Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information on Handbook of U.S. Latino Psychology

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Latin American Perspectives
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by de Grammont, H. C.
Right arrow Articles by Mackinlay, H.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Campesino and Indigenous Social Organizations Facing Democratic Transition in Mexico, 1938—2006

Hubert C. de Grammont

Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Horacio Mackinlay

Iztapalapa branch of the Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana

The relations between Mexican campesino and indigenous organizations, on the one hand, and political parties and the state, on the other, have been characterized by a shift associated with the crisis of corporatist representation and the transition to democracy from a "political" to a "social-political" or a "social" approach. In the political framework, organizations are subordinated to political parties, whereas in the social-political framework both organizations and political parties enjoy autonomy of action and in the social framework only the action of organized civil society is the bearer of change. During the period of transition to democracy, organizations of the first two frameworks chose to formulate their demands and activities within the representative democratic system, while those of the third framework pursued the design of a new society and disavowed the existing political system. While the latter do not lack for arguments in support of their rejection of party politics, they fail to take into account that their survival depends on the existence of a democratic system, and their dismissal of opportunities to create institutions within the system brings them into conflict with other progressive forces.

Key Words: Social organizations • Corporatism • Political transition • Political parties

Latin American Perspectives, Vol. 36, No. 4, 21-40 (2009)
DOI: 10.1177/0094582X09338588


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?