Modernization in Mexico under Diaz

Modernization in Mexico

• Modernization during the Diaz regime wasn't just about positive economic planning, brute force also played a key role.
• Diaz maintained power (1876-1911) through political maneuvering, intimidation, and force.
• Governments held elections, but they were rigged in favor of local family oligarchs allied with the government.
• The press was heavily censored; journalists critical of the regime faced jail or exile.
• Díaz used political opponents against each other and bribed them to maintain control.
• Key government officials and family members were moved around to limit the power base they could cultivate
• People cooperated with the regime to obtain political favors and economic concessions.
• Díaz's advisors (cientificos) often displayed a racist view of Mexicans (e.g., a white Argentine was considered better than 14 million Mexicans)
• The army and rurales (Díaz's praetorian guard) were crucial to maintaining order.
• Rural police were used to guard shipments from mines, provide local law enforcement (in some cases more brutal than useful).
• The military was used for both political and administrative functions.
• The military received significant funding (1/4 of the total budget in 1900) despite relative peace.
• Many scientific advisors considered indigenous people inferior, and the government policies perpetuated these concepts .
• Scientific advisors did study Mexican realities, and some even called for aristocratic leadership.
• Wealthy landowners (hacendados) were crucial to the Mexican economy, but peasants paid the price for modernization.
• Many haciendas controlled large tracts of land, often acquired through questionable means. Local officials and foreign entrepreneurs took advantage.
• Hacienda owners controlled many aspects of life on their land, often to exploited workers.
• Peasants had few legal rights, and their living conditions were often miserable. Workers often lived in dangerous, cramped conditions.
• Working conditions were generally poor for campesinos, wages were low, and access to legal recourse was limited.
• Local elites often used corrupt means to acquire land, resulting in widespread dissatisfaction.
• Land ownership was concentrated in the hands of a few powerful families, often pushing campesinos to desperate measures.
• The average daily wage and the cost of basic goods increased significantly, significantly hurting the campesino.