Editor's Choice
Was the Mexican Revolution of 1910–1917 successful?
Quick answer:
The Mexican Revolution of 1910-1917 had mixed success. It ended a dictatorship and established a constitutional republic, achieving some democratic ideals. However, political turmoil persisted, with a series of authoritarian leaders and limited land reform, except during Lazaro Cardenas' presidency. The Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) dominated politics for decades, often undermining true democratic principles. While it formalized elections, power largely remained concentrated, leading to debates over the revolution's ultimate success in achieving its goals.
This question contains the seeds to its own answer. Jumping briefly ahead to the tail end of the revolution, political turmoil, including considerable violence, continued well past 1917, finally winding down many years later with the presidency of Lazaro Cardenas, elected in 1934. Indeed, the earliest date at which many historians place the end of the revolution is 1920, a seriously premature judgement given subsequent developments in Mexico.
The Mexican Revolution, irrespective of the exact period of time ascribed to it, was somewhat successful insofar as it removed a dictatorial regime and replaced it with a constitutional republic. That in itself constitutes success. Continued attempts at autocratic power by a succession of actors, however, precludes the resolution of the debate regarding the revolution’s success. Well-intentioned politicians and revolutionaries (e.g., Francisco Madero, Emiliano Zapata, Pascual Orozco) fought for land reform and an elimination of old-style autocratic and corrupt figures but invariably...
Unlock This Answer Now
Start your 48-hour free trial and get ahead in class. Boost your grades with access to expert answers and top-tier study guides. Thousands of students are already mastering their assignments—don't miss out. Cancel anytime.
Already a member? Log in here.
confronted obstacles in the form of less reform-minded and more autocratic figures like Victoriano Huerta and Venustiano Carranza. The “revolution,” therefore, continued without resolution for many years. Additionally, the role of the United States in attempting to protect American interests in Mexico and along the still-newly-established international border fed the chaos that characterized Mexican politics throughout this period.
One can continue to question the revolution’s success, as it extended, in many ways, beyond the period 1910–1917. For 71 years, from 1929 to 2000, the Mexican government was dominated by a single political party, the National Revolutionary Party, which was later renamed the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI). Envisioned by founder Plutarco Elías Calles as a consensus, roundtable form of government in which the various factions fighting for influence and power could work together, it inevitably evolved into a status-quo organization devoted to its own self-perpetuation.
The Mexican Revolution was a success in that it formalized the notion of constitutional democracy or republic. Elections were regularly held during the 20th century. Until 2000, however, the PRI retained power, which included, of course, institutionalization of its interests through control of the civil service. The PRI’s power brought into question the nature of Mexico’s democratic institutions, but the party’s loss at the turn of the 21st century reaffirmed the view of Mexico as a true democracy. For that reason, if no other, the revolution succeeded.
I would argue that it was not. The goals that the revolutionaries were supposedly pursuing really did not get accomplished, even though the PRI stayed in power for decades as the "revolutionary" party.
The revolution was supposed to bring about democracy and a system that would be more in tune with the needs of the common people. Instead, it brought about one party rule that was often authoritarian. Economically, it did not really do much to redistribute land the way it was supposed to (particularly outside of the presidency of Lazaro Cardenas). It did promote unions, but the unions often worked for the benefit of their leaders and the PRI rather than the benefit of the people.
In short, the revolution led to a system in which power remained pretty firmly held in the hands of a very few people. This was not what the revolution was meant to accomplish.