to mean more in 1912 than they did in 1812 but, relatively speaking, the Mexican people were little if any nearer the standard set by the leading self-governing peoples of the world after a century of independence. Disorder followed by dictatorship had hindered the development of true political institutions or the successful adoption of the examples offered in the experience of other nations. The Mexican had advanced in matters of government but had not gained on the leaders. He had buffeted through a long list of revolutions but without a broadly constructive political experience. He had developed political leaders but no political parties.
The degree to which the government of Mexico was executive can be appreciated by analyzing the way in which public authority was exercised in the first years of the twentieth century—a period when the power of the old regime was well established and when continued peace had developed what for Mexico could be considered normal conditions.
Power continued to rest in the hands of the President of the Republic as it had rested in the hands of the executive in the colonial period. In practice the President controlled the elections, he determined thus whether he should succeed himself and who should constitute the legislatures, federal and state. [1] To him the obedient Congress gave power to legislate by decree on specific
- ↑ In some cases in the latter part of the Diaz period there seemed to be the elements of an independent party organization. The most important was the development under the leadership of Bernardo Reyes in the north. Sporadic defeats elsewhere in local elections were not unknown.
