Billeder på siden

which in themselves make him a source of danger; and his poverty makes him an easy prey to the demagogue, the politician or the revolutionist. In the colonization of the northern republic the character of the country and the traditions of the greater part of the colonists favored small holdings of land and the development of rural communities. To the south, conditions were different: large grants of land were made to individuals, and wealthy investors bought extensive tracts, thus making competition by a small proprietor difficult if not impossible. Climatic and territorial conditions make it necessary to undertake expensive projects of irrigation, far beyond the possibilities of the man of moderate means. Lack of transportation also puts the small producer at the mercy of the wholesale dealer who can afford to wait for months or years to realize his profits. The traditional method of holding land by Latin peoples of limited resources was the community system. This trained the indigenous population in an easy-going lack of anxiety for the future, and checked all their ambition. The family could not lose its right to tillage, pasture, and wood; nor could anyone acquire a largely greater wealth than others because all had equal rights. Experience has shown that the result of the breaking up of these ancient communities is that land sharks secure the titles to the larger part of them, as the former holders have had no training in that jealous protection of their real estate from all encumbrance or danger of loss, which is the secret of the existence of an extensive and intelligent rural population.

The security of a democracy will always be proportional to the extent of the intelligent participation of all of its citizens. There may be a stage of transition, more or less prolonged, in which the intelligent few may govern the acquiescing but ignorant masses, or as it has been expressed "a majority of brains ruling a majority as counted by noses, but such a condition is always fraught with danger and must be finally disastrous unless steady progress is made towards the education of all the people. Extreme poverty that results in practical serfdom and lack of aspiration that leaves the masses of the people illiterate, furnish a serious problem

for any progressive government, but especially for those that aim toward the democratic form. There is always the danger that the high ideal of democracy become a simple fetich, that the ideal degenerate into the idol. Academic education is not sufficient. In a race that is gifted with a vivid imagination and which never lacks for words in which to voice its thoughts, there is always the danger that the appeal will be to the passions and that the thrill it produces will be a kind of intoxication that is irrevocably followed by a depressing and degrading reaction, instead of leading to more intelligent and resolute action. Popular education, to be sane, must "speak directly to the reason, enlighten, kindle, free and teach how strength of soul may show itself in sane acts." It has been said that the individual that ceases to react to the facts of life is to be judged insane. Measured by such a standard, many republics have to reckon with a large insane element which constitutes a grave danger. Centuries ago, Plato affirmed that rational discussion was the only protection against errors and untested ideas; but the ability to calmly define terms, analyze and clearly state one's own opinions and those that differ from ours, see and show the logical coherence of the one and the real defects of the other, comes only by study and experience. Till it is acquired, there will always be dissension and turmoil instead of union and progress.

Having noted some of the more important points of difference in the conditions under which the Anglo-Saxon and the Latin-American races have attempted to carry out democratic principles, it remains only to be affirmed that, variant as the results may seem, they all point in the same direction. Divergencies and discrepancies are not necessarily failures nor defects, they may be simple stages in a conflict with diverse conditions.

In South America, the three largest republics have attained a good degree of stability, combined with a steady increase of true democracy. They seem to be at least approaching the final solution of their most serious problems.

In Mexico, a country that holds the attention of the world today, even during the first half century of her independence

which was marked with strife and confusion, many problems were worked out and an excellent constitution and code of reform laws adopted. The thirty-four years of absolutism under Diaz was not, by any means, a complete relapse. By covering the country with a network of railroads and telegraph the land was unified and preparation was made for a greater development of its many natural resources; the national credit was restored and carried forward to an enviable position; considerable advance was made in the line of economic and industrial enlargement; illiteracy was sensibly diminished; and the people were made familiar with at least the forms of law. It is to be deplored that, during that time, office was made a matter of official favoritism rather than of popular choice; graft was unchecked; the poor were taught little of either letters or morals; confidence in legal processes for the righting of wrongs was well nigh destroyed, and loyalty to the existing government as an essential element of true patriotism was almost unknown. When to all this is added the fact that by the revolution the worst instincts of the most vicious elements of society were awakened and battened by the looting of cities and farms, the only cause for wonder is that the confusion was not greater when the iron hand was suddenly relaxed and withdrawn. Unfortunately, the man who had the faith and the courage to initiate the revolution and who came into power on the crest of an immense wave of popular enthusiasm was pitiably lacking in the qualities that were necessary for meeting the situation, and was carried down in the vortex whose destructiveness his efforts only seemed to increase. The tragedy of his removal increased the disturbance. To the already numerous groups of bandits were added new bands, some of whom are doubtless moved by the instinct of patriotism to resist the government. To an empty treasury; to the depredation of lawless bands that avail themselves of mountain fastnesses and great stretches of nearly impassable desert and not merely take for themselves money, food, arms and horses, but who kill, rob and ruthlessly destroy the property of individuals, of the nation, and sometimes of foreigners; to private and political plots; to the difficulty of placing confidence in anyone in the

general slump of fidelity; to all this have been added the insidious influence of great combinations of capital, mostly of foreigners, interested in valuable concessions; and the shameless intrigue of individuals who have so far lost all that made man the image of his Creator that, just for private gain, they would deliberately embroil two friendly nations in a war that would be disastrous and unfruitful for both.

In spite of all this, democracy still lives in Mexico, not merely enshrined in the hearts of its people, but as a vital force. When present conditions have been worked out, the great body of sane, thoughtful Mexican patriots will bring their idolized country back to her rightful position of respect and confidence. If others will give Mexico intelligent and sympathetic coöperation instead of misunderstanding, misinterpretation and suspicion, or if they will even let her alone, she will successfully work out her own salvation. In doing so she will give to the world a new proof of the tremendous power of democratic principles, not merely to survive under the most untoward conditions, but ultimately to triumph over every obstacle.



By Leslie C. Wells, Professor of French and Spanish
at Clark College

Profirio Díaz, great and wonderful as certain of his accomplishments were, gave Mexico a very lop-sided administration. Her development under him was almost entirely economic in character. He paid little attention to the social uplift of his people, his widely advertised solicitude for education having been strangely exaggerated; he made almost no attempt to reform the structure of society, which for a large part of the people is that of feudalism; he denied them even the slightest opportunity for political training; and promoted injustice rather than justice.

His methods may have proceeded from good motives, but the statement well made by someone that he "mistook the wealth of the country for its well-being" is at best a charitable judgment of his rule. To his all-consuming desire of setting the wheels of industry in motion and giving his treasury a favorable standing in foreign money markets, he subordinated everything else. He sought to get the natural resources of the country used, but cared little who used them. The quickest way to accomplish this was, or appeared to be, to give all encouragement to capitalists, native and foreign, and to promote the concentration of wealth. The national blessings to be derived from a fair distribution of the rewards of labor, he seems hardly to have dreamed of. In some cases, even, willing employers were officially discouraged from raising the wages of their help. The land was more monopolized at the end of his rule than at its beginning. His administration made for the exploitation of the Mexican nation rather than for its development.

No country can enjoy true progress under such one-sided government, and injustice patiently endured never made a

« ForrigeFortsæt »