The negative aspects of the Porfiriato in Mexico mostly focus on the lack of public freedoms and the repression suffered by indigenous people and political opponents.
Likewise, this period is blamed for having created an elite that would be the one that would take advantage of the economic advance, compared to a pauperized majority.
It is known as Porfiriato in Mexico the period between November 28, 1876 and May 25, 1911, during the government of Porfirio Díaz, with a brief four-year hiatus with another ruler.
Díaz was a military man who seized power through an armed rebellion, and he resigned from office due to the succession of events that would lead to the Mexican Revolution.
Five main negative aspects of the Porfiriato
Although no one denies the economic and infrastructure development that Mexico had during the Porfiriato, the truth is that this is a period with many chiaroscuro. The main negative aspects are highlighted below:
one-
The period during which Porfirio Díaz was president can be defined with the maxim “Order and progress”. These words mean that it was necessary to maintain order to achieve economic progress in the country.
To achieve that goal, Díaz did not hesitate to resort to brutal repression against political rivals who did not support him.
There are several examples of this, such as the use of violence by the army to end peasant uprisings, or the uprising of the Lerdistas in 1879.
Likewise, the Porfiriato did not allow freedom of the press, and numerous opponents or labor leaders were executed after trials without any guarantees.
two-
Indigenous populations were among the most negatively affected during the Porfiriato.
On the one hand, the government issued a series of decrees that benefited large landowners, causing indigenous peoples to lose part of their communal lands. Many times these ended up in the hands of foreign owners.
On the other hand, it harshly repressed indigenous cultures that dared to demand more rights, both social and economic.
It should be borne in mind that the indigenous people were part of the poorest segment of the country, because nothing of the wealth that was being generated was reaching them.
3-
It was not only the indigenous people who lived in poverty. It is estimated that most of the population lived in miserable conditions, in neighborhoods without any type of public services.
There was a great growth of inequality, which caused different rebellions and strikes that were put down by force.
In the countryside the workers lived in almost feudal conditions, while in the city (in which a timid middle class was beginning to appear eager to prosper) the workers saw how their wages were below the real cost of living.
4-
It wasn't just the low wages that made life very difficult for the workers. The lack of labor rights also made them almost slaves.
In the countryside, conditions were difficult for the peasants. There were different laws that favored smallholders losing their lands or, in the case of indigenous people, their communal lands.
After this, they were practically at the mercy of the large landowners. They did not have any right of association or any labor advantage and, furthermore, they found themselves without any alternative but to emigrate to the city.
Of course, in the city, the workers did not have any of these rights either. Unions were not allowed and there were still many cases of child labor.
The control exercised over these workers reached such an extent that reading was prohibited, as the bosses claimed that books and newspapers could be subversive.
5-
As a counterpart to all this mass of population below the poverty index, there was an elite that did benefit from the economic improvements that this period brought. In addition, Díaz favored that these economically privileged were part of the political elite.
Apart from the large landowners, it was the owners of industries who benefited the most from the inflow of wealth.
The labor legislation promoted that the great majority of the gains were in the hands of these great oligarchs.
Added to this is corruption, which was quite common in some parts of the government and which favored the aspirations of the economic elites over the general population.
References
- Mexico history. The Porfiriato. Obtained from historiademexicobreve.com
- Duque Hernández, Fernanda. Porfirio Díaz: between right and wrong. (July 2, 2015). Retrieved from mexiconewsnetwork.com
- Lomnitz, Claudio. Questions about the Porfiriato. (July 1, 2015). Obtained from nexos.com.mx
- Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica. Porfirio Diaz. (February 19, 2011). Retrieved from britannica.com
- Collections of the Library of Congress. Mexico During the Porfiriato. Recovered from loc.gov