Professor of History at Oxford University Alan Knight gave a presentation titled “The Mexican Revolution: Success or Failure?” on Sept. 29. A scholar on the topic and of Latin American history as a whole, Knight is the author of the award winning two-volume collection, The Mexican Revolution.
Knight began his talk by drawing a connection between Hamilton College’s history and that of the Mexico. Just as Hamilton celebrates its bicentennial this year, Mexico has also commemorated two important anniversaries recently: The 200th anniversary of the Mexican War of Independence and the 100th anniversary of the Mexican Revolution took place just last year.
After making this link, Knight delved into his three-part argument. The first portion dealt with history in general and the different ways in which people expect historians to relay the past. Using a cricket analogy, qualified by a baseball comparison to guarantee the audience’s understanding, Knight described the view that history only tells the stories of superstars—those who “hit homeruns”, or come out of wars victorious. Others have the expectation that history serves as a “moral tale, with its heroes and its villains.” Ultimately, Knight believes that when relating any past event, “a historian must explain who won and why.”
With respect to the Mexican Revolution, he said it “was a success in one very obvious respect… It took power and defeated the old regime.” But the Mexican Revolution had other accomplishments, ones that Knight believes are best approached by a historian objectively.
In the second part of his talk, Knight enumerated the goals of the Mexican Revolution: liberal democracy, relieving social tensions, autonomy, land and labor reform and “developmentalism.”
Knight explained that the Mexican Revolution began as a challenge to the Porfiriato, which Porfirio Díaz had originally declared a democratic regime. However, his policies moved away from that vision as his reign proceeded. He blatantly disregarded Mexico’s Constitution of 1857, which clearly defined the terms of “no reelection.”
Considered the leader of the revolution, Francisco Madero became president in 1911. Díaz had prevented Madero’s election by having him thrown in jail, but once light was brought upon the illegality of the dictator’s actions, Madero replaced him. In Madero’s Plan de San Luis Potosí, Madero defined his intentions for a return to a more democratic policy: “free suffrage and no reelection.”
While Madero’s visions for liberal democracy were not fully realized after his term ended with Victoriano Huerta’s coup d’état, the ways of the old regime—the Porfiriato—did not resurface.
Knight attributed the various policy shifts throughout the Mexican Revolution, in part, to social tensions that existed in Mexico at the time. “Revolutionary parties rarely come to power through the ballot box,” he said.
Two classes that played major roles in the Mexican Revolution were peasants and urban workers. The peasants pushed for land reform, hoping to obtain their own plots and bring an “end to the old landed elite.” In the state of Morelos, land was divided into ejidos—communal farming areas that usually included a school for peasant children. Knight said that ejidos was a way for the state to “mobilize the peasant clientele.” What began as a political attack against the state became a way in which the government was able to strengthen itself, said Knight.
The urban working class found the ideals of liberal democracy appealing, as they wanted to protect their economic interests. They lobbied and unionized, forming a sort of “‘revolution within the Revolution,’” said Knight, referencing the title of a book by historian Jeffrey Bortz. An alliance formed between the laborers and the state, which resulted in benefits for workers such as increased wages and social security.
While various groups had their victories during the Revolution, Knight asserted that the “real winners” were the Sonorans Álvaro Obregón and Plutarco Elías Calles. As the “architects of the new state,” they were the leaders whose “visions triumphed.”
Knight’s idea of “developmentalism” refers to increased productivity and general improvements made about Mexico. He cited three major effects of this goal. First, the state felt a greater sense of urgency when it came to reforming the state. Second, military veterans who had proven themselves worthy in a sort of “Darwinian struggle” were brought to power. And finally, new bonds were formed between the state and the people.
Finally, Knight shared objective assessments about the Revolution. He spoke about the Revolution’s success in terms of GDP growth. While Mexico experienced economic troubles immediately following the war, the country recovered quickly from them. Knight looked at land reform as a way in which the country succeeded, economically and otherwise. Through the redistribution of land, Mexico reached a state of peace with the peasants, modernized its economy and improved peasant welfare.
Finally, Knight posed the question: “Was it all worth it?” When answering this question, Knight quoted Shakespeare, saying that the Revolution was not “a tale of sound and fury signifying nothing.” He described it as a “qualified success,” given that any sort of uprising has the power to “create as well as destroy.”
