntilthe mid-1980s.By the 1970s, earlypluralistformulations ttached to modernizationtheoryhad been dis-missed, at whichpointmost studiesbegan to focus on political tability,rather han change, an approach viewed as the fruit f the sui generiscombination fauthoritarian-corporatistnd clientelistic rrangements.Although dramaticor tragic moments n recent Mexican historywerenoted, theywere not udged serious enough to undermine he capacityofthe systemto overcome momentary rises and make necessary adjust-ments. In particular, he student uprising of 1968, now considered bymany s thefirsttirringfdemocratic emand (Loaeza 1989a; Foweraker1989; Cornelius, Gentleman, and Smith, eds., 1989), was looked on asjustanother ragic hapternMexico'shistory f tatedomination f ociety.Political hange eventuallyfound ts way back onto the agenda ofsocial scientists tudyingMexico as a resultof thereturn o civilianrulein some LatinAmerican countries n combinationwith the severe eco-nomiccrisis hatbefellMexico after he debt moratorium f August 1981.While the democratizing trend called into question the stronglyentrenched elief nthe ron control f authoritarianegimesover society,the social and economicupheavals triggered y the economiccrisis hookobservers'faithnthecrisismanagementcapability fthe Mexican state.Yet from hestart, he task of explaining politicalchange in Mexico dif-feredradicallyfromthe analogous task regardingthe countries of theSouthernCone, whichwereundergoing egime ransitions. rue oform,Mexicoagain failedtofollowthepatternsnotedin otherLatinAmericancountries.Despite undergoing hemost serious economic risis ince 1930(and perhapssince1910),fewtangible ventscould be detected t first hatmarked olitical hange, exceptfor he ncreasedelectoral uccessesoftherightist AN in 1982 and 1985.These events, however, ould be consid-ered a normaloutcomeofthepoliticalreform f 1977,which had beendesignedtocombatelectoral bstentionismwithouteopardizingthepo-sitionoftheofficial arty.StudentsofMexico, rather hanbeing faced with a sudden andempiricallydentifiableet ofchanges tobe explained "backward"by expostfacto econstruction, ere and still re) "previewing"changefromforward-looking erspective.Neither ts nature nor its direction an bespecifiedwithany certainty. mbiguousbut visiblesignsof wear on theruling egime ncludedthe civic trikes f 1983 and 1985,teachermobiliza-tion since the1980s, and PAN's increasing militancy rom 982 to 1988,whichwas eventually rownedbythe"political arthquake"ofJune 988,an explosionof electoraloppositionto theofficial artyfor hefirst imesince1940 Lernerde Scheinbaum1989; Cornelius,Gentleman, nd Smith,eds., 1989). In response, analystshave begun to map out a varietyofrationales or hangethat mplyvarying utures orMexico.The first uestiontobe addressed is the extent owhichthechoice104

8/3/2019 2503736 La

16/33

EXPLAINING SOCIOPOLITICAL CHANGEofcentralprocesses and conceptions of politicalchange found n recentdiscussions bear the markof these previous formulations. hus the ques-tionbeingasked iswhether efinitions f the crisis nd transformationfMexico'spolitical ystem an be identifiedhatfollow he nternalogicofeach of the fourperspectives outlined. The second question is whethersuchechoes provideusefultheoretical ationalesforpredicting hange.TheAuthoritarian-Corporatistrgumentor hange

The failureof the Mexican state and the presidencyto controlormanage the fiscalcrisis n the 1970s that blossomed into the economiccrisis fthe1980s providedthe starting ointfor eassessingtheresilienceofMexican authoritarianismconsideredaxiomatic n earlier tudies).Asthe 1980sended, manyauthorswere questioningtheviability f theoldgive-and-takemethods followedby the party-stateo overcomemomen-tary rises Cornelius, Gentleman, nd Smith, ds., 1989; Meyer 1989).The logic of authoritarian orporatismwould dictatethatreformsare undertakento restore the power and prestige of the official arty,which s considered indispensableforpolitical continuity. hree centralquestions need to be answered. First,what changes are politicalelitespreparedto make norder o retainpower? Second, is the system apableofmaking hosechanges, despiteentrenchednterests?And third, s sta-bility eestablished r not as a result fthese attempts t reform?What thelogic of uthoritarianismoes not dictate s thevoluntary emocratizationof Mexicanpoliticsby established political lites, except on an extremelylimited asis. Analysts re therefore ealing withthe process accompany-ing the planned transformationrom bove of authoritarian orporatism,whichaimsatpolitical ontinuity.Before he presidential lectionof 1988, most analystswere focus-ing on thiskind of planned change within the regime, as opposed toregime change. In this context, t is clear that "none of thereformist/modernizinglementswithin heregime s interestednpursuing hangesthatmightput at riskthe continued controlof the key positions in thepolitical systemby thepresent ruling group" (Cornelius 1987, 16). Evi-denceoftheresilience fMexicanauthoritarianism as been perceived ntheregime's apacity to pursue liberalizationpolicies under the sting ofeconomiccrisis Gentleman, ed., 1987), unlike other contexts n whichsuch crises have triggered heemergenceof brutalexclusionary uthori-tarian egimes.Since the 1988 election, eformn Mexico has been viewedas a wayfor he PRI to reconquer ost ground Baileyand Gomez 1990).The ogicof uthoritarianorporatismsomnipresentnanalyses nwhichthewisdomand foresightfthepresident s themajor explanationfor hemovetoward iberalizationMiddlebrook 1986) or in which thedevelop-mentofoppositionmovements o theregime s interpreteds playing n105

8/3/2019 2503736 La

17/33

LatinAmerican esearch eviewinsignificant ole in triggering he reformistmood of the government(Gentleman 1987).

In the most optimistic cenario, the Mexican state s characterizedas capable of"energetic evival nd remodeling fthe existing orporatistsystem, ebuilt pon a new set oforganizations nd alliances" Cornelius,Gentleman,and Smith, eds., 1989, 40). Oblivious ofthe strictures f theeconomic model embracedby the Salinas administration, his scenariogenerally nvisionsas unproblematic he successful energizing" f grassrootsthatwould simultaneously nsure thePRI's victory nd weaken theopposition.To succeed in recapturing comfortablemajority,hePRI isenvisioned as "modernizing" n the sense of becoming internallymorecompetitiveCornelius, Gentleman, nd Smith, ds., 1989,41).A somewhat ess optimistic cenario echoes the previous one's as-sumptionof an elite reformisttrategyyet questions the feasibility fproposed reforms. orexample, thas been noted thatPRI leaders fearweakeningof theirmembershipbase as a resultof the egalizationofop-position partiesand thatregionalbosses oppose political iberalizationbecause theyfear osing controlover state and local elections(Middle-brook 1986). Thesefears renotunfounded, s one analystnotes,consid-eringthe PRI's increasingdifficultiesince the1970s in ensuring votingdiscipline n itsranksand providing he customary votingbrigades" toperformhemandatory otingfraudsGarrido 1987).A morepessimistic utlookassertsthat hePRI's proposed reformsfor he1990s aregrosslyunrealistic ecause they im to make thePRI intosomethingthas never been before-a representative ody (Meyer 1989).This perspectivedefines hePRI notas a docile instrument fpresidentialwill but as an emptyshell lackingmembersand militants, ncapable ofattracting rass-roots upport. Hence the PRI's chances ofbecomingaparticipative nd representative ody are termed"practicallynonexis-tent" Garrido 1987, 6) or a "mission mpossible" Meyer 1989).Had the theoretical remisesofthe authoritarian iewbeen statedwith moreprecision nsuch discussions, analystswould probablynot befacedwith such a gamutofopinions. Authorswho borrowfrom heoffi-cial discourseto describe the reform fthePRI as "modernization" forexample, Cornelius, Gentleman,and Smith, eds., 1989) do not specifywhether heymean "democratization" r the moresystematic se of co-optation ndpolitical ubjection hat s consideredthehallmark fauthor-itarianism. n the firstnstance,even though political elites associatedwith thePRI maybe hypotheticallyredited withinitially pening thegatestopluralism perhaps in an ill-advised ffortohold back the tide ofdemocraticdemands), theymust lose controlover the process at somepointorelse thesituation s one ofauthoritarianism.orexample, nter-nal democratization f the PRI could quickly ead to internalpoliticaldif-ferentiationmarkedby major splitsoverpolicy areas-precisely thekind106

8/3/2019 2503736 La

18/33

EXPLAINING SOCIOPOLITICAL CHANGEof outcome traditionally eld in checkby heavy-handedcorporatist on-trol. n contrast,f modernization"merelymeans having more than oneofficially ppointed PRI pre-candidatefor every political slot while thechoice of candidate remainsunsanctionedby internal lections as seemsto be true of the 1991 legislative lection), then the logic remains thatofauthoritarianism,lbeita transformed ersion.A second aspect of theauthoritarian erspectivethat s generallyneglected n such analyses is the nature of the concessions that wouldhave to be made to the grass roots to restore confidence n the officialparty. his issue raises the question ofhow "inclusionary" transformedPRI would have to be. Would welfareexpenditureshave to be signifi-cantly ncreased?Would thegovernment ave to alter tspolicyofwagerestraints?Would the market-orientedconomic model be reopened fordiscussion? Or are theconcessions tobe highlypublicized, yet factuallyinsignificant?n thatcase, how successful can such a strategy e afterdecade of severe deprivation ccompanied by sporadic popular mobili-zations?One moreaspectthat s left ut of these discussions is thecoercivecomponent f authoritarianism. an analystsrealistically xpecttheMex-ican government o revitalizethe PRI without imultaneously ripplingtheopposition?Can government-controlled edia be expectedto grantcoverage o opposition partiesor PRI-dominated lectoral ommissions oreport airly n electoral eturns? n short, an one really peak ofa genu-ine PRI victory s long as the partyhas extensivemeans of repressionatits disposal?Each of these questions, drawn from he conceptual arsenal of au-thoritarianorporatisms inherited rom he1970s, suggests precisewaysofempirically ppraisingthe nature of the currentreforms.This set ofconcepts also warns against confusing uthoritarianism ithpluralism:the task now before the PRI is not to become what it has never been(democratic) uttooffernoughconcessions to coax a significant ropor-tionof theelectorate ntocasting heir otes nits favor. he goal is also toundermine hepotential fopposition partiesby ess than fairmeans andby altering lectionresults.Whether hisobjective s achieved in theoldwaysor with "modernized"techniques s a mootpoint.TheClientelisticog ntheMachineryfAuthoritarianism

Can thePRI reformtselfwithout ltering he natureof the inkagethathas been the basis ofpolitical ntegrationn Mexico?And iftheselinks are altered under the thrust f liberalizingreformism, an the re-gime survive?This question calls up the dark side of Mexico's politicalregime,which is implicitly cknowledged by all but rarely xaminedinrecent discussions of political change. What is at stake is not just the107

8/3/2019 2503736 La

19/33

Latin mericanesearch eviewcomposition ftheofficial arty ut theprinciple fpresidentialism, hosepower is solidlyentrenched n patron-client elations, tartingwith ap-pointment f theComite Ejecutivo Nacional of the PRI (Bailey 1987). AsLuis JavierGarrido has noted, the extensive appointive powers of thepresident eads to political naccountabilityfhigher unctionaries, hichin turn eads to inefficiencynd corruption Garrido 1989, 418). A corol-lary to this axiom is that any strategy imed at making the PRI morepolitically ccountable hould weakenbossism and corruption utwouldsimultaneously eplete presidentialpower.The question of how farthepresident s willingto go in reforming he PRI is therefore losely inkedwithhow muchpersonal powerthe chief xecutive swilling o ose.

Bossism also forms he basis of PRI strength s the basic mecha-nism throughwhich the rankand file re motivated o vote for he officialparty. t is difficult o imagine a morepolitically ccountable system nwhich the boss of theConfederacionde TrabajadoresMexicanos (CTM)would still e ableto "appoint" unionrepresentativesocongress.Atthesame time, t s difficulto imaginethatunion bosses will continueto bewillingto containwage demands unless theirextralegal patron-client)powersare maintained.Underlyinghecurrent overnmental ositionofleaving corporatism nquestionedwhileunderlining he PRI's reform sthe desire to avoid a confrontation ithofficial eaders who continue tosupport governmentalwage policies despite curtailing f their rivileges(see Bizberg 1990; Segovia 1990; Cornelius, Gentleman, nd Smith, ds.,1989). Unlessthe mplications fPRI reforms or ransforminglientelismand, in turn,the implicationsof changes in clientelismfor the overallstability f Mexico's political systemare made explicit, nalysts cannotproject precise mage of the probable course thatreformism ill take nMexico. Althoughclientelism,ikeauthoritarianism,s a theoretical er-spectivethatcannot furnish heanswers,itcan help formulate heques-tionsthat re crucialtounderstandingwhat ies under the mantleofcur-rent modernization"policies.The luralistath oPoliticalhange

Earlyformulations fthepluralist hesis on politicalchangefailedtoperceivethesignificance fexistingnstitutional bstacles to democra-tization n Mexico. In this context,the omnipresenceof the state, thestrength f the official arty, nd theabsence ofpoliticalpluralismwereall interpreteds indications f an unfinished rocessof democratizationthat would eventuallybe completed.In contrast,more recent contribu-tionstothisview implicitlyrexplicitlyncludeweakeningof the mecha-nismssustaining heauthoritariantate s a prerequisite or he iberationofdemocratizing orces.As withthe authoritarian erspective,the eco-108

8/3/2019 2503736 La

20/33

EXPLAINING SOCIOPOLITICAL CHANGEnomic risis fthe 1980s appears to manytooffer n auspicious prelude toregimechange. Yet n thiscase, such conditions are perceived as an op-portunity or iberating ent-up demands for ffectiveoliticalparticipa-tion.According o this nterpretation,hereform f authoritarianismon-templated arlierwould be insufficiento resolve the crisisof credibilitysuffered y theregime, lthough tmighthelp strengthen he forces hatwould eventually chieve a genuinedemocracy.At thispoint, it is important o distinguishbetween two lines ofargument hat mplyradically ifferentindsofpolitical hange.The firstand most fully nalyzed is the conservativereaction to the crisis oftheauthoritarian-corporatisttate thatunfoldedthroughout he1980s,lead-ing to thestrengthening fthe Partido de Accion Nacional. The kindofdemocracy ontemplated y thisgroup sthe creation fa politicalmarketbased on theprincipleofcompetitive lections Gilly 1990). The secondline ofargument alls forrenewal of theredistributiveoals ofthe Mex-icanRevolution. thas acquireda definite nstitutionalhape in the crea-tion of theFrenteDemocraticoNacional (FDN) out ofa variety f eft ndcenter ppositionpartiesthatchallengedthe official RI in the 1988elec-tion. Whilethe first rgument alls forrepudiating he "social pact" andthe interventionisttate, the second seeks to renew theseprinciplesviademocratization.As willbe shown, the latter s morecloselyassociatedwiththe class debateon democratizationhan t s with thepluralistper-spective.Considereda major voiceofconservative endencies,PAN has tra-ditionally ttracted variety fsocialgroups,from atholic raditionaliststo business elitesand a small sector ofthe urban middle classes (Tarres1987). AlthoughPAN has been a permanent fixturen Mexican politicssince the 1940s TorresRamirez1971), treceived scantscholarly ttentionuntil he1980s. tsneglectwas due ingreatpart o the dominance hrough-out the 1970s of theauthoritarian-corporatistiew thathas systematicallyminimized he mportance fpoliticaldissidence. In the1980s, however,thewinds ofdemocratization egan toblow again through everalLatinAmerican ountries, nd PAN'selectoral trengthncreased teadily Moli-nar Horcasitas1987;Gomez-Tagle 988, 1990). n theprocess, theconser-vative ight ecamethesubjectof peculation egarding hepossibilities ordemocratichange nMexico.What links the analysisofthis new developmentto thepluralisttraditions thefocusing fmany nalystson individualvalue changesandthe generation f a new politicalculture as centralexplanationsfor thegrowingdemocraticdemands channeled by PAN in the 1980s (Loaeza1989a,1989b;Tarres 986,1990).Such changesare n turn upportedbytheclassicalpluralist rgument f increased urbanization nd education thatareheldresponsibleforpolitically ctivatinghe urban middle strata.Thecrisis of the 1980s has thereforemerely sharpened the level of political

109

8/3/2019 2503736 La

21/33

LatinAmerican esearch eviewsciousness that has grown steadily under the influenceof modernizingforces.

PAN represents n impatientnew participative onstituency hatclamorsfor "unqualified democracy" Krause 1987), yet one thatmerelyaims at representing lectoral nterests.PAN has also become thefocalpointofdemands for n end to the ntervening tate, that s, the corner-stone on which Mexico's political nstitutions ave rested since the Rev-olution. This approach would require the state to refrain romdirectingthe economy but also to cancel its commitment o the popular classes,whose lotwould be decidedinthefuture y market orces.PAN can there-fore e regarded rom pluralist erspective s a source ofpolitical hangeintwo complementary ays: first, ecause its growing mportance epre-sents a change in the "civic culture" ofMexico, and second, because itfavors conomic ndividualism, lso an important omponentoftheplu-ralist radition.While the organizationalform, oliticalpractices, nd ideologicalcommitments fthe conservative orcespressuring ordemocracy re rel-ativelyclear, potentiallydemocratizing nfluencescomingfrom he leftend of thepolitical pectrum re much moredifficulto capture analyti-cally.Authors nterested n thepotentialofsocial movementsfordemo-cratic hangehave noted the breakthesemovementsrepresentwith es-tablishedpracticesof clientelism nd state ntermediationRamfrez aiz1990; Carrillo1990; Cook 1990), and hence their otentialfor roding thePRI's ideological hegemony.At the same time, however,these analystsrecognize the difficultiesaced by such movements n achievingeffectivepolitical change. On one hand, in order to gain institutional trength,these movementsmust establish an enduringconnectionwith themorestableorganizational orms f theparty,whichthreaten heir wn identi-tiesand independenceand hencetheir otentialdemocratizingnfluence.On the otherhand, thesustainabilityf a stable eftist oalition apable ofchallengingboth the PRI and the PAN has been questioned, despitetheformidable ampaignmountedby thiscoalitionundertheleadershipofCuauhtemoc Cardenas in the 1988 presidentialelection. The PRD thatheaded thiscoalition,while calling for n end to presidentialism nd forthe democratization f labor and peasant organizations, s still closelyassociated withrevolutionary ationalism,whichasserts the principle fstate interventionism. he PRD has also been chargedwithreplicatingfaithfullyhe "dedazo" system finger-pointings a method ofselectingcandidates)ofthePRI, ofwhichthePRD is the directdeologicalheir Carr1989). Furthermore,he future fthe Cardenista coalition s considereduncertaindue to its failure o generate permanent organizationalformscapable ofsustaining leftistoalition.How likely s democratization,when perceived from he pluralistperspective?Clearly,tdepends on thecapacityofdemocratizing orcesn110

8/3/2019 2503736 La

22/33

EXPLAINING SOCIOPOLITICAL CHANGEsocietyto mount a serious enough challenge to established institutionseither otoppletheofficial artyby electoralmeans or to force hegovern-ment o define omelimited nstitutional paces withinwhichdemocraticprocesses may develop unencumberedby authoritarian orporatist truc-tures.Thefirst cenariopresupposes the ability f"pluralistic nd demo-cratic mpulsesfromociety to] overwhelm y essentially eacefulmeansthe regime's bility o containsuch forces" Cornelius, Gentleman,andSmith, ds., 1989,43). It also impliesthe nability fthePRI either ocarryout ts nternal eformhoroughly nough to recoup its electoral trengthor torespond repressivelynd fraudulentlyo the electoralvictory frivalparties.This optimistic cenario also ignoresthe profound ragmentationofdemocratizing orces nMexico, especiallythe rift etweenthe revolu-tionarynationalism of the democratic eft and the neoliberalism f theright,whichwould seem to preclude their llying gainst the PRI (Carr1989). This fragmentation as been manifested in the incapacity ofopposition partiesto establishstable structures nd to offerpecific lter-natives to official olicies following he 1988 election Loaeza and PerezGay 1989).The less optimistic cenario ofpartialdemocratization t thelocal and regional evels runs into thesame institutional nd ideologicalobstacles arisingfrom he deep regional fragmentationfpoliticalalle-giances, an outcome that s related to the PRI's reliance on local bosses(Asiz Nassif1989b).Revivalofthepluralisttradition n recent analyses ofMexico un-doubtedlyrepresents gain in that t has renewed scholarly nterest npolitical henomena ssuingfrom ociety, s opposed toreducing hem othestatus of consequences of stateactions. Yetthisreturnhas notbeenaccompanied by thorough eexamination fthe centralpropositionsthathave orientedpluralist hinking.As a result,the works inspiredby thisperspectivehave tended to endorse uncritically ypotheses bequeathedby early pluralist nalyseswithoutreapingthe benefit f new evidence.Forexample,theeconomicapproach in pluralist heory hatviewed de-mocracy s a naturalconsequence of economicdevelopmentwould ap-peartohave been defeatedbyhistorical vidence. Most countriesnLatinAmerica turnedaway fromdemocraticformsofgovernment nder thespurof economicgrowthnthe1960sbut have come backto them amidstrecessionand debtcrisis n the 1980s. In Mexico,economicdownturn nthe1980s,rather haneconomicgrowth, ppears to have accelerateddem-ocratic spirations.Yetdespitethisevidence,the economicargumenthasmade a comeback n a differentisguise: it is now argued thatpoliticalliberalization s inextricablyinked with modernizationof the economybecause thecorrupt nd inefficienttructuresnherited rom uthoritar-ian corporatismhamper rational economic decision making. Althoughthis rgument which spartofPAN'sdiscourse)constitutesmore an ideo-logical positionthan a seriousscholarly ypothesis, t sbeingdiffused y

111

8/3/2019 2503736 La

23/33

LatinAmerican esearch eviewintellectuals Krause 1987; Zaid 1987) and taken seriously o task n schol-arly analyses (Cornelius, Gentleman, and Smith, eds., 1989, 35). Theargument s nevertheless o differentnessence from ankwartRustow'shypothesisof a close relationshipbetween stages of economic develop-ment nd democracy. he rationale mplicitnboth positions s that pre-modern" forRustow) or "corrupt nd inefficient"forKrause and Zaid)structures re inadequate formoderncapitalism.Both ines of reasoningpredictthat an archaic political systemwill or should be replaced by amodern,albeitdemocratic, ne. This argument hus disregardsthe pos-sibilityhat uthoritarianismanbe "modernized."The "global conditions" approach to political iberalism lso findsitsniche ncurrent iscussions ofMexico'spolitical uture: lectoral ppo-sitionhas been locatedprimarilyn urbanareas, where "large groupsofthe urbanpopulace followpolitical developmentsevents and . . . haveaccess to more nformation han ever beforethrough hepress and elec-tronicmedia" (Loaeza 1989b,351). Beneath thishypothesis s the pluralistcredo that ndividuals develop civic capacities through onstant contactwith others n situations f communication nd collaboration, s typifiedby pluralists nvoluntary ssociations Lipset 1960).But fthisweretrue,thenwhyhas the now abundant iterature n urban social movementsnotyielded more evidence of pressures fordemocratic olitical hange? Thisbodyofworkprovidesdirect nstancesofcitizen nvolvementnpracticalaffairsike urban and land tenure, housing, local taxes, and public ser-vices. Yet most of those who have analyzed these movements dmit thattheirrole in effecting olitical change is limited Foweraker1989, 1990;Street 991)and theirinkagesto thepolitical pparatus,uncertainMunck1990). Is it notpossible thatelectoralpressures ike those experienced n1988 are a passing phenomenon, with only shallow roots n permanentorganizational tructuresapable ofdirecting olitical ction?

Finally, hecultural pproachtopoliticalmodernization hatpostu-lates a qualitative hangeinthe attitudes fMexicanstoward heireadersfrom pathetic complianceto open defiance and participation lso de-servescloserexamination. s thisphenomenontraceableto the 1968 stu-dentuprising s someargue (Loaeza 1989a; Foweraker 989;Bartra1989;Cornelius, Gentleman,and Smith,eds., 1989)?Or shoulditbe treated sa cyclicalphenomenon periodically riggered y the internal ensions ofauthoritarianorporatism nd then eliminatedwhen these tensions arereleasedbyreforms? he firstnterpretationould allowanalysts ospeakofgrowingpressuresforregime change, while the second entailspres-sure for authoritarian djustments. Although the boundary betweenthese twopositionshas often een blurred nrecent nalyses,the conse-quences forpolitical hangeshould be verydifferent.

112

8/3/2019 2503736 La

24/33

EXPLAINING SOCIOPOLITICAL CHANGEClass nd oliticalhange

The class perspectivehas undergone significant hange worldwidein the past decade. Democracy,which aroused little nterest n the past,became a major focus of nonorthodox Marxists Barros 1986; Chilcote1988). In LatinAmerica, the realization that popular mobilizations,farfrom ringing bout social revolutions,had ushered inmilitary ictator-ships, led to revalidation fdemocracy s a means ofpopular empower-ment Chilcote 1988; Lechner 1986; Vasconi 1988; Brown 1988; Munck1988). Yet heclass focuson democracy hould notbe confusedwitheitherpluralistor authoritarian-reformistnterest n thisphenomenon.Whilethepluralist erspective ocuseson electoral ompetitionnd authoritarian-reformist n authoritarian tructures ecoming more flexible, he classview looks upon democracy as the key to the equitable distribution fresources to the majorities n Latin America Harding and Petras 1988).Formaldemocratic ights f freedom fspeech and electoral ompetitionare considered as mere means to these ends. Similarly,uthoritarian e-formismikethatproposed by the Salinas administration ouldbe judgedas simply placing the stamp of legitimacy n a formof capitalism thatexcludes hemajority rom mploymentnd exploits o an unprecedenteddegreetheminorityhatmakes up the formal abor force.The orthodoxview interprets he Mexican crisis n the 1980s as anew phase of capitalist elations f productionrather han as a prelude totheir demise. Consequently,the political changes associated with thisnew phase have no theoretical ignificance.They merelyreflect hangesinthecomposition fthepower block resulting rom hese macro-changes(RiveraRios 1989).Thus now as before,rigid tagism nMarxist hinkingimpedes conceptualizing hange thatdoes not flowout ofa changeinthemode ofproduction.A second school ofthought emainsfaithfulo the dea ofpoliticalchange from elow yet has difficultyn detecting vidence ofsuch pro-cesses inMexico'srecentpast.When labor remains dentified s themajoragentofchange, theparadoxicalfactmust be faced thatMexican labor'sincreasedexploitationhas notbeen accompanied by a recrudescenceoflaborprotest.The gradual opening of the Mexican economy to the nter-national market ince 1982 is said to have simultaneouslymarginalizedofficial nions frommakingdecisions about labor policywhile furtherpoliticizingabordemands (de la Garza Toledo 1988).Thisprocesshas inturn ed to corporatism ecoming obsolete as an instrumentmediatingthe relationsbetween labor and capital. The logical outcome of such aprocess should be mass desertionof official nions by the rankand fileand renewed abormilitancy ia independentunions. Toexplainthefactthat uch a shifthas not takenplace, one analyst has proposed thatthepolitical risisunderlying hesedeep changes is stillonly partial n that t113

8/3/2019 2503736 La

25/33

LatinAmerican esearch eviewhas involvedonly a crisis nrelationsbetween the state and official nionbosses (de la Garza Toledo 1988, 176). Yetthisexplanation eaves aside thequestion of why the rank and file hould have stood byquietlywhile thebargaining ower oftheir osses was fritteredway.Othershave explainedthe relative ackof abor protestduringthe 1980s as displacementof thelocus of discontent rom heworkplace to the neighborhood nd commu-nity evels, a trendfacilitatedy the growth fthe nformal abor sector nrelation o the formal ector Davies 1990). This interpretation ould ac-countfor hefact hat hemajor challenges to thepoliciesofeconomic us-terity uring hede la Madrid administration ame from opular organi-zations headed bythe coordinadorasCarr 1986).8

A thirdgroup ofanalysts has bypassed the question of socialismaltogether, ocusingon permanenceand change in identity s a pointofentry ntopoliticalchange. This current s representedby Roger Bartra,who has focusedon national culture s thekeyto consolidatingpoliticalconsensus inMexico, noting he break n this consensus startingn 1968(Bartra1989). Yet what this change portends, apart from hepromiseof"alternative orms fexpression" Bartra 989,69), s far rom lear.A lessoptimistic utlook in this line of thinkinghas been adopted by SergioZermento,who argues that mass pauperizationin the 1980s has led togeneral"decadence"and "anomie,"andhenceto a diminished apacity oorganizeon thepartof subordinate lasses (Zermento990).Given the current uestioning fthe major conceptual nstrumentsthat have guided class analysis in the past, construction f alternativefuture cenarios s greatlyhampered. Having abandoned theconceptoflabor exploitation s the catalyst of revolutionary pheavals, the non-orthodox lass perspective s leftwithout ts traditionalheoreticalmmu-nition opredictpolitical hangeinthe context fcrisis.As the same time,thisperspectivehas notdeveloped itsargument n democratization ullyenoughtoformulate theoretical omainclearlydistinguishable rom hepluralistperspective.Earlyhopes for he consolidationofCardenismoasthe nstitutionalizedolitical xpression fthe eft ave been disappointed.Yetno alternativerganizationshave emergedto voicethe demands oftheimpoverishedMexican masses, despite continued pressures on wages,increasingunemployment, nd the generalized pauperizationof thema-jority f Mexicans. The consequence of these difficultiess thatmoreat-tention s being devotedto partialand microchanges, especiallyto thepressures for nternaldemocratizationn popular organizations, hanto

8. An exception o thatpattern s theteachers'union, whichhas been internally plit incethe 1970s betweena militant democratic endency" truggling orunion democracy nd atraditionalist ing. This union has consistently nd successfully oughtforhigher wagesthroughout he crisis years. Even so, it is not easy to classifywithina traditionalMarxistframeworks partoftheproletariat. or detailson theteachers'movement, ee Street 1986),Hernandez (1986),Salinas and Imaz (1989),and Cook (1990).114

8/3/2019 2503736 La

26/33

EXPLAINING SOCIOPOLITICAL CHANGEmacro political changes (Otero 1989; Carrillo 1990; Cook 1990; Fox andGordillo 1989;Harvey 1990).CONCLUSION

This article as sought o dentifyhetheoretical rameworks ithinwhichtheMexicanpolitical ystemhas been analyzed in the past in ordertoassess thedifficultiesach pose for tudying olitical hangeas well asthe opportunities orunderstanding hisprocess. Fourbasic perspectiveshave been singledout-patron-client, luralist, uthoritarian-corporatist,and class-to demonstrate hat ach containsa distinctiveogic ofpoliticalpermanenceand changethathas oriented cholarlywork nthepast andremainspresent nmore recentworks.Today'sanalystsofpoliticalchange inMexico are stillbeholden tothese earlier fforts, hether r not the more recent uthors cknowledgetheirdebt. The most important ontrastfoundin theirworkis that be-tweenthelogicofchanges from bove and that of changes from elow.The firsts most explicitlyncorporated nto the authoritarian-corporatistandpatron-clienterspectives.Thelogicofchangefrom elow,whichhasbeen associatedwithpluralist nd classperspectives,mayarisefrom heef-fects f a restrictedemocracy rfrom oliticalmobilization fthe masses.Recognizing themultiplicityfsources ofchange implied by thedifferentogics explainingsuch change, however, does not necessarilymean thatthese insights re interchangeable r can be combined ndis-criminately.orexample, t s a contradictionnterms o applythe vocab-ularyofpluralism o thesubjectofpresidential eforms, s in sayingthatMexico sbecomingmore democratic ecause thepresidenthas decided itwill. t s similarlyrroneousto discuss democratic rocessesinthe termsofauthoritarianism,s in speakingofthe PRI leadershipas "mobilizing"thegrass roots.Thus the demarcationof theoretical orizons suggestedbythepresent nalysis underscoresthecomplexityfanalyzing politicalchange by flagging hequestionofhow differentheoretical nsightsmaybe fruitfullyombined,as well as thetheoretical nd methodologicalm-plications f such combinations.This discussion suggeststhatno singletheoretical ramework anencompass the totality f the social processes thatmustbe taken intoaccount n analyzingpolitical change in Mexico. For example, one maychoose to analyze current nstitutional eformsngineeredbythe Salinasadministration rom heauthoritarian-corporatisterspective,giventhatthey ome from hetopdown and aimatpreserving heestablishedorder(albeit n a differentorm).This perspective,however,offersittle n thewayofexplanation fwhytheSalinas administrations undertakinguchreforms t all, especiallyin the face of strong nternalopposition. Thepluralist nd class perspectives, n contrast,may go a long way toward

115

8/3/2019 2503736 La

27/33

LatinAmerican esearch eviewexplaining he resurgenceof urban movements nd the increasingclasspolarizationof Mexican society.A merger f the theoretical rameworkswould suggest hat lasspolarization ndpoliticalmobilization reatepres-sure on theauthoritariannstitutional ramework, hose central litesarethenmoved to makechanges to help themreinforce heir ower,whetherthrough epressionor reform r some combination fthe two.Thus the pluralist and class perspectives on social change offerexplanationsfor hepressuresand counterpressures o which the domi-nant order s subjected. Understanding hese pressures provides nsightinto the reformist rrepressive trategies dopted by the governing lite,even thoughthepluralist nd class perspectivesare alien to the ogic ofauthoritarianorporatismnd hence contributeittle o the analysis ofthedominant nstitutional ramework. or that analysis, the authoritarian-corporatistnd patron-client erspectiveshave more to offer.Taken by themselves, each of the fourperspectives offers nly apartialand incompleteview ofavenues of change. Analysts may makeavariety fdiscoveries:thatMexican citizensare "ready" forparticipativepolitics;that authoritariantructures an be made moreflexible r havebecomevulnerable;orthat conomicdownturnhas deepened inequalityand exploitation.Buthistory s full ofinstances when change has beenheldincheck-despite thewillingnessofkey ctors o effect hange or the"readiness" ofsocietyfora new kind ofregime.In Mexico, democraticaspirationshave been containedby the controlledparticipatorymecha-nisms imposed by statecorporatism.But theyhave also surfacedperi-odically at various historical unctures, althoughnot necessarilyat themost favorable imes, udging fromthe repressionto which theyhavebeen subjected. In this sense, itmaybe said thattheMexican politicalsystemhas alwaysincludedimportant lementstendingtoward democ-racy: n theelectionofFranciscoMadero following hirty earsof a dic-tatorial egime; nthe defeated truggles oruniondemocracy fthe1940s;in theHenriquistamovementof1952; in the Movimiento de LiberacionNacional MLN) oftheearly1960s;or nthe"democraticendency" mongelectricalworkers n the 1970s. The studentuprisingof 1968, farfrombeing a qualitative step, s merelyanotherdramatic andmark n a longprocesscharacterized y contradictoryendencies.In sum, reexamination f the fourexplanatory chemes analyzedin this rticle uggeststhat he taskbeforeus goes farbeyond formulatingpredictions n thebasis ofone particular ogicofpolitical hange, as hasbeen thepractice nthepast. This taskrequires hatwe distinguish learlybetween forces ushingfor nd against change. Italso requirestheabilityto deal withthecomplex nteractions etween the distinctmechanismsofpoliticalpermanenceand changethatmay simultaneously ffect oliticalinstitutions nd actors. Following this path, we may begin to link thehypotheticalcenarios ofpolitical hangethathave been proposed to par-116

8/3/2019 2503736 La

28/33

EXPLAINING SOCIOPOLITICAL CHANGEticular onfigurations f societal processes, and ultimately o particularhistoricalunctures.The result f uch an open-ended theoretical trategyshould be historically riented studies of Mexico's political system thatmap out the different mixes" of dynamic factors mpelled by internallogics that lternativelyeinforce nd counteract ne another, esulting ncomplexpressuresand counterpressures or hange.BIBLIOGRAPHYALFORD, R. A., AND R. FRIEDLAND1985 Powersof Theory:Capitalism, he State, and Democracy. ambridge: Cambridge

University ress.ALMOND, GABRIEL A., AND JAMES S. COLEMAN, EDS.1960 ThePolitics fDeveloping reas. Princeton,N.J.: rincetonUniversity ress.ALMOND, GABRIEL A., AND G. BINGHAM POWELL1966 Comparativeolitics:A Developmental pproach. oston, Mass.: Little, rown.ALMOND, GABRIEL A., AND SIDNEY VERBA1963 The Civic Culture: oliticalAttitudesndDemocracynFive Nations.Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversity ress.ALVAREZ, ALEJANDRO1987 La crisis lobaldel capitalismo n Mexico 1968-1985). Mexico City: Era.AZIZ NASSIF, ALBERTO1989 'Regional Dimensions of Democratization." In CORNELIUS, GENTLEMAN, AND

SMITH, EDS., 1989,87-108.BAEZ RODRIGUEZ, FRANCISCO1988 "Desmaquillaje electoral:un ejercicio." Cuaderno eNexos,no. 128 September).BAILEY, JOHN1987 "Can the PRI Be Reformed? ecentralizingCandidate Selection."In GENTLEMAN,

ED., 1987, 3-92.BAILEY, JOHN, AND LEOPOLDO GOMEZ1990 "The PRI and Political Liberalization." Journal f nternational ffairs 3, no. 2(Winter):291-312.BARROS, ROBERT1986 "The Left nd Democracy:RecentDebates in LatinAmerica." Telos,no. 68 (Sum-mer):49-70.BARTRA, ROGER1989 "Changes in Political Culture: The Crisis of Nationalism." In CORNELIUS, GEN-

TLEMAN, AND SMITH, EDS., 1989, 5-86.BIZBERG, IAN1990 "El corporativismomexicano: la dificil ransicion." Cuadernode Nexos, no. 29(Nov.):xii-xiv.BRACHET-MARQUEZ, VIVIANE, AND KAREN KOVACS1990 "Obstaculos y perspectivaspara la explicaciondel cambiosocio-politico."n Mex-icoen elumbral elsiglo,editedby Orlandinade Oliveira.MexicoCity: Colegio deMexico.BRANDENBURG, FRANK1964 TheMaking fModernMexico.Englewood Cliffs,N.J.: renticeHall.BROWN, DOUGLAS1988 "Sandinismoand the ProblemofDemocraticHegemony."LatinAmerican erspec-tives 7,no. 2:39-61.CARDOSO, FERNANDO HENRIQUE, AND ENZO FALETTO1968 Dependencia desarrollonAme'rica atina.MexicoCity: SigloVeintiuno.CARR, BARRY1986 "Introduction."n TheMexicanLeft, hePopularMovements,nd thePolitics fAus-

117

8/3/2019 2503736 La

29/33

Latin mericanesearcheviewterity 982-85, edited by Barry Carr, 11-18. La Jolla: Center forU.S.-MexicanStudies, University f California, an Diego.1989 'The Left nd Its PotentialRole in PoliticalChange." In CORNELIUS, GENTLEMAN,AND SMITH, EDS., 1989,367-90.CARRILLO, TERESA1990 "Women and Independent Unionism in the Garment ndustry." n FOWERAKERAND CRAIG 1990, 213-33.

CHALMERS, DOUGLAS A.1977 "The Politicized tate nLatinAmerica." n MALLOY 1977, 3-46.CHILCOTE, RONALD H.1988 "Postmarxism: heRetreat romClass in Latin America."LatinAmerican erspec-tives 7,no. 2:3-27CLINE, HOWARD1962 Mexico:RevolutionoEvolution, 940-1960. New York:OxfordUniversity ress.COCKROFT, JAMES

1972 "Coercion and Ideology n MexicanPolitics." nDependencendUnderdevelopment:LatinAmerica's olitical conomy,dited by JamesCockroft, ndreGunder Frank,and Dale L. Johnson.New York:Anchor.1983 Mexico: Class Formation, apitalAccumulation,nd theState. New York:MonthlyReview.COLEMAN, JAMES S.1960 "Conclusion." In ALMOND AND COLEMAN 1960.COOK, MARIA ELENA1990 "Organizing Opposition in the Teachers' Movement n Oaxaca." In FOWERAKERAND CRAIG 1990, 199-212.CORDERA, ROLANDO, AND C. TELLO1981 Me'xico: a disputapor a nacion,perspectivas opciones el desarrollo.MexicoCity:

Siglo Veintiuno.CORDERA CAMPOS, ROLANDO, RAUL TREJO DELARBRE, AND JUAN ENRIQUE VEGA, EDS.1988 Me'xico: l reclamo emocra'tico. exico City: Fondo de Cultura Economica.CORDOVA, ARNALDO1985 La ideologfae la revolucionmexicana.Mexico City: ISUNAM and Era. Firstpub-lished n 1973.1986 Lapolitica emasasdelcardenismo. exico City: Era. First ublished n 1974.CORNELIUS, WAYNE1987 "Political iberalizationn an Authoritarian egime: Mexico, 1976-1985." n GEN-

TLEMAN, ED., 1987, 5-40.CORNELIUS, WAYNE, JUDITH GENTLEMAN, AND PETER H. SMITH1989 "The Dynamics of PoliticalChange in Mexico." In CORNELIUS, GENTLEMAN, ANDSMITH, EDS., 1989, -55.CORNELIUS, WAYNE, JUDITH GENTLEMAN, AND PETER H. SMITH, EDS.1989 Mexico'sAlternativeolitical utures. esearch Monograph no. 30. La Jolla:CenterforU.S.-MexicanStudies, UniversityfCalifornia, an Diego.COSIO VILLEGAS, DANIEL1973 El sistema oliticomexicano.MexicoCity:JoaquinMortiz.CUTRIGHT, PHILLIPS1963 "National PoliticalDevelopment:Measurement ndAnalysis."Americanociolog-ical Review 8,no. 2:253-64.DAHL, ROBERT1970 Modern oliticalAnalysis.Englewood Cliffs,N.J.: renticeHall.

DAVIES, DIANA1990 "Social Movementsand Mexico's Crisis." Journal f nternational ffairs 3, no. 2(Winter):343-67.DE LA GARZA, ENRIQUE TOLEDO1988 Ascensoycrisis elestado ocial utoritario. exico City: Colegio de Mexico.FAGEN, RICHARD, AND WILLIAM S. TUOHY1974 Politics ndPrivilegena MexicanCity. tanford,Calif.: StanfordUniversity ress.

118

8/3/2019 2503736 La

30/33

EXPLAINING SOCIOPOLITICAL CHANGEFITZGERALD, E. V. K.1978 "The Stateand Capital Accumulation n Mexico." Journal fLatinAmerican tudies10, pt.2 (Nov.):263-82.FOSTER, GEORGE1967a Tzintzuntzan: exicanPeasants n a ChangingWorld. oston: Little,Brown.1967b "The Dyadic Contract:A Model forthe Social Structure f a Mexican PeasantVillage." n Peasant ociety:A Reader, dited by Jack otter,May Diaz, and GeorgeFoster.Boston, Mass.: Little,Brown.FOWERAKER, JOE1989 "PopularMovements nd theTransformationfthe System." n CORNELIUS, GEN-TLEMAN, AND SMITH, EDS., 1989,109-30.FOWERAKER, JOE, AND A. L. CRAIG, EDS.1990 PopularMovements nd Political hange n Mexico.Boulder,Colo.: Lynne Rienner.FOX, JONATHAN, AND GUSTAVO GORDILLO1989 "Between State and Market:The Campesinos' Quest for Autonomy." n COR-

NELIUS, GENTLEMAN, AND SMITH, EDS., 1989, 31-72.GARRIDO, LUIS JAVIER1987 "Un partido in militantes." n LOAEZA AND SEGOVIA 1987, 1-100.1989 "The Crisisofpresidencialismo."nCORNELIUS, GENTLEMAN, AND SMITH, EDS., 1989,417-34.GENTLEMAN, JUDITH1987 "PoliticalChange inAuthoritarian ystems." n GENTLEMAN, ED., 1987, -14.GENTLEMAN, JUDITH, ED.1987 MexicanPoliticsnTransition.oulder,Colo.: Westview.GILLY, ADOLFO1971 La revolucionnterrumpida.exicoCity:El Caballito.1990 "The Mexican Regime and Its Dilemma." Journal f nternational ffairs 3, no. 2(Winter):273-90.GOMEZ-TAGLE, SILVIA1988 "Conflictosy contradicciones n el sistema electoralmexicano." n Elecciones nMe'xico, ditedby Silvia Gomez-Tagle,Estudios ociologicos , no. 16 (Jan.-Apr.):3-38.1990 Las estadisticas lectorales e a reformaolitica.Cuadernosdel CES, no. 34. MexicoCity: Colegio de Mexico.GONZALEZ CASANOVA, PABLO1970 Democracyn Mexico.New York:OxfordUniversity ress.GREENBERG, MARTIN1970 BureaucracyndDevelopment: MexicanCase Study. exington,Mass.: Heath Lex-ingtonBooks.GRINDLE, MERILEE S.1977a Bureaucrats,oliticians,nd Peasants nMexico. Berkeley nd Los Angeles: Univer-sity f California ress.1977b "PolicyChange in an Authoritarian egime." Journal f nteramericantudies ndWorld ffairs 9,no. 4 (Nov.):523-55.HAGEN, EVERETT E.1963 'A Framework orAnalyzingEconomic and PoliticalChange." In Development ftheEmerging ountries:An AgendaforResearch, ditedby R. Asher et al. Wash-ingtonD.C.: Brookings nstitution.HAMILTON, NORA1985 "State-ClassAllianceand Conflicts: ssues and Actors n the MexicanEconomicCrisis." n ModernMexico:State, conomy,nd SocialConflict,ditedbyNora Ham-ilton ndTimothy Harding. BeverlyHills,Calif.:Sage.HARDING, TIMOTHY F., AND J. PETRAS1988 "Introduction: emocratization nd Class Struggles."LatinAmerican erspectives,no. 15 Summer).HAMILTON, NORA, AND TIMOTHY F. HARDING, EDS.1985 ModernMexico: State,Economy,ndSocial Conflict. everlyHills, Calif.:Sage.

119

8/3/2019 2503736 La

31/33

LatinAmericanesearcheviewHARVEY, NEIL1990 "Peasant Strategies nd CorporatismnChiapas." In FOWERAKER AND CRAIG 1990,183-98.HERNANDEZ, LUIS1986 "The SNTE and Teachers'Movement,1982-1984." n CARR 1986,59-76.HODGES, DONALD, AND ROSS GANDY1979 Mexico,1910-1976: ReformrRevolution? ondon: Zed.HUNTINGTON, SAMUEL P.1968 PoliticalOrder nChanging ocieties.New Haven, Conn.: Yale University ress.KAUFMAN, ROBERT1977 "Mexico and Latin AmericanAuthoritarianism."n REYNA AND WEINERT, 173-92.KAUFMAN, SUSAN1973 "Decision Making in an Authoritarian egime: Theoretical mplicationsfromCase Study."World olitics 5, no. 3 (Apr.):28-53.1975 TheMexicanProfit-Sharingecision:Politicsn an Authoritarianegime. rinceton,

N.J.: rincetonUniversity ress.KNIGHT, ALAN1989 "Comment."nCORNELIUS, GENTLEMAN, AND SMITH, EDS., 1989, 53-64.KRAUSE, ENRIQUE1987 Poruna democraciainadjetivos.MexicoCity:JoaquinMortiz nd Planeta.LEAL, JUAN FELIPE1974 La burguesia el estadomexicano. econd edition. MexicoCity:El Caballito.1986 "The Mexican State, 1915-1973:A Historical nterpretation."n HAMILTON ANDHARDING 1986,21-42.LECHNER, NORBERT1986 "De la revolucion la democracia." La Ciudad Futura (October).LERNER DE SCHEINBAUM, BERTA

1989 "El estado mexicanoyel 6 de julio de 1988." RevistaMexicanadeSociologfa51,no. 4(Oct. -Dec.): 199-238.LINZ, JUAN1975 "Totalitarian nd Authoritarian egimes." In Handbook fPolitical cience, ditedbyFredGreenstein ndNelson Polsby.Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.LIPSET, SEYMOUR MARTIN1960 PoliticalMan: The Social BasesofPolitics.Garden City,N.Y.: Doubleday.LOAEZA, SOLEDAD1989a "Mexico 1968: los origenesde la transicion."Foro nternacional0, no. 1 (July-Sept.):66-92.1989b "The Emergenceand Legitimation f the ModernRight, 1970-1988." n CORNE-LIUS, GENTLEMAN, AND SMITH, EDS., 1989, 51-66.LOAEZA, SOLEDAD, AND RAFAEL PEREZ GAY1989 "Los partidos."Cuaderno eNexos,no. 7 (Feb.):i-ii.LOAEZA, SOLEDAD, AND RAFAEL SEGOVIA, EDS.1987 La vidapoliticamexicanan a crisis.MexicoCity: Colegio deMexico.MALLOY, JAMES M., ED.1977 AuthoritarianismndCorporatismn LatinAmerica. ittsburgh, a.: Pittsburgh ni-versity ress.MARX, KARL1972 The ClassStrugglesnFrance, 848-1850. New York: nternational.MAXFIELD, SYLVIA1990 Governing apital: nternational inance nd MexicanPolitic. thaca, N.Y.: CornellUniversity ress.MEYER, LORENZO1977 "HistoricalRoots of the Authoritarian tate in Mexico." In REYNA AND WEINERT1977, -22.1989 "Democratizationof the PRI: Mission Impossible?" In CORNELIUS, GENTLEMAN,AND SMITH, EDS., 1989,325-50.MIDDLEBROOK, KEVIN J.1986 "Political iberalizationnan Authoritarian egime." n Elections ndDemocratiza-

120

8/3/2019 2503736 La

32/33

EXPLAINING SOCIOPOLITICAL CHANGEtion nLatinAmerica, 980-85, edited byPaul W. Drake and E. Silva, 73-104. LaJolla: Center for berian and LatinAmerican Studies, Center forU.S.-MexicanStudies, and Institute fthe Americas,University f California, an Diego.MOLINAR HORCASITAS, JUAN1987 "The 1985 Federal Elections in Mexico: The Product of a System." In ElectoralPatterns ndPerspectivesn Mexico, editedby A. Alvarado.Research Monographno. 22. CenterforU.S.-MexicanStudies,University f California, an Diego.MONSIVAIS, CARLOS1990 "Las mayorias no modernizables."' Cuaderno eNexos,no. 19 Jan.): x.MUNCK, RONALDO L.1988 "Farewell to Socialism? A Comment on Recent Debates." LatinAmerican erspec-tives 7,no. 2:113-21.1990 "Identity nd Ambiguity n DemocraticStruggles."In FOWERAKER AND CRAIG1990,23-42.

NEEDLER, MARTIN1987 "The Significanceof Recent Events for the Mexican PoliticalSystem." In GEN-TLEMAN, ED., 1987, 01-16.OTERO, GERARDO1989 "The New AgrarianMovement: Self-Managed Democratic Production." LatinAmerican erspectives,o. 16 Fall):28-59.PACKENHAM, ROBERT A.1973 LiberalAmerica ndtheThirdWorld. rinceton,N.J.: rincetonUniversity ress.PEREYRA, CARLOS1987 "La reforma emocratica."Nexos,no. 117 Sept.):28.PETRAS, JAMES1981 "Dependencyand WorldSystemsTheory:A Critique nd New Directions."LatinAmerican erspectives, nos. 3-4 (Summer-Fall):148-55.POITRAS, GUY E.1973 "WelfareBureaucracyand Clientele Politics n Mexico." AdministrativecienceQuarterly 8, no. 1 (Mar.):18-26.PYE, LUCIAN W.1966 Aspects fPolitical evelopment. oston,Mass.: Little,Brown.RAMIREZ SAIZ, JUAN MANUEL1990 "Urban Strugglesand Their PoliticalConsequences." In FOWERAKER AND CRAIG1990, 234-46.REYNA, JOSE LUIS1974 Contrololitico, stabilidad desarrollonMexico.Cuadernos delCES, no. 3.MexicoCity: Colegio deMexico.1977 "RedefiningheAuthoritarian egime." n REYNA AND WEINERT 1977, 55-72.REYNA, JOSE LUIS, AND RICHARD S. WEINERT, EDS.1977 AuthoritarianismnMexico.Philadelphia,Pa.: Institute or the StudyofHumanIssues.RIVERA RIOS, MIGUEL ANGEL1989 Crisisyreorientacionelcapitalismomexicano, 960-1985. MexicoCity:Era.RUSTOW, DANKWART A.1967 A World fNations: ProblemsfPoliticalModernization.Washington,D.C.: Brook-ings nstitution.SALAZAR, LUIS C.1989 'Aplausos ychiflidos."Cuaderno eNexos,no. 8 (Mar.): ii-iv.SALDIVAR, AMERICO1985 Ideologfa polftica el estadomexicano1970-1976). Mexico City: Siglo Veintiuno(first ublished n1980).SALINAS, SAMUEL, AND CARLOS IMAZ1989 Maestrosy estado: estudiosde las luchasmagisteriales,979-1982. 2 vols. MexicoCity:Editorial inea, UniversidadAutonoma de Guerrero, nd UniversidadAuto-noma de Zacatecas.SCHMITTER, PHILIPPE C.1974 "Still theCenturyofCorporatism?"TheReview fPolitics 6,no. 1:85-131.

121

8/3/2019 2503736 La

33/33

LatinAmerican esearch eviezvSCOTT, ROBERT E.1964 MexicanGovernmentn Transition,rbana: University f llinoisPress.SEGOVIA, RAFAEL

1990 "El PRI: las nuevas circunstancias."Cuaderno eNexos,no. 27 (September).SEMO, ENRIQUE1985 Historiamexicana: conomfa lucha de clases. MexicoCity:Era. Firstpublished in1978.STAVENHAGEN, RODOLFO1976 "Reflexiones obre el procesopolitico." Nueva Politica , no. 2 (Apr.-June