A Conflict In Interest Essay Research Paper

A Conflict In Interest Essay, Research Paper

A Conflict in Interest

The twelvemonth 1910 marked the beginning of reform within the Mexican political order. Proposals such as Francisco Madero & # 8217 ; s Plan of San Luis Potosi and The Plan de Ayala by Emiliano Zapata denounced the stiff control of dictator Porfirio Diaz, saying that the bing authorities offered no grants to the Mexican people. In an attempt to subvert Diaz, Madero & # 8217 ; s program for revolution declared the current authorities nonexistent get downing at six O & # 8217 ; clock on the eventide of November 20, 1910. Emiliano Zapata, nevertheless, developed a program ensuing from his ain lost religion in Madero & # 8217 ; s ends and unrealized promises. On November 25, 1910, Zapata offered his ain proposal to & # 8220 ; go on the revolution begun by ( Madero ) & # 8221 ; until the overthrow of the absolutism is achieved. While both work forces declared their ain & # 8220 ; ideals of freedom and justness, & # 8221 ; it is rather apparent that the Plan of San Luis Potosi and The Plan de Ayala developed from really different motives.

A Coahuila hacendado, Francisco Madero was a member of Mexico & # 8217 ; s elite. His end to reform Diaz & # 8217 ; s authorities stemmed from his belief that the current political order would finally take to societal revolution. However, he besides maintained that the democracy must be controlled by an elite, and that & # 8220 ; the nescient public & # 8230 ; should take no portion in finding who should be the campaigner for public office. & # 8221 ; ( Haynes 273 ) .

Emiliano Zapata was a mestizo landholder who gave his support to Madero with the hope that the land stolen from his people by the Porfirista nobility would be returned.

Autochthonal rights and agricultural reform became Zapata & # 8217 ; s driving forces, and when Madero & # 8217 ; s promises of reform were unrealized, he took the reform into his ain custodies.

In respects to the deputation of power, Madero & # 8217 ; s Plan stated that until an election can be held, he would function as & # 8220 ; probationary President. & # 8221 ; He will so confer power upon other & # 8220 ; probationary governments & # 8221 ; and & # 8220 ; probationary Governors & # 8221 ; therefore supplying no direct grounds that the people will hold any engagement in the pick for leaders. Emiliano Zapata, nevertheless, made no attempt in his proposal to denominate a place of power to himself or anyone else, saying that representatives will denominate an interim President one time the revolution is achieved. Through these statements, Madero seemed dying to take control of the authorities, while Zapata focused on functioning the demands and rights of all the Mexican people.

In keeping an semblance

of democracy, Madero stated in his Plan that the new government would collect loans (forced and voluntary) to pay the debt caused by the revolution, and that these loans would be carefully documented and repaid. Just as Diaz had done in his dictatorship, Madero took from the poor in order to pay for the actions of an elite group, all while upholding the image that he was carrying out his plan with the Mexican people in mind. His Plan stated, “The most severe penalties will be applied to the soldiers who sack a town or who kill defenseless prisoners.” This statement was one of few that demonstrate concern for the “defenseless” peasants. Madero addressed the taking of the indigenous peoples’ land by declaring that the land shall be returned to its former owners, and if this is not possible, they will receive indemnity from those who stole their property. Unlike Zapata’s proposal which detailed his plot to return all “fields, timber, and water which the landlords, cientificos, or bosses have usurped…” to those who have the corresponding titles, this vague statement is the only mention of stolen land in the Plan of San Luis Potosi. In fact, while he was president, Madero refused to carry out his land reforms claiming that it would impede the modernization of agriculture. As a result, Zapata’s plan stated that not only will land be returned, but also the possessions of the opposing elite will be “nationalized” and used for “indemnizations of war, pensions for widows and orphans of the victims who succumb in the struggle for the present plan.” The plans for reform that Francisco Madero and Emiliano Zapata presented to the people of Mexico clearly embodied each writer’s incentives. The Plan of San Luis Potosi concentrated on Madero’s individual concerns, such as the delegation of authority and monetary funds, while barely addressing the concerns of the peasants and working class. The fact that once Madero obtained power, much of Porfirio Diaz’s government—the very political order that Madero claimed to oppose—remained intact is further evidence that he was, to quote Zapata, merely “satisfying his personal ambitions.” Throughout the entire struggle, Zapata, on the other hand, maintained his desire to represent the peasants of Mexico, and in his Plan de Ayala, never expressed any intention to assume a position of power. Each detail of his proposal illustrated how his plan will serve and involve the Mexican people entirely, thus further demonstrating the inherent differences in the motivations and priorities in the visions of Francisco Madero and Emiliano Zapata.