Talk:Institutional Revolutionary Party

Flag colors

<<Heavily criticized for using the arrangement of the mexican flag colors for its logo (something normal in countries like the United States, but frowned upon in Mexico) >>

The reason for this criticism was quite valid.

Many Mexican voters in rural communities were (and are) functionally illiterate and relied on the logo's colors to identify the party. The use of the Mexican flag colors was initially reserved for the PRI (The PAN was allotted a blue and white logo, and the leftist PRD a yellow and black logo).

This gave many voters the impression that the PRI was effectively the party of the state (a fairly true impression until around 1997), and the opposition parties were against the state and perhaps dangerous to the established order. This, coupled with the very real fear that a community that voted against the PRI would suffer losses of funding and state harassment; helped maintain the PRI majority for so many decades.

...

<<The Institutional Revolutionary Party (Spanish: Partido Revolucionario Institucional or PRI) held power in Mexico for more than 70 years.>>

The PRI governed Mexico for 71 years.

The two wings of the PRI are:

1. an old-fashioned, conservative wing, so-called "dinosaurs"

2. a neoliberal, technocrat wing

Inner-party democratization process:

first wave: mid-eighties under Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas Solórzanos, finally, towards the presidential election in 1988, he and many of his supporters split up to form the roots of the PRD

second wave: 1994-2000 (under Ernesto Zedillo Ponce de León). By 2000 the PRI was the only Mexican party to hold up an open preelection to select their presidential candidate.

Overall, Zedillo made great contributions to enhance democracy in Mexico: he weakened the role of the president with constitutional reforms, made the IFE (Instituto Federal Electoral) independent, unconditionally recognized the opposition's victories (first on state level, than on national level in 2000).

...

<<The economic stability during Vicente Fox, first non-PRI president after the Revolution, is due in great part through the work of PRI-members, such as Francisco Gil Díaz (Secretary of Finance) and Guillermo Ortiz (Banco de México).>>

The original sentence quoted above is flawed for various reasons, including that the ecomic stability during Vicente Fox's tenure was also developed partially through the Zedillo administration's executive power and cooperation, not by ministers under Fox's administration. Fox merely kept previous stabilizing policies and deepened others. Therefore, the sentence will be split into two more historically, academically, and grammatcially correct sentences so as to say: "Greater economic stability since the 1995 peso crises was achieved in great part through economic reforms begun under Zedillo. Subsequent administrations maintained stability with continued assistance from PRI members such as Secretary of Finance Francisco Gil Diaz and Bank of Mexico head Guillermo Ortiz."

PRI not "authoritarian"?

Some academics discuss whether the PRI regime can even be considered totalitarian or authoritarian. (from the first paragraph)

Could someone cite a source for these academics? While I'd agree that PRI rule was not totalitarian, the belief that it wasn't authoritarian would be a fringe view. --metzerly 03:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I corrected the fact Mario Vargas Llosa´s statement was made in 1990 and not in 2000. I was the one to wrote about PRI´s definition as totalitarian or authoritarian. The last point of view it´s supported by people like Soledad Loaeza, Federico Reyes Heroles, Jesús Silva Herzog Junior...all people who had benefits in some way of PRI´s regime. I know by experience it was the worst ("perfect") dictatorship, but that was my personal experience.

Octavio Paz called it a dictatorship also in the original edition of his book "Conjunciones y Disyunciones" (1969) but that was banned in later editions. Posmodern2000

NPOV Tag Removed

The NPOV tag was added by an anonymous editor who didn't sign any comment on this talk page; nor are they any serious POV discussions here. I'm removing it. --01:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Role of Freemasonry

Apart from the fact that Calles himself was an acknowledged Freemason, it would not be a bad idea to describe the role of Masons within the IRP, and how they often used the organization to consolidate their influence within Mexican politics and society. ADM (talk) 08:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Neoliberal Party?

I had the idea that this party, despite his socialist roots, was largely seen as a neoliberal, at least centrist party. Socialist and social-democratic means basically the same.81.193.188.147 (talk) 01:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You are right. It really has no ideology, and in the last years have taken a Right-wing approach 189.217.127.254 (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The ideology is republicanism and "no re-eleccion" historically combined with agrarianism today with neoliberalism.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

"revolutionary party" = lol

(Spanish: "Partido de la Revolución Mexicana", PRM) whose aim was to establish a democracy of workers and socialism.

"democracy of workers and socialism" makes zero sense. This needs to be edited in order to make it intelligible.

I'm supposing what what meant was for workers, then "and socialism" adding the term to indicate its ideology. The Big Hoof! (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC) Struck out sock. bobrayner (talk) 05:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Non-morphological character?

Can someone explain what this sentence means: "Institutionalism in Mexico is a concept that is based in the non-morphological character of consolidated human organizations, having the particular feature of belonging to its determinated legal field and settled as the highest manifestation of social common issues, as well as people use to go in and outside the objective legal field. In its origins, it was determined that institutionalism would be the only way to solve social problems as humans establish their differences and common similarities."? Bookbrad (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

What does "Mediatic" mean? Should you be using a word that doesn't exist as a section header? 199.107.16.123 (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Tlatelolco 1968

Hey , you , Gustavo Diaz Ordaz wasnt the one who made the order to kill the students , is was Luis Evecherria ,Gustavo wasnt in the country .--Puchianos86 (talk) 23:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• You might find this source interesting. To be sure, many of the details of the massacre remain unclear/disputed. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 01:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Violations of NPOV and UNDUE

Multiple sections (specifically the subsections of "Return of the PRI") are not written in an encyclopedic tone, neutrally, and give undue weight (see WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE). I will tag the article and try to do some clean-up, but I don't feel like getting into a political war here with those trying to push a certain agenda. MX (✉ • ✎) 05:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I do not think, there is undue weight people in Mexico clearly perceive the PRI as a corrupt political party. And many perceive their long extended rule of almost a century, as a dictature. And every scandall is sourced. In fact, I think the article is generous to the party, it could make it look even worse if it were really were better edited.Rosvel92 (talk) 05:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)rosvel92

I am working my way through the article, Wikifying existing text and adding text with citations. I don't have a political agenda for the edits. Fairly soon, I'd like to suggest that the NPOV and UNDUE tags be removed. Amuseclio (talk) 17:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Amuseclio

PRI corruption

Is the most corrupted political party in Mexico Yaneth99 (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC) PRI REPRESENTATIVES NEVER TELL PEOPLE IN RURAL AREAS WHAT THEY DO THEY JUST ASK FOR THEIR VOTES AND IN EXCHANGE THEY GET TRASH FOOD ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.172.84.98 (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

"Untrue" clarification needed

There is apparently an issue with the introductory portion of the article as follows:

Throughout its nine-decade existence, the PRI has adopted a very wide array of ideologies (often determined by the President of the Republic in turn). In the 1980s, the party went through reforms that shaped its current incarnation, with policies characterized as centre-right, such as the privatization of State-run companies, closer relations with the Catholic church, and embracing free-market capitalism. At the same time, the left-wing members of the party abandoned the PRI and founded the Party of the Democratic Revolution (Partido de la Revolución Democrática, PRD) in 1989.

Though it is a full member of the Socialist International (along with its rival, the left-wing PRD; Mexico is one of the few nations with two major, competing parties that are part of the same international grouping), the PRI is not considered a social democratic party in the traditional sense. 

Please discuss what needs to be altered from this.Gumbi93 (talk) 15:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Proposal to remove tags

In my assessment, the tags are no longer necessary, but I would like to hear from other Wiki editors about this. Amuseclio (talk) 16:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Amuseclio

Presidential succession before the formation of the party

I added a section on presidential succession before the formation of the party. It was deleted with the short explanation "Barely relevant to the history of the Party itself." As an historian, I consider the history and context integral to understanding questions at hand. So I *do* think the political practices and the immediate context are relevant to the formation of the party and I can elaborate further. The issues as I see it are the general lack of parties prior to the formation of the PNR; the principle of no-reelection that Díaz asserted with Juárez and then again with Lerdo, only to abandon it entirely in 1884 to rule until 1911, making no re-election a central tenet of the Mexican Revolution; the Sonoran revolutionary generals' political connections and conflicts and their assertion of power over the civilian Carranza who attempted to impose Bonillas, a civilian and revolutionary nobody as next president; and the crisis that the 1928 assassination of Obregón presented. I would like to hear further why the Wiki editor did not consider the section relevant. Meantime, I will review the deleted text to make the relevance clearer.Amuseclio (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Amuseclio

Orphaned references in Institutional Revolutionary Party

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Institutional Revolutionary Party's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "terra":

• From 1985 Mexico City earthquake: "Cumplen 20 años "niños" rescatados terremoto 1985 Ciudad de México" (in Spanish). Mexico City: Terra. 18 September 2005. Archived from the original on 18 February 2009. Retrieved 4 October 2008.
• From Mario Vargas Llosa: Terra. 2010 October 7. Vargas Llosa a 20 años de "México es una dictadura perfecta" (Vargas Llosa, 20 years after "Mexico is a perfect dictatorship").

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

"regime"

The repeated use of the word "regime" outside of quotes, in wiki-voice seems to be a WP:NPOV concern. ResultingConstant (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm responsible for some uses of the word in this article. I should clarify that in Spanish, "régimen" doesn't carry the negative connotations that "regime" does in English; it's simply used to describe any kind of government/administration to distinguish it from others. In fact, many times in interviews or books etc, the Mexican presidents of the PRI era themselves use the word for their own governments, saying things such as "in my regime we fought corruption, the economy improved etc".

I do understand that the word can be problematic in English due to its negative/authoritarian connotations (though the PRI era was far from being democratic or free as the article explains). If everyone else finds it convenient, it can be replaced with "government", even if I have my own apprehensions about using such a term to refer to a single "PRI Government" (since the period during which the PRI ruled over Mexico between 1929-2000 covers 12 Presidents, and therefore 12 different governments as opposed to one single "PRI Government" with the same President governing during the 71 years.), but if there's no better alternative, I won't oppose replacing the word "regime" with "government" in the instances where it is used in this article if that helps make it more neutral. --CHUI372 (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@CHUI372: I would much prefer "government". While I agree the PRI may have been authoritarian, wiki voice in english should stick to a less loaded term imo. That being said, of course if there are notable detractors or commentators using the word regime, we can quote them. Regarding the one vs many problem, doesn't regime have the same problem? there were 12 regimes? in any case, "goverments" is fine although sounds weird. Administrations? tenure?

ResultingConstant (talk) 15:04, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• To my mind "regime" is more neutral in English than in Spanish! You get thousands of scholarly hits for "Thatcher regime", "Blair regime", "Clinton Regime" and "Obama Regime", whereas as the Spanish government absolutely lost it when journalists used "the Rajoy regime" when they went through their little Franco throwback moment in Barcelona. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
• That's an interesting observation. Maybe in Latin America, or only here in Mexico, "régimen" is a much more neutral word than in Spain. As I said before, former Mexican presidents use "régimen" when talking about their own governments.--CHUI372 (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

It could well be a difference in typical usage between Spain and Latin America. Given the prominence of Mexican Spanish in Latin American news channels I wouldn't expect a big difference anywhere but the Cono Sur. I was very surprised by the Spanish government's freakout, because to my (English) ears regime sounds quite neutral. I suppose it goes back to the use of "el régimen" as shorthand for "el régimen franquista". Boynamedsue (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Social democracy?

Many sources says that the Institutional Revolutionary Party is a socialdemocratic party in it's latest assembly held last December 2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.104.57.209 (talk) 07:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

References