Dolores Trevizo uses the introductory chapter of “Rural Protest and the Making of
Democracy in Mexico, 1968-2000,” to prove the non-violent grassroots social movements in the
rural communities of Mexico were the catalyst behind the transition from a Neoliberal/semi-
authoritarian structure to democracy . For many years it was popular belief that Mexico’s
democratization was a product of powerful businessmen and international economic forces.
Trevizo addresses this issue by stating the transition was a slow-moving process with a
grassroots base that went under-studied and without credit for many years. It is now known that
the majority of Mexican History was written with a bias from the elitists that painted the
indigenous …show more content…
After Diaz was out of power in 1910, politics and economics were
largely controlled by the PRI using manipulative and unethical strategies to keep the people at
bay, and to essentially buy their votes . Another strategy the government used after the Diaz
regime was to tell the people that they would follow the 1917 constitution in order to garner votes, and then abandon their promise once they were put into power. The neoliberal approach
which turned to be semi-authoritarian ran by the PRI held leverage over the people and the
economy, leaving the lower class to feel “as supplicants at the feet of the state .” As a result of
the PRI’s repressive ways and neglect of the people, these indigenous rural people starting to
speak up for their rights using non-violent protests. These non-violent protests lead to
Democracy in Mexico, 1968-2000,” to prove the non-violent grassroots social movements in the
rural communities of Mexico were the catalyst behind the transition from a Neoliberal/semi-
authoritarian structure to democracy . For many years it was popular belief that Mexico’s
democratization was a product of powerful businessmen and international economic forces.
Trevizo addresses this issue by stating the transition was a slow-moving process with a
grassroots base that went under-studied and without credit for many years. It is now known that
the majority of Mexican History was written with a bias from the elitists that painted the
indigenous …show more content…
After Diaz was out of power in 1910, politics and economics were
largely controlled by the PRI using manipulative and unethical strategies to keep the people at
bay, and to essentially buy their votes . Another strategy the government used after the Diaz
regime was to tell the people that they would follow the 1917 constitution in order to garner votes, and then abandon their promise once they were put into power. The neoliberal approach
which turned to be semi-authoritarian ran by the PRI held leverage over the people and the
economy, leaving the lower class to feel “as supplicants at the feet of the state .” As a result of
the PRI’s repressive ways and neglect of the people, these indigenous rural people starting to
speak up for their rights using non-violent protests. These non-violent protests lead to