Caciquismo and Democracy: Mexico and Beyond

Abstract

The publication of Knight and Pansters's (2005) Caciquismo in Twentieth-Century Mexico (2005) renewed a debate about the significance of caciquismo [boss rule] in Mexican politics that has spanned more than five decades. The volume's immediate goal was to extend and deepen earlier historical studies of caciquismo in post-revolutionary Mexico (especially Brading, 1980). The editors and contributing authors succeeded admirably in this task, shedding new light on the role of caciques 1 (local or regional bosses) in different regions, sectors and time periods. At the same time, their research raised important questions concerning the broader relationship between caciquismo and different kinds of political regime (authoritarianism versus democracy) and about the ways in which Mexico's slow, uneven process of democratisation has affected -and has been shaped by -instances of cacical domination.Caciquismo in Twentieth-Century Mexico thus contributed to broader, multidisciplinary exchanges about the scope and impact of democratisation in Mexico and, by extension, in Latin America more generally. Political scientists' and sociologists' interest in caciquismo peaked during the 1960s and 1970s when, for example, some analysts focused on local leaders as brokers or intermediaries in countries confronting challenges of national political integration (Chalmers, 1972: 110-111; Valenzuela, 1977: 155-68). At the time, many scholars viewed the phenomenon as a traditional, predominantly rural form of personalist domination that would disappear under the relentless, 'modernising' pressures of socio-economic change and rural-urban migration. Even those researchers who documented the presence of cacicazgos [instances of cacical rule, or political fiefdoms] in other contexts, particularly in urban squatter settlements, generally assumed that caciques would eventually be doomed to political extinction. And, with the gradual instauration of civilian democratic rule throughout the region after 1 The general literature on this topic includes prominent examples of female bosses (cacicas). However, for simplicity of expression this article employs the term only in its more common, masculine form. 411Kevin J. Middlebrook the late 1970s, many political scientists shifted their attention to more conventional political phenomena such as elections, political parties and the multiple challenges of democratic consolidation. More recently, however, some scholars have revisited related topics such as electoral clientelism and vote-buying (Auyero, 2001) -albeit sometimes in a more 'formal', mathematical fashion than their predecessors (Brusco, Nazareno and Stokes, 2004;Stokes, 2005) -as part of a growing interest in informal institutions and their political significance (Lauth, 2000;Helmke and Levitsky, 2004). Somewhat paradoxically, then, even those who apply formal methods to the study of contemporary Latin American politics pay at least indirect homage to the continuing importance of those quintessentially informal political operators, caciques...

Power, elites, State and politics. The new politician on the scene

“…The Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) maintained the leadership of the government for almost seven decades, interrupted by a period of 12 years (2000-2012) of a supposed partisan alternation with the National Action Party (PAN); also representative of the right. With a subsequent return of the PRI to the leadership of the Mexican State (2012)(2013)(2014)(2015)(2016)(2017)(2018), this situation is an example of how the power relations between the State and the elites were consolidated under a democratic image, but which actually meant the development of cacique practices and political clientelism at the regional level (Middlebrook, 2009).…”

GAMONALES WHO MAKE A CITY: Intimate Interactions in City Building

“…This transition is associated with rapid urbanization and the modernization of the state (Leal and Dávila, 1990), and scholars have remarked on a transformation from rural particularities--where power and authority are tied to control and access to land in isolated regions (Powell, 1970)--to a 'modern' condition, tied to the control of social organizations (e.g. labor unions) or political institutions (Middlebrook, 2009). In the face of such transition, 'traditional' forms of patronage are generally portrayed as a relationship that is not urban and is slowly bound to disappear.…”

Crossing Borders: Mexican State Practices, Managing Migration, and the Construction of “Unsafe” Travelers

“…This situation does not mean that the transition to democracy has been “completed.” As we know from the experiences of regime transitions in the Southern cone, the road to democracy is long, arduous, and never finished. In the case of the Mexican state, many authoritarian practices are still in place (Middlebrook, ). Moreover, the return of the PRI to power on December 1, 2012, also highlights some doubts about the process of democratization.…”