President Diaz is credited with facilitating economic development, modernization, and progress in Mexico. The government prioritized the construction of railroads and forced the country’s poor to work for the elite (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2019). The country’s leadership was keen to end conflicts and encouraged the church and landowners to unite and build a prosperous nation. While foreign investments facilitated economic growth, restrictive land policies and dictatorial tactics meant that the rural citizens were denied the benefits enjoyed by the upper and middle-class citizens. The head of state-imposed his will on the citizens leading to extensive modernization as well as the suppression of political liberties. Even though Porfirian Mexico is believed to have encouraged economic growth and modernization, most of the country’s citizens languished in poverty.
The benefits associated with the period went to the upper and middle classes. The regime’s interest in foreign investment meant that nations like the United States invested approximately 1.5 billion dollars in the country by 1910 (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2019). The funds from overseas were used to finance railroads and the development of the mining and textile industries. Among the beneficiaries of the country’s economic growth were a group of officials tasked with implementing social scientific techniques to solve financial and industrial problems. This group of individuals was referred to as the scientific, and they became unpopular because of their immense wealth and association with non-native capitalists (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2019). The leadership’s decision to allow the transfer of land to specific individuals at minimal prices with no stipulated limits on acreage facilitated the accumulation of wealth by upper-class citizens. Within a few years, most of the country’s land was owned by a few rich individuals (Plá, 2016). The agrarian policy was defended on the basis that private ownership would encourage the effective use of resources. Consequently, there was a significant rise in commercial farming.
Specific sections of society experienced challenges during Mexico’s rapid economic growth. For instance, the freedom of the press was negated by the Diaz administration through legislation that enabled the government to imprison journalists without trial (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2019). In addition, the country’s leadership financed influential publications and used them to advance political rhetoric. It is vital to note that the regime’s political opponents were victimized by a well-equipped rural police force that served as the dictatorship’s enforcers. The rural folk in Mexico remained illiterate and impoverished because the government prioritized the introduction of foreign investment. Besides, the unreasonable land ownership policies meant that a majority of the poor did not own land. The resident Indian communities that had owned a significant portion of the nation before the Spanish conquest lost possession of their property and were forced to work in ranches. The locals experienced difficulties accessing food, and the factory workers were denied the right to form unions.
The economic development and increase in trade that characterized President Diaz’s regime are undeniable. However, the benefits associated with the period were not spread equally among the nation’s citizens. For instance, the middle and upper classes enjoyed the wealth brought about by the regime’s policies. They owned most of the land and engaged in trade with foreign capitalists. On the other hand, the rural folk, who were the majority, remained illiterate and poor. Besides, the Indians lost their land while factory workers were denied the right to join unions. Finally, the press was gagged, and journalists were imprisoned without trial. The country’s progress pales in comparison to the poverty that was an intricate part of rural life.
References
Encyclopedia Britannica. (2019). Porfiriato: history, facts, & Mexican revolution. Web.
Plá, S. (2016). The dictator’s slow return: Porfirio Díaz. Public History Weekly, 4(17), 1–6. Web.