The 1968 Student Movement and Social Democracy

The 1968 Student Movement in Mexico was a protest against the political, economic, and social order under the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI). They criticized the PRI as party that claimed to represent the ideals of the Mexican Revolution of 1910, when in fact they had totally turned away from those ideals. The Mexican Revolution was a fight for all Mexicans to have freedom, democracy, and a more egalitarian society but its political momentum was halted by the PRI. Instead, the PRI and its leadership were too capitalist, right-wing, authoritarian, and oppressive. In response, the 1968 student movement sought the recalibration of society from one that was dominated by oligarchical, capitalist interests into one that was more socialist, democratic and equal. This was reflected in the six demands they wanted of the government, what they went to protest for, and in the way they structured their organization through revolving community leadership of its student committees. In effect, the way the student movement structured themselves was how they believed an ideal society in Mexico should be structured. A democratic society where everyone participated in the political process, where no one was left out, and where no one person or group had too much authority and power. Only the goals of egalitarianism, democracy, and social justice would reign supreme. To understand why the student movement of 1968 occurred in Mexico, one has to understand the history of the Mexican Revolution of 1910, why it began, its successes, its failures and how it resulted in the one party state of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI). This is because the Mexican Revolution was an important event in Mexican history and culture. Plus, it remains an importance reference point from which Mexican politics can be compared to, analyzed, and criticized. For one, the Mexican Revolution was fought to overthrow the administration of Porfirio Diaz. Though officially a “president” of Mexico, he was effectively an autocrat who stayed in power for a long amount of time, only disturbed by the short period in which he let a like-minded Manuel Gonzales rule in his stead. He wished to create a façade in Mexico that it was a liberal democracy even though elections were rigged and political corruption was rampant. Under his administration, Mexico saw its economy grow and become modernized but this newfound wealth funneled up to the rich, politically powerful upper classes and foreign investors who profited of the natural resources of Mexico at the expense of the majority of Mexicans who were poor, working-class campesinos. Also, haciendas were big and powerful under his regime and stole vast among of lands from rural, Mexican campesinos. Without land, the Mexican peasantry could not feed itself or sell their surplus for their own benefit. They had no choice but to work on the haciendas for long hours, low wages, and brutal conditions or starve. The Mexican revolution then started in 1910 when the average Mexican became fed up with Diaz and it was fought by various groups who believed in egalitarian ideas such as agrarian land reform by Zapata and democracy such as Madero. Many people died and there were large power struggles by revolutionary leaders who really believed in the grassroots ideals of the Mexican Revolution (Zapata, Villa) and those who wanted to use the revolution as a prop to gain their own political power (The PRI during Calles and after Cardenas). The radical constitution of 1917 was created which was to embody the spirit and ideals of the Mexican Revolution. It was supposed to provide a kind of road map which the political leadership was supposed to follow in order to provide workers’ rights (such as workers comp, rest days, safe working conditions), allow labor unions to organize, nationalize its natural resources, women get equal pay for equal work, etc. Though it had high and revolutionary ideals, they were mostly ignored by corrupt, political charlatans who were subject to the interests of a small group of businessmen. That was the case until Lazaro Cardenas came into the political scene. He went the farthest to achieve the goals of the radical constitution of 1917. He made himself distant and independent of the “Jefe Maximo”, Plutarco Elia Calles, who promised to be a populist leader who would fight for worker’s rights but later became authoritarian, and corrupt, very much like the party he founded that later on became the PRI. Cardenas began to implement some of the progressive promises made by the 1917 constitution which past presidents of the Revolution had failed to do. He supported the labor unions, he implemented agrarian reform on a large scale, and he nationalized the oil industry, railroads, etc. Cardenas snubbed the political interests of businessmen, landlords, and foreign interests from the United States. He was like the Mexican FDR, a progressive, idealist, and future thinking leader. He wasn’t afraid to wield his vast political power in order to benefit the poor and the common people of Mexico. He helped to breathe life into the Mexican Constitution of 1917 and helped restored the people’s faith in the ideals of the Mexican Revolution. Sadly, when Cardenas left office the political institutions which he created to be progressive and help the poor were overtaken by subsequent leaders who put the political system of Mexico under the control of the right-wing, thus eroding the political gains made by Cardenas for the working-class. This came to be the long history of the state political party of the PRI, which dominated Mexican politics through political repression, corruption and with the support and control of the capitalist class, both foreign and domestic. The 1968 student movement in Mexico was an attempt by civic minded, idealist young college students who felt that the PRI was giving working-class Mexico a raw deal and wanted to shift back the political system from one that was oppressively right-wing towards one that was more leftwing. They wanted to do this by demanding more democracy and social justice from their political leaders. The ideals of the Mexican revolution were usurped by the PRI and the political possibilities of the 1917 Mexican constitution were left forgotten. The student movement wanted to reignite that revolutionary fervor and fight for justice. According to Paco Ignacio Taibo in his book ’68, the demands of the student movement from the government were: the freedom of political prisoners, the repeal of laws which were used to prevent and repress political dissidents, the dismissal of police leaders, the abolition of riot police, the compensation for the families of murdered political dissidents, and the apportionment of blame of those in power who implemented repressive measures. These specific demands underline a broader goal of the Movement, which was to bring more democracy to the country and free the country from the repressive hand of the PRI. The 1968 student movement wanted more democracy and the political rights that came with it such as freedom to assembly and free speech. How they organized themselves was a reflection of how they thought an egalitarian, just, democratic society would be structured. According to Taibo, the student movement did not have one authoritarian leader or voice leading them. Their leadership which called themselves the National Strike Council consisted of many students, schools, and other supporters. The way it was set up was to be a horizontal power structure where everyone had to vote and reach a majority in order to move forward with a decision. There were three leaders who represented a certain school or college, and this leadership was periodically and frequently rotated so that not one leader became entrenched in their political system. In effect, their organization was not hierarchical, or authoritarian in the way they thought the PRI organized themselves. Plus, it made it very hard for the PRI to infiltrate and take over the leadership if it had wanted to. Therefore, according to Taibo, the only means by which the PRI could suppress the student council was through “isolation and repression.” I don’t believe that the 1968 student movement was effective in reaching its goals. The way they thought society should be structured was not the eventual conclusion of their Movement. They underestimated the repressive power structure of the PRI, its control of the media, and the manipulation of popular opinion. They did not understand what lengths the PRI would go towards repressing the strike. It scared a lot of people and the movement eventually fizzled out. The PRI remained in power for a long time and do so still today. Political corruption is still rampant and they remain a conservative party that remains in favor of neoliberal policies. For example, the unpopular free-trade agreement known as NAFTA passed in the 90s, while the PRI was in power, which resulted in benefits for the poor at the expense of the poor, and middle-class. In conclusion, the 1968 student movement was a movement for social democracy that opposed the PRI. This struggle was rooted in the political history of the Mexican Revolution of 1910. The Movement envision a more just, egalitarian, and democratic society and based its own organization and structure on these ideals in opposition to the PRI who were anti-democratic and hierarchical. It came to a close in October 2, 1968 with the repression of the student movement through excessive force and media manipulation. The PRI usurped the political capital of the Mexican Revolution of 1910 for its own purposes and the student movement was unable to recalibrate the political system from the right to the left.