Not available / text

No description available.

No description available.

The subject of this thesis is the "San Andres Agreements on Indigenous Rights and Culture". Born out of a process of negotiation between the Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN), the Mexican government and various representatives of civil society, these agreements reflect and attempt to incorporate in the constitution, for the first time in Mexican history, individual and collective rights of indigenous peoples. Through ethnography and discourse analysis, the thesis addresses the political, economic and ideological issues underlying the exchanges between the various parties to the negotiations. It presumes a dominant government discourse and a marginal discourse advanced by the zapatista party in an effort to change the fundamental tenets of Mexican politics. The debate generated by the San Andres agreements is highlighted in order to examine its repercussions and the role it has played in bringing current indigenous claims to public attention.

Made available in DSpace on 2014-06-11T19:26:22Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2006-11-07Bitstream added on 2014-06-13T20:34:18Z : No. of bitstreams: 1 budaibes_a_me_fran.pdf: 446017 bytes, checksum: b2f0a380ed5ba6232787975c1ddafb91 (MD5) / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) / La presente tesis de maestría analiza, por medio del estudio de algunas de las principales obras del abogado, periodista, político e historiador Carlos María de Bustamante (Oaxaca, 1744-1848), su actuación como propagador de ideas que pretendían concienciar la población sobre el momento histórico que le era contemporáneo. Cronológicamente esto trabajo abarca desde la fundación del primer periódico de la Nueva España, el Diario de México - de lo cual fue el editor -, en 1805, hasta 1845, fecha en la cual apareció la obra los Apuntes del gobierno de Santa Anna. En sus artículos publicados en el Diario de México, el autor buscó moralizar y civilizar la plebe en una tentativa de mejorar la vida de los habitantes de Nueva España. Con el comienzo de las guerras de independencia, el autor buscó sobre todo propagar las acciones de los ejércitos insurgentes en las páginas del periódico Correo Americano del Sur. Consumada la independencia, Bustamante se concentró en la tarea de concienciar a sus contemporáneos a respecto de los descarríos y la inmoralidad de los gobernantes, y con el objetivo de dejar una lección para las generaciones futuras escribió la obra Apuntes del gobierno de Santa Anna en la cual criticó duramente a un de los gobernantes más contundentes de México en el siglo XIX, el general Antonio López de Santa Anna. / A presente dissertação de mestrado analisa, por meio do estudo de algumas das principais obras do advogado, jornalista, político e historiador Carlos María de Bustamante (Oaxaca, 1744-1848), sua atuação como propagador de idéias a partir das quais pretendia conscientizar a população sobre o momento histórico que lhe era contemporâneo. Cronologicamente este trabalho abarca desde a fundação do primeiro jornal da Nova Espanha, o Diario de México - do qual foi o editor -, em 1805, até em 1845, data na qual apareceu a obra os Apuntes del gobierno de Santa Anna. Em seus artigos publicados no Diario de México, Bustamante procurou moralizar e civilizar a plebe em uma tentativa de melhorar a vida dos habitantes da Nova Espanha. Com o início das guerras de emancipação, o autor preocupou-se sobretudo, em propagar as ações dos exércitos insurgentes por meio das páginas do jornal Correo Americano del Sur. Consumada a independência, Bustamante concentrou-se na tarefa de conscientizar seus contemporâneos sobre os deslizes e a imoralidade dos governantes, e com o objetivo de deixar uma lição para as gerações futuras escreveu a obra Apuntes del gobierno de Santa Anna, na qual criticou duramente a um dos governantes mais contundentes do México no século XIX, o general Antonio López de Santa Anna.

No description available.

No description available.

Thesis (MA)--Stellenbosch University, 2013. / Bibliography / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: This research study analyzes the Mexican drug war’s impact on the state’s federal political system of shared sovereignty. Transnational criminal organizations (TCOs) such as drug cartels have grown in strength due to shifting dynamics of the global drug trade. This growth in power, both in relation to the use of physical force and the influence over Mexican society, has challenged the state’s authority and monopoly of violence. After the inauguration of President Felipe Calderón in 2006, the government launched an all-in offensive, dedicating the entire state system to ridding the country of the drug cartels. Results of the offensive have been mixed and vary from area to area. However, trends indicate that the offensive has caused power vacuums and increased rivalry among the drug cartels. National homicide statistics show the government offensive has distorted the balance of power among the drug cartels, causing increased competition in an already hypercompetitive market. The majority of Mexico’s modern history consists of the era of single-party dominance, where the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) dominated the political system on both vertical and horizontal levels. The recent growth of federal executive power during Calderón’s administration has caused concern about whether the democratic progress made during the last decade could be reversed – returning the country back to former autocratic practices of governance. This reversal also involves the concentration of power in the center. For the last few decades, the country has been decentralizing its political system in accordance to federal principles laid down by its Constitution. The involvement of the military, a federal instrument of security that has in some cases taken over jurisdiction from state and local authorities, has been causing debate on whether the executive power is violating its constitutional limits of power. With this, the primary research question of this study uses theoretical concepts and is formulated thusly: How do violent non-state actors (VNSAs) impact federalism in Mexico? Mexico was chosen as a case study because of its growing struggle against the drug cartels, a sub-branch of non-state actors (NSAs). The Westphalian state order has changed dramatically with globalization, changing realities with regard to the use of physical violence. This is especially the case in reference to VNSAs, where the use of violence maintains an informal system of order. With the rise of the powerful drug cartels, a direct result of the global drug trade that hides in the shadows of globalization, Mexico’s case is not unique. Colombia struggled with a similar scenario during the 1980s and 1990s. However, the security situation in Mexico has proven to be constantly evolving and very intense during a time of political transition. This study shows that the federal executive branch of the Mexican government has not violated its constitutional limits of the use of power, although the Mexican Constitution of 1917 has proven to be vague in reference to the use of the military in peacetime. This vagueness could undermine regional sovereignty and federal principles laid down by the Constitution. The study also indicates that the increasing levels of violence are affecting the functionality of regional governance, as well as freedom of the press. Homicide statistics show that since the government launched its offensive in 2006, there has been a significant increase in assassinations targeting both mayors and journalists. Overall, there is no indication that the drug war has influenced federalism in Mexico. Rather, the drug war has exposed institutional weaknesses, causing increased demand for and investment in professionalizing state institutions. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Hierdie navorsingstudie analiseer die impak van die Meksikaanse dwelmoorlog op Meksiko se federale politieke stelsel van gedeelde soewereiniteit. Transnasionale kriminele organisasies (TKO’s), byvoorbeeld dwelmkartelle, se mag het toegeneem as gevolg van die verskuiwende dinamika in globale dwelmhandel. Die staat se gesag en magsmonopolie word uitgedaag as gevolg van hierdie toename in mag, beide met betrekking tot die owerhede se gebruik van fisieke mag en hul gesag oor die Meksikaanse gemeenskap. Na die inhuldiging van president Felipe Calderón in 2006, het die regering ’n alles insluitende offensief van stapel gestuur om van die land se dwelmkartelle ontslae te probeer raak. Hierdie offensief toon wisselende vordering en die impak daarvan verskil van area tot area. Ten spyte van hierdie mate van vordering, het die offensief egter aanleiding gegee tot magsvakuums en ’n toename in wedywering tussen dwelmkartelle. Nasionale moordsyfers dui daarop dat hierdie regeringsoffensief die magsbalans tussen dwelmkartelle versteur het, wat gelei het tot ’n toename in kompetisie in ’n reeds uiters kompeterende mark. Meksiko se moderne geskiedenis bestaan hoofsaaklik uit ’n era van eenpartydominansie, waar die Institusionele Rewolusionêre Party (Institutional Revolutionary Party, IRP) die politieke stelsel op beide vertikale en horisontale vlak gedomineer het. Die onlangse opkoms van die federale uitvoerende mag tydens die Calderón-administrasie wek kommer dat die vordering wat in die laaste dekade gemaak is ten opsigte van demokratisering van die politieke stelsel, omvergewerp sal word en dat Meksiko die gevaar sal loop om terug te keer na sy voormalige outokratiese en gesentraliseerde regeerpraktyke. Oor die afgelope paar dekades het die land juis pogings aangewend om sy politieke stelsel te desentraliseer na aanleiding van federale beginsels soos neergelê in die grondwet. Die weermag – ’n federale instrument vir sekuriteit – het alreeds op sekere plekke jurisdiksie by staats- en plaaslike owerhede oorgeneem. Dit het gelei tot debatte oor of die uitvoerende mag sy grondwetlike magsbeperkinge oorskry. Na aanleiding van Meksiko se huidige politieke situasie, asook teoretiese konsepte soos die staat, federalisme, nie-staatsakteurs en globale dwelmhandel, word die primêre navorsingsvraag vir hierdie studie soos volg geformuleer: Hoe beïnvloed gewelddadige nie-staatsakteurs federalisme in Meksiko? Om hierdie vraag te beantwoord, word daar gebruik gemaak van sekondêre bronne, (beperkte) insig oor die dwelmkartelle se handelspraktyke en ’n ondersoek na die linguistiese beperkinge op die gebruik van amptelike Meksikaanse regeringspublikasies. Meksiko is as gevallestudie vir hierdie navorsingsprojek gekies vanweë die land se toenemende stryd teen dwelmkartelle, ’n subvertakking van nie-staatsakteurs. Die Westfaalse staatsorde wat eeue lank die wettige gebruik van fisieke geweld beheer het, het dramaties verander met die opkoms van globalisering. Dit is veral die geval by gewelddadige nie-staatsakteurs, waar die gebruik van geweld tans ’n informele stelsel van orde handhaaf. Die opkoms van Meksiko se magtige dwelmkartelle, ’n direkte gevolg van globale dwelmhandel (wat in die skadu van globalisering skuil), is egter nie enig in sy soort nie. Alhoewel Colombië byvoorbeeld in die 1980’s en 1990’s ’n soortgelyke probleem ondervind het, het die sekuriteitstoestand in Meksiko getoon dat dit steeds ontwikkelend van aard en hewig ten tye van politieke oorgang is, wat dit toepaslik vir hierdie studie maak. Die gevolgtrekking waartoe daar in hierdie studie gekom word, is dat die federale uitvoerende tak van die Meksikaanse regering tot dusver nie sy grondwetlike beperkinge ten opsigte van die uitoefening van mag oorskry het nie. Die Meksikaanse grondwet van 1917 is egter vaag oor die weermag se bevoegdheid om gesag af te dwing tydens vredestye. Hierdie vaagheid kan moontlik die streeksoewereiniteit en federale beginsels wat deur die grondwet verskans word, ondermyn. Daar is ook bepaal dat die toenemende geweld sowel die funksionaliteit van die streeksregering as die vryheid van die pers, beïnvloed. Moordsyfers in Meksiko dui daarop dat daar sedert 2006 ’n beduidende toename in sluipmoordaanvalle op burgemeesters en joernaliste was. Alles in ag genome, is daar egter geen aanduiding daarvan dat die dwelmoorlog wel federalisme in Meksiko geraak het nie. Die impak wat dit wel gemaak het, is om institusionele swakheid in die regering te openbaar, wat tot ’n toename in die aanvraag na en investering in die professionalisering van staatsinstellings gelei het.

The pedracista electoral coalition that was formed in Mexico during the 1828 presidential elections was deliberately ignored by the traditional historiography of the early national period. Instead it concentrated on the leaders of the liberal struggle, deeming this alliance unworthy of study. There were essentially two key reasons why this happened. On the one hand, General Manuel Gómez Pedraza (1789-1851) was not an archetypal liberal patriot in the mould of those heroes that were exalted and written about by Mexico’s Porfirian and PRIísta historians. His politics were associated with a certain ideological indeterminateness as a result of his moderate stance, proving problematic to historians who were intent on developing a liberal and subsequently post-revolutionary historia patria. On the other hand, the official historiography accepted, unquestioningly, the critical version of his actions that his opponents circulated at the time. As a result of this, the yorkino version of the events is the one that prevailed, casting Pedraza in the role of staunch anti-yorkino in a simplistic bipartisan vision of Mexican politics that depicted the political tensions of the time as a clear-cut confrontation between the pedracista aristocrats and the democratic yorkino followers of mulatto hero of the War of Independence, General Vicente Guerrero (1783-1831). This two-dimensional dichotomy has only recently started to be nuanced by the revisionist historiography of the last thirty years. This has been due, in great measure, to the fact that the traditional interpretation of the pedracista coalition posed a number of significant problems when attempting to understand the political behaviour of the people involved. Above all, it was an interpretation that proved incapable of explaining how such a variety of political tendencies, represented by those individuals who joined the alliance that backed Pedraza’s presidential candidacy, could have come together; i.e., anti-masonic groups, the imparciales, certain yorkinos and former escoceses. This thesis aims to explain what brought these individuals, whose political ideas were ostensibly incompatible, together, in what resulted in a particularly resourceful and successful electoral force. The pedracista coalition represented the first political formation in Mexico that came together specifically to win a presidential election. It was one which set out to bring an end to the political interference of Masonic societies in Mexico, and in particular, that of the Rite of York lodges. It also challenged the yorkinos’ electoral campaign by criticising their leader, Guerrero, and, by highlighting the negative aspects of their Masonic faction. It pointed out, moreover, the dangers inherent in a central administration led by guerrerista yorkinos and, in so doing, made clear the problems that were to be found in the political ideas these individuals stood for, depicting them as partisan, ignorant, and representative of the popular classes. The pedracista coalition argued that the presidency needed to go to someone who did not belong to any particular party, who was virtuous, who was renowned for being hard-working and energetic in government, and who belonged to the exclusive circles frequented by the “hombres de bien”. Given that Pedraza won the elections, it is evident that his coalition benefited from a constitutional structure that favoured his candidacy, gaining, at the same time, the public validation of the governmental authorities in place at the time. However, Pedraza’s candidacy was defeated by the armed mobilizations that ensued in the pronunciamientos pro-yorkino followers launched from October to November 1828, and was consequently eliminated from the political scene until late 1832 given that the leaders of the imparciales as well as Pedraza himself chose not to fight back or support a counter-revolution. During the electoral campaign, the pedracista coalition displayed, with astounding clarity, what it thought were the essential qualities a president needed to possess and, likewise presented a distinctive appreciation of how it thought the Mexican political class should behave. In this sense, the coalition’s views, captured in its votes, networks and press articles, offer a fascinating snapshot of what were the fundamental themes of the Mexican republic during its formative years as a nation-state, and how this ignored political grouping interpreted them. Of particular interest is the manner in which the pedracista coalition explored the ways in which political legitimacy, participation and representation were to be understood, defended, and systematised. By studying the pedracista coalition this thesis offers, for the first time, a detailed analysis of the nature and dynamics of Mexican politics in the mid-late 1820s, as experienced, discussed, and represented by the short-lasting yet effective alliance that was forged around the candidacy of Manuel Gómez Pedraza.

This thesis looks at the people of Nueva Vizcaya's history of resistance to incorporation into the state during the colonial age, and how this history is connected to the contemporary context in the Sierra Tarahumara. To do this, I use and frame the concepts of community, resistance, violence, ethnogenesis, territory and history as intertwined in such a way that the Sierra Tarahumara and its inhabitants cannot be completely disassociated one from another. By looking at the engagements between colonizers and native people of the colonial North of the Nueva España –Tarahumara and other native indigenous people of the Sierra Madre Occidental– in history, and frame the narratives about these historical encounters, drawing colonial accounts, modern narratives and other sources, I contest in this work, allows to frame indigenous societies agency in history. In addition, this thesis endeavors to engage with the broader discussion about ethnogenesis, indigenous resistance to colonialism, native community and ecological conflicts in Nueva Vizcaya and in the Sierra Tarahumara. Finally, this research wants to make sense of the contemporary conflicts over land rights that indigenous communities of the Sierra Tarahumara face today, and connect them with the history of the colonial encounters of the people of the Nueva Vizcaya. I propose that these encounters, in the colonial time of the conquest of the Nueva Vizcaya, and in the national period, are largely a consequence of a colonial process of ethnogenesis that taxonomically indexed native people in categories related to colonial labor needs and control over the territory, which I frame as tarahumarizacíon and raramurización.