Comments by "Luis Romero" (@LuisRomeroLopez) on "Understanding Latin America." video.

  1. 19:57 This basic chart is slightly different form Mexico: Just change "Nationalist Technocracies" and "Military Dictatorships", and for more precision divide "Military dictatorships" into "Military dictatorship" and "Party dictatorship". Basically the Mexican revolution had two axes: "No reelection" and social justice. (Curiously, the demand in the north of the country was for democracy, while in the south it was for social justice. From there they can assume in general terms where are the states that have traditionally had larger economies and economies based on natural resources. (Primary sector)) The revolution left a period of struggles between different parties that was solved by creating a political party that brought together all the caudillos (and the struggle for power became institutional: Every caudillo would have his chance to be president (king) or put his close ally in the presidency, but extending the mandate became taboo, as it would break the pact). The positive side is that the respect of the institution and legal mechanism (even if it was corrupted) became a tradition in the system, and the transitions in the twentieth century was MOSTLY peaceful. So, Mexico made the transition from militaty presidents to civil was after WWII and it has being that way since. (This is huge in the region if you consider that the argentinian Junta was in power until the 1980s, Pinochet in Chile until the 1990s, Cuba until now, and Venezuela made a comeback with Chávez). As a side note: China is concerning because you can see they are kinda doing the opposite process, going from one party to a strong man dictatorship. The transition from one party rule to a democracy was also pacific in 2000, but this is not 100% solid.
    1
  2.  @skar8083  Diría que depende. Sí hubo populismo, tecnocracia y militarismo, pero no a la vez ni muy mezclado (estaba la famosa idea del péndulo, de que en el PRI elegían a un presidente de derecha y luego otro de izquierda). Para ser más precisos: 1964 - 1970, Díaz Ordaz: Sí se comportó como militar, (Aquí empezó la guerra sucia y la guerrilla de la liga 23 de Septiembre) pero podemos seguir algunas teorías de que la represión no fue tanto obra de él, sino de Echeverría. (Así que la matanza de Corpus y Tlatelolco irían juntas) Lo dejaría en populista - militar. 1970 - 1976, Echeverría: Todo un populista. No lo veo tanto como tecnócrata, ya que no tenía alguna base para sus políticas. Si le vamos a atribuir Tlatelolco, entonces pasaría de populista a "Populista - militar". 1976 - 1982, López Portillo: 100% populista. Los tecnócratas empezaron con de la Madrid, pero fue con Salinas donde empezó fuerte, (y tienes el tratado de libre comercio y que nos insertamos en la economía mundial), y también pondría de tecnócratas a Zedillo y Peña (ya ninguno ni de militar ni de populista). A AMLO lo pondría de populista en la línea de Echeverría y Portillo. (Lo que hace sentido porque fue en este periodo del PRI que AMLO se formó)
    1