We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 December 2015
The political legacy of Lázaro Cárdenas is marked by a striking paradox. On the one hand, Cárdenas as president of Mexico from 1934 to 1940 presided over the most radical phase of the Mexican Revolution or what some historians call the “Second Revolution.” He was instrumental in organizing industrial workers and peasants at the national level and incorporating both groups into the reorganized government party, the Partido de la Revolutión Mexicana (PRM), that had as its declared purpose the establishment of a “workers' democracy” in Mexico. Under his leadership the government supported the demands of industrial workers for higher wages and improved working conditions, greatly expanded the distribution of land to the peasantry, established new welfare programs, nationalized the railroad and petroleum industries and inaugurated a program of socialist education in the public schools. The prestige of Cárdenas as the foremost leader of the radical phase of the Revolution was enhanced by the fact that he, unlike many of his contemporaries, never attempted to use political office for personal financial gain; he was not a rich man when he completed his term of office as president. At the time of his death in 1970, Cárdenas was eulogized as “the greatest figure produced by the Revolution… an authentic revolutionary who aspired to the greatness of his country, not personal aggrandizement.” On the other hand, Cárdenas was the architect of the corporatist system of interest representation, including labor, peasant and business organizations, that provided the institutional framework of what Crane Brinton has called the “Thermidor,” i.e., the conservative reaction to the radical phase of the revolutionary process, that began in Mexico in approximately 1940. The institutions developed by Cárdenas were utilized by his successors to curtail the very reforms, such as agrarian and labor reform and socialist education, that had been central to his reform program. Moreover Cárdenas facilitated the transition to a more conservative era by naming as his successor Manuel Ávila Camacho, who was known to favor a moderation of the reform process, rather than Francisco Múgica, the preferred candidate of the radicals in the government. In short, Cárdenas played a decisive role both in presiding over the radical phase of the Revolution and in launching and shaping the relatively conservative post-1940 era. The paradox of the political legacy of Cárdenas is that though the seemingly radical reforms he carried out had a lasting impact upon Mexican politics, the impact was predominantly conservative rather than radical. This essay will endeavor to explain the paradoxical political legacy of Lázaro Cárdenas by focusing upon his ideology, the institutional reforms he carried out while president, and the impact of those reforms after 1940.
1 For a treatment of the Cárdenas government see Ashby, Joe C., Organized Labor and the Mexican Revolution under Cárdenas (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1963)Google Scholar; Córdova, Arnaldo, La Politica de masas del cardenismo (Mexico City: Ediciones Era, 1974)Google Scholar; Medin, Tzvi, Ideología y praxis de Lázaro Cárdenas (Mexico City: Siglo Ventiuno, 1972)Google Scholar; Townsend, William Cameron, Lázaro Cárdenas: Mexican Democrat (Ann Arbor: George Wahr, 1952),Google Scholar Nathaniel, and Weyl, Sylvia, The Reconquest of Mexico (New York: Oxford University Press, 1939).Google Scholar
2 La Cultura de México, quoted in Valles, Manuel Suarez, Lázaro Cárdenas: una vida fecunda al servicio de México (Mexico City, 1971), p. 25.Google Scholar
3 Most historians agree that the Mexican Revolution came to an end in 1940. See, for example, Ross, Stanley R., “Introduction,” Ross, Stanley R., ed., Is the Mexican Revolution Dead?, 2nd ed., (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1975), pp. 3–34.Google Scholar For discussion of the concept of the “Thermidor” see Brinton, Crane, Anatomy of Revolution, rev. ed., (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1952), pp. 205–36.Google Scholar
4 Cabrera, Luis, Veinte anos despues (Mexico City: Ediciones Botas, 1937), p. 92.Google Scholar (Cabrera later became a critic of the Cárdenas government.)
5 Cárdenas, Lázaro, Palabras y documentos públicos de Lázaro Cárdenas, 1928–1940 (Mexico City: Siglo Veintiuno, 1978), Vol. 1, p. 138.Google Scholar
6 Córdova, p. 34.
7 Quoted in Ashby, Joe C., “Labor and the Theory of the Mexican Revolution Under Lázaro Cárdenas,” The Americas (October, 1963), p. 177.Google Scholar
8 Quoted in Ashby, , “Labor and the Theory of the Mexican Revolution,” p. 181.Google Scholar
9 Though the Cárdenas administration nationalized the petroleum industry in 1938, it did not launch any general attack upon capitalism. For analysis of the attitude of Cárdenas toward capitalism see Ashby, , “Labor and the Theory of the Mexican Revolution,” pp. 181–84Google Scholar; and Córdova, pp. 177–201.
10 Cárdenas, , Palabras y documentos, p. 125.Google Scholar
11 Weyland Weyl, p. 244.
12 See Michaels, Albert L., “The Crisis of Cardenismo,” Journal of Latin American Studies (May 1970), pp. 35–53.Google Scholar
13 For a discussion of the ideology of corporatism see the articles by James Malloy, Philippe Schmitter and Howard Wiarda in Pike, Federick B. and Stritch, Thomas, eds., The New Corporatism: Socio-Political Structures in the Iberian World (South Bend: Notre Dame University Press, 1974).Google Scholar
14 Tannenbaum, Frank, Mexico: The Struggle for Peace and Bread (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1951), p. 118.Google Scholar
15 Cabrera, pp. 94–104.
16 Zabre, Alfonso Teja, “El Marxismo en la Revolución Mexicana: esbozos de una interpretación histórica,” Futuro, 3 (January 1935),Google Scholar quoted in Ashby, , “Labor and the Theory of the Mexican Revolution,” p. 161.Google Scholar
17 Cárdenas, p. 191.
18 Cárdenas, p. 139.
19 Córdova, p. 44.
20 For example, in the 1934 campaign he said that “only when organized are the workers in a position to force me, or any other citizen who is in power, to satisfy the needs of the people.” Quoted in Prewitt, Virginia, Reportage on Mexico (New York: E. P. Hutton, 1941), p. 94.Google Scholar
21 Quoted in Ashby, , “Labor and the Theory of the Mexican Revolution,” p. 181.Google Scholar
22 Cárdenas, Lázaro, New Year’s Message of 1938 (Mexico City, 1938), p. 17.Google Scholar
23 Schmitter, Philippe, “Still the Century of Corporatism?” Pike, and Stritch, , eds., pp. 93–94.Google Scholar
24 The mobilization of the working class was a critical factor in enabling Cárdenas to defeat the two major conservative challenges to his administration. In 1936 Cárdenas sent Plutaro Calles into political exile (after Calks had denounced the radical policies of the government and by implication called for the removal of Cárdenas), thus firmly establishing that Cárdenas rather than Calles would be the jefe máximo of Mexican politics. In 1938 Cárdenas successfully suppressed a military revolt (the last major military revolt against the Mexican government) led by a conservative caudillo, General Saturnino Cedillo. In both cases the trade unions and peasant leagues rallied to the support of the government.
25 Weyl and Weyl, p. 235.
26 However, Cárdenas strenuously resisted the effort of Vincente Lombardo Toledano to recruit peasants and government workers into the CTM, presumably because Cárdenas wished to limit the scope of power of Lombardo Toledano. For an account of the role played by Cárdenas’ administration in establishing and sustaining the CTM see Ashby, , Organized Labor and the Mexican Revolution, pp. 72–76.Google Scholar The size of the membership of the CTM represents the estimate of the Weyls. Weyl and Weyl, p. 238.
27 Weyl and Weyl, pp. 260–62; Brandenburg, pp. 87–88.
28 Cárdenas, , Palabras y documentos, pp. 170–71.Google Scholar
29 Medin, p. 97.
30 Cárdenas, , Palabras y documentos, pp. 320–21.Google Scholar
31 The role of the Cárdenas administration in organizing the peasantry is described in Huizer, Gerrit, “Peasant Organization in Agrarian Reform in Mexico,” Horowitz, Irving Louis, ed., Masses in Latin America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970), pp. 472–75Google Scholar; Weyl and Weyl, pp. 192–95; and Medin, pp. 88–98.
32 Vernon, Raymond, The Dilemma of Mexico’s Development: The Roles of the Private and Public Sectors (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1963), p. 94.Google Scholar
33 Shafer, Robert James, Mexican Business Organizations: History and Analysis (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1973), pp. 45–46.Google Scholar (The 1936 law replaced legislation that encouraged but did not require businesses to belong to the Confederation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry.)
34 Medin, pp. 86–87; Brandenburg, Frank, The Making of Modem Mexico (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: 1964), p. 86.Google Scholar
35 Brandenburg, p. 87.
36 For a discussion of the role played by Cárdenas in “taming” the military see Lieuwen, Edwin, Mexican Militarism: The Political Rise and Fall of the Revolutionary Army, 1919–1940 (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1968).Google Scholar
37 Quoted in Lieuwen, p. 114.
38 Brandenburg, p. 83.
39 According to the Weyls, Cárdenas was favorably impressed by the “popular front” government of Leon Blum in France and expressed the hope that his successor would be elected by a popular front. Weyl and Weyl, p. 346.
40 Cárdenas, Lázaro, New Year’s Message of 1938, p. 17.Google Scholar
41 Brandenburg, Frank, “Mexico: An Experiment in One-Party Democracy,” unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1955, pp. 86, 236.Google Scholar
42 Ibid., p. 87.
43 Marbán, Miguel Osorio, El partido revolucionario mexicana (Mexico City: Partido Revolucionario Institucional, 1970), pp. 13, 588.Google Scholar
44 According to El Nacional, the party newspaper, “The implementation of functional democracy in the Mexican Republic will be the norm that invariably will sustain the new Party of the Mexican Revolution.” El Nacional, April 1, 1938, p. 1.
45 The statutes of the PRM appear in Osorio Mar ban, pp. 601–6. For a useful analysis of the PRM Statutes see Brandenburg, , “Mexico: An Experiment in One-Party Democracy,” pp. 84–86 Google Scholar; and Scott, Robert E., Mexican Government in Transition, rev. ed., (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1964),Google Scholar ch. 5 & 6.
46 El Nacional, April 21, 1938, p. 7.
47 For a discussion of how a corporatist regime is based both upon inducements and constraints see Collier, Ruth Berins and Collier, David, “Inducements versus Constraints: Disaggregating ‘Corporatism,’” American Political Science Review (December, 1979), pp. 967–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
48 Shafer, pp. 45–47.
49 New York Times, December 2, 1937, p. 19.
50 Padgett, L. Vincent, The Mexican Political Systems. 2nd ed., (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1976), p. 209–10.Google Scholar
51 See Cornelius, Wayne A., “Nation Building, Participation and Distribution: Reform Under Cárdenas,” Almond, Gabriel, Flanigan, Scott and Mundt, Robert, eds., Crisis Choice and Change: Historical Studies of Political Development (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1973), pp. 455–62.Google Scholar
52 President José Lopez Portillo, recognizing that PRI domination of the electoral system had tended to produce popular indifference to the electoral process, backed the passage of a law (enacted in 1977) that guarantees to the opposition parties a minimum of 100 of 400 seats in the Chamber of Deputies. This reform, of course, has not threatened the PRI’s basic control of the electoral system.
53 Cárdenas secured the acquiesence of the CTM and the CNC to the nomination of Ávila Camacho by promising that he personally would guarantee respect for their interests. Brandenburg, , The Making of Modern Mexico, p. 93.Google Scholar Cárdenas tolerated widespread electoral fraud and coercion to assure the triumph of Ávila Camacho over General Juan Andreu Almazán (who commanded considerable popular support). Cárdenas himself never voted in the 1940 election because when he arrived at the poll to cast his vote he found that the poll already had been closed by an Ávila Camacho general in order to prevent Almazanistas from voting. For a vivid description of the conduct of the 1940 elections see Kirk, Betty, Covering the Mexican Front, (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1942), pp. 239–52.Google Scholar
54 Brandenburg, pp. 155–56.
55 Peter Smith points out that politicians from lower class backgrounds since 1940 only rarely have advanced beyond the Chamber of Deputies. Smith, Peter H., Labyrinths of Power: Political Recruitment in Twentieth Century Mexico (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979), pp. 109, 130, 185.Google Scholar
56 For an excellent analysis of the political elite’s control of the working class in Mexico see Reyna, José Luis, Control político, estabolidady desarrollo en México (Mexico City: Centro de Estudios Sociológicos del Colegio de Mexico, 1974).Google Scholar
57 Peter Smith persuasively argues that the political elite and the economic elite in Mexico come from different social backgrounds and tend to hold differing political views although both elites favor a basically capitalist economic system. See Smith, pp. 191–216.
58 For an analysis of the political elite’s economic strategy see Hansen, Roger D., The Politics of Mexican Development (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1971)Google Scholar; and Looney, Robert E., Mexico’s Economy: A Policy Analysis with Forecasts to 1990 (Bounder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1978).Google Scholar
59 In a 1965 study of “tax effort” (defined as tax revenue as a proportion of gross national product) of eighteen Latin American countries Mexico ranked last. Hansen, p. 84.
60 Hansen, p. 86.
61 Quoted in Sanders, Thomas G., “Mexico in 1975,” American Universities Field Staff Reports, North American Series (September 1975), p. 11.Google Scholar
62 Felix, David, “Income Inequality in Mexico,” Current History (March 1977), p. 111.Google Scholar
63 Bizzarro, Salvator, “Mexico’s Poor” Current History (November 1981), p. 370.Google Scholar
64 Felix, pp. 111–12.
65 Domínguez, Jorge I., “Introduction,” Domínguez, , ed., Mexico’s Political Economy: Challenges at Home and Abroad (Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1982), p. 16.Google Scholar
66 Purcell, John, “Mexican Social Issues,” Purcell, Susan Kaufman, ed., Mexico-United States Relations (Montpelier, Vermont: Capital City Press, 1981), p. 44.Google Scholar
67 The “Political Testament” appears in Flores, Jesus Romero, Lázaro Cárdenas: biografìa de un gran mexicano (Mexico City, 1971), pp. 145–46.Google Scholar
68 Paz, Octavio, “The Last Decade,” Ross, , ed., p. 249.Google Scholar
69 Michels, Robert, Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Emergence of Leadership, The Psychology of Power and the Oligarchical Organization (New York: Dover, 1959).Google Scholar
