Constitutionalists and the idea of a new constitution , leader of the victorious faction, convoked the elected body to draft the new constitution. The Political Constitution of the United Mexican States is one of the major outcomes of the
Mexican Revolution that started in 1910 and won by the Constitutionalist faction led by
Venustiano Carranza. Carranza's
Constitutionalist coalition invoked the
liberal 1857 Constitution to unite Mexicans against the regime of General
Victoriano Huerta, who had come to power by
a coup in February 1913. The revolutionaries fought for causes that were beyond the political bounds of the 1857 Constitution. Various political plans articulated demands for socio-economic reform. Carranza's Constitutionalist faction emerged victorious in 1915, having defeated Huerta's regime and then the bloody civil war between the revolutionary faction of
Pancho Villa and
Emiliano Zapata. Historian
Alan Knight contends that the new constitution was "a means to confer legitimacy on a shaky regime." Carranza initially envisioned revisions to the 1857 Constitution that would incorporate the demands for which revolutionaries fought. Carranza's 1913
Plan of Guadalupe and its subsequent updates did not include demands for a new constitution, but his advisors persuaded him that the best way forward was a new constitution rather than a piecemeal revision of the earlier Constitution. He had initially floated the idea of a constitutional convention in September 1913, but had not pursued the idea in the thick of revolutionary struggle, but once he had consolidated power, he formally and publicly articulated the idea. Writing in February 1915, he stated "When peace is established, I shall convoke a Congress duly elected by all people which shall have the character of a
congreso constituyente for raising constitutional precepts the reforms dictated during the struggle." persuaded Carranza that a new constitution was the best way to return to rule of law, through a new governing document. Carranza agreed, allowing Palavicini to launch a press campaign to win over Mexicans, and especially the revolutionary army generals, to the idea. Palavicini argued that incorporating revolutionary reforms into a new constitution would give them firm standing in the present and future that could be overturned easily. Once a new legislature was convened, legislators could more effect reforms efficiently since they were part of the constitution already. The Constitution of 1857 had subordinated the executive branch to the legislative, in an attempt to curtail the power of strong presidents. The liberal general
Porfirio Díaz when president for more than three decades made the legislature and the courts subordinate to his executive power while the Constitution of 1857 remained in effect in theory, but not in practice. Palavicini argued that the process of amending the constitution would be time-consuming and piecemeal. Since the multiple major revolutionary reforms were not part of the 1857 Constitution, adding them would entail further complexity. A new constitution drafted by elected delegates would give legitimacy to the new charter, arguing for a constituent congress. Although there was some resistance to the idea, the revolutionaries recognized the "right of revolution", that having won the conflict, the victors could have their way in creating the new document.
Constitutional Convention Carranza convoked a congress specifically to revise the liberal constitution of 1857, but the process created a more sweeping, new document. The Constitution was drafted in Querétaro, not the capital. Carranza chose the site because it was where Emperor
Maximilian of Mexico was executed, bringing to an end the
Second French Intervention in 1867. Another view is that Mexico City was too conservative and Carranza chose the provincial capital of Querétaro because it was a quiet, peaceful place for such an important meeting. The congress formally opened in November 1916, with delegate elections and then a credentials fight preceding that; the final draft was approved on 5 February 1917. Unlike the earlier congresses that produced the
1824 Mexican Constitution and the 1857 Constitution over a lengthy period, the Constituent Congress produced the final draft in a matter of a few months, between November 1916 and February 1917. According to
Alan Knight, the immediacy with which the document was drafted and Carranza's acceptance of some radical provisions "suggests that what Carranza and his colleagues chiefly wanted was
a Constitution, the hypothetical contents of which could be later reviewed, rewritten and ignored (all of which happened)."
Delegates Delegates to the congress were to be elected, with one per jurisdiction that had existed in 1912, when congressional elections had been held during the
Francisco I. Madero presidency. Those who had been "hostile to the Constitutionalist Cause" were banned from participating, but voting was by
universal manhood suffrage. Carranza was pressured to amnesty those who had been hostile as well as allow those who had gone into exile to return to Mexico, but he refused. Most delegates were middle class, not workers or peasants. Middle class professionals predominated, with lawyers, teachers, engineers, doctors, and journalists. A small but significant group of delegates were revolutionary generals, including
Francisco José Múgica and
Candido Aguilar, Carranza's son-in-law. The predominantly civilian composition of the Constituent Congress was in contrast with the place of real power in revolutionary Mexico, which was in the military. Most senior generals did not participate directly in the congress. An exception was
Álvaro Obregón backing the progressive faction, although indirectly. "Of the members of the high command, it was Obregón who best understood that military victory had to be consolidated through major concessions to crucial revolutionary forces." Historian of the Querétaro convention, E.V. Niemeyer, compiled a roster of delegates, with the names of delegates and information on the age, state from which delegates were elected, and their occupation, profession, or military rank. Villa's home state of Chihuahua had only one delegate., while Morelos, Zapata's home state, had two.
Enrique Krauze, in his book
Biography of Power, states the Constituent Congress contained 85 conservatives and centrists close to Carranza's brand of liberalism, and 132 more radical delegates. An important group of delegates elected to the congress were the "
Bloc Renovador", who had been elected in 1912 to the Mexican legislature during Madero's presidency. Some considered them tainted for their continuing to serve during
Victoriano Huerta's regime (February 1913-July 1914). Although some had voted to accept Madero's forced resignation from the presidency, in a failed move to save his life, this group had blocked Huerta's moves in the legislature to the point that in October 1913 Huerta dissolved congress and ruled as a dictator. Some congressmen fled Mexico, others were jailed by Huerta. With the Constitutionalist victory, some
Renovadores, namely Alfonso Cravioto,
José Natividad Macías, Félix F. Palavicini, and Luis Manuel Rojas, were now ready to serve in the Constituent Congress to draft the new constitution. There was opposition to them from other Carrancistas for their history of serving in the Huerta regime and those opponents attempted to block their being seated as delegates. Carranza supported the
Renovadores, saying he had instructed them to continue serving in Congress during the Huerta regime as a way to gather information about the regime and to block its attempts to act constitutionally. At the Constituent Congress, there were bitter fights over the seating of particular delegates, so that the division between the
Renovadores and a more radical group of leftists (sometimes called
Obregonistas) was sharp even before the congress actually opened. The most bitter fight was over the seating of Palavicini, which was finally settled in a closed session. Carranza's foreign minister and son-in-law, revolutionary General Cándido Aguilar, brought the matter to conclusion by saying that the Constituent Congress was losing time with the debate of Palavincini, while Villa remained strong in Chihuahua and the United States might intervene in Mexico to oppose the new constitution.
Carranza's draft constitution Carranza himself submitted a full draft revision of the constitution on 1 December 1916, but the proposed revisions "reflected little of the turmoil that had been going on for the past four years. It was indeed simply a rewording and reorganization of the Constitution of 1857." Carranza's advisers who had prepared the draft expected that it "would serve as a starting point for the
constituyentes discussions," and that "no one should lose sight of the profound change taking place in our fundamental institutions." There is evidence that the "people of Mexico City were cynical: they expected the congress to rubber stamp the draft presented to it by Carranza." Delegates read Carranza's draft, but did not accept the document that only made minor revisions to the 1857 Constitution.
Debates The most highly contentious discussions were over the articles dealing with education and with the Catholic Church, while the more "revolutionary" articles on the state's power to expropriate and distribute resources (
Article 27) and the rights of labor (
Article 123) passed easily. Although the Constituent Congress has been characterized as a polarized battle of "moderate" and "radical" delegates, Carranza's advisers expected his draft to be revised. In the words of one scholar it was "mauled." The drafting of the two most revolutionary articles was by a small committee and the congress voted unanimously in favor within hours of their presentation.
Anticlericalism Article 3, dealing with education, was highly contentious. Carranza's draft of Article 3 reads "There is to be full liberty of instruction, but that given in official educational establishments will be secular, and the instruction imparted by these institutions will be free at both the upper and lower levels." Francisco Múgica proposed a much more strongly worded alternative. "There will be liberty of instruction; but that given in official establishments of education will be secular, as will be the upper and lower primary instruction given in private schools. No religious corporation, ministry of any cult, or any person belonging to a similar association may establish or direct schools of primary instruction, nor give instruction in any school [
colegio]. Private primary schools may be established only subject to the supervision of the Government. Primary instruction will be obligatory for all Mexicans, and in official establishments it will be free." There were significant debates on the anticlerical articles of the constitution. The liberal Constitution of 1857 already restricted the Catholic Church as an institution, but the constitutional revision went even further. The 1914
Convention of Aguascalientes had already brought together victorious revolutionary factions, including Constitutionalists, Zapatistas, and Villistas, but discussions there did not center on anticlericalism. However, the 1916–1917 constitutional congress had lengthy and heated debates over anticlericalism. A contention that fits the content of the debates is that for Constitutionalists anticlericalism was a nationalist rather than religious issue. The Catholic Church as an institution was seen to be antiliberal and antinationalist, so that "the Catholic Church was an enemy of Mexican sovereignty and an obstacle to the triumph of liberalism and progress." From this ideological viewpoint, the implementation of the Catholic Church's agenda "was exercised through its control of education, oral confession, etc." The anticlericalism of the Constitutionalists was a part of their aim to build a strong nation-state. "[D]elegates viewed the church as a political enemy to the establishment of a liberal, secular nation-state...The church seemed to be viewed by most of the delegates as a foreign body that worked against the development of a progressive and independent nation." But the Catholic Church had strongly supported the Huerta regime, so that the anticlerical articles in the Constitution are the negative consequences of that.
Land reform and natural resources The question of the state's power over natural resources was articulated in
Article 27, which enabled the government to implement land reform and exert control over its
subsoil resources, particularly oil. Article 27 states in particular that foreign citizens cannot own land at the borders or coasts as a consequence of the
United States occupation of Veracruz, In the assessment of historian
Frank Tannenbaum The Constitution was written by the
soldiers of the Revolution, not the lawyers, who were there, but were generally the opposition. On all the crucial issues the lawyers voted against the majority of the Convention. The majority was in the hands of the soldiers -- generals, colonels, majors -- men who had marched and counter-marched across the Republic and fought its battles... The soldiers wanted, as General [Francisco] Múgica said to me, to socialize property. But they were frightened -- afraid of their own courage, of their own ideas. They found all of the learned men in the Convention opposed to them. Article 27 was a compromise.
Labor rights A major victory for organized labor was the enshrining of labor rights in the Constitution. Labor had played an important role in the Constitutionalist victory, and this was its reward in
Article 123. The labor article was drafted by a small committee of the congress, headed by and
José Natividad Macías. The Program of the
Liberal Party of Mexico made demands for protections for labor, that were incorporated into the labor article.
Women's suffrage The congress debated extending the vote to Mexican women. There were very active women's suffrage movements in the U.S. and Britain. While not as strong in Mexico, there were activists for the cause.
Hermila Galindo, a strong supporter of Carranza, requested the convention to consider extending the vote to women for representatives for the lower house of the legislature. The request was conveyed to a committee. Article 35 specifying the rights and privileges of Mexican citizens could have been extended to include full rights for women, but the committee went out of its way to explicitly deny women those rights. Carranza was an advocate of women's rights as was his advisor and delegate to the congress, Palavicini. Palavicini questioned the committee chair for not including women's suffrage, but the chair deflected, saying the committee did not take the question of women's suffrage into consideration. In fact, the committee had stated explicitly why they did not extend women the vote. "women ... do not feel the need to participate in public affairs, as is shown by the lack of all organized movement toward that end; ... political rights are not based on the nature of the human being but on the regulatory functions of the State, on the functions that it must exercise in order to maintain the coexistence of natural rights of all; under the conditions in which Mexican society finds itself, the granting of the vote to women is considered unnecessary." Those opposing women's suffrage thought that women were under the influence of the Catholic Church, so enfranchising them would give power to the Church, but this opinion was not explicitly found in the records of the debate. Women would not achieve the vote in Mexico until 1953.
Prohibition of alcohol and bullfighting Delegates debated social reforms of popular practices deemed as detrimental to the public health of Mexicans. Prohibition of the manufacture and consumption of alcohol had been included as an amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1920, repealed in 1933 as a failure, but the idea was in the air. Although Mexican delegates did not think enforcement would be easy, it was argued by proponents that enshrining it in the constitution would give prohibition due respect. It was considered in the draft of Article 4, but resoundingly defeated by delegates 145–7. Article 123 dealing with labor, prohibited sale of alcoholic beverages and the establishment of gambling houses in workers' centers, so further debates on prohibition had a chance of passage. Arguments for prohibition were voiced over the loss of revenues that taxing taverns and drink brought in, its contribution to criminality, and undermining public health. In the end, prohibition of alcohol generally was not incorporated into the constitution. Delegate General Múgica made an all-out effort to include the ban, but realized it would not pass. An attempt to prohibit bullfighting was given short shrift, considered a Mexican cultural celebration.
Influences (1906) were incorporated into the 1917 Constitution The
Liberal Party of Mexico's (PLM) 1906 political program proposed a number of reforms that were incorporated into the 1917 Constitution.
Article 123 incorporated its demands for the 8-hour day, minimum wage, hygienic working conditions, prohibitions on abuse of sharecroppers, payment of wages in cash, not scrip, banning of
company stores, and Sunday as an obligatory day of rest.
Article 27 of the Constitution incorporated some of the PLM's demands for
land reform in Mexico. Requiring landowners to make all their land productive, and if left idle, subject to government expropriation; the granting of a fixed amount of land to anyone who asks for it, provided they bring it into production and not sell it. Points in the PLM's call for improvement in education were also incorporated, such as completely secular education, compulsory attendance up until age 14, and the establishment of trade schools. Not surprisingly, the PLM also called for restrictions on the Catholic Church, which were incorporated in the constitution. These included treating religious institutions as businesses and required to pay taxes; nationalization of religious institutions' real property; and the elimination of religious-run schools.
Importance This constitution is the first one in world history to set out social rights, preceding the Russian Constitution of 1918 and the Weimar Constitution of 1919. The Constitution is a living document, which has been amended a number of times. As with the earlier Constitutions, the enforcement of Constitution of 1917 has varied over the years. The Constitution of 1857 had strong anticlerical articles, but under Díaz the Catholic Church had regained much of its economic power, since he did not enforce the constitutional provisions. The anticlerical articles of the 1917 Constitution were not enforced vigorously until
Plutarco Elías Calles became president in 1924, sparking the
Cristero War. In the 1990s, President Carlos Salinas de Gortari called for amending the Constitution as Mexico sought to join the
North American Free Trade Agreement with the U.S. and Canada. Anticlerical articles were amended as was Article 27 empowering the state over natural resources.
Further amendments Amendments on presidential terms The constitution was amended in 1926 to allow presidential re-elections as long as the president did not serve consecutive terms. This amendment allowed former president
Álvaro Obregón to run for the presidency in 1928, an election he won, but he was assassinated before taking office. The amendment was repealed in 1934. The Constitution was amended in 1927 to extend the president's term for four years to six years. President
Lázaro Cárdenas was the first to serve out a full six-year term, beginning in 1934 and stepping down from power in 1940.
Amendment restricting agrarian women's rights One of the major impacts of
Article 27 was to empower the government to expropriate property for the good of the nation. This tool was used to break up large landed estates and created
ejidos, small-scale, inalienable peasant holdings. In 1927,
Article 27 was revised to restrict the rights of peasant women to hold ejidos in their own name, unless they were "the sole support of the family unit." Female holders of ejidos lost their ejido rights if they married another ejidatario. "Essentially, land was viewed as a family resource, with only one ejido membership allotted per family." In 1971, these restrictions were removed via the
Ley de Reforma Agraria (Agrarian Reform Law), so that spouses and their children could inherit. The 1992 amendment to
Article 27 that allowed ejidos to be converted to private property and sold were designed to create a market in real estate and allow for the creation of larger, more productive agricultural enterprises. Women were seen to be more vulnerable economically with this change since they were a small proportion of ejidatarios. In practice, in one 2002 study of four different site, despite the change in the law, women (mothers and widows) retained considerable economic status within the family.
Anticlerical articles and the 1934 and 1946 Amendments Articles 3, 5, 24, 27, and 130 as originally enacted in 1917 were anticlerical and restricted the role of the Catholic Church in Mexico, as well as other organized churches. Although it has been argued that these restrictions were included in part due to a desire by anticlerical framers to punish the Mexican Church's hierarchy for its support of
Victoriano Huerta, and allowed local legislators to limit the number of ministers, (essentially giving the state the ability to restrict religious institutions) and banned any ministers not born in Mexico. The escalation of church-state tensions led to fierce regional violence known as the
Cristero War. Although the Cristero War came to an end in 1929, with U.S. Ambassador to Mexico
Dwight Morrow acting as mediator between the Mexican government and the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, the end of the violent conflict did not result in constitutional changes. The constitution was made even more anticlerical from 1934 to 1946, when an amendment mandating socialist education was in effect. On 13 December 1934
Article 3 now mandated socialist education, which "in addition to removing all religious doctrine" was to "combat fanaticism and prejudices", "build[ing] in the youth a rational and exact concept of the universe and of social life". the government turned a blind eye. The anticlerical articles remained in the Constitution until the reforms of 1992.
Constitutional reform of anticlerical articles and land reform under Salinas (1988–1994), whose administration significantly amended the 1917 Constitution. In his inaugural address, President
Carlos Salinas de Gortari (1988–1994) announced a program to "modernize" Mexico via structural transformation. "The modern state is a state which ... maintains transparency and updates its relation with political parties, entrepreneurial groups, and the church." His declaration was more an articulation of the direction of change, but not list of specifics. The implementation of reforms entailed amending the constitution, which required overcoming opposition on the Left as well as in the Catholic Church itself. After considerable debate, the Mexican legislature voted for these fundamental revisions in Church-State policy. The Constitution of 1917 had several anticlerical restrictions.
Article 5 restricted the existence of religious orders;
Article 24 restricted church services outside of church buildings;
Article 27 which empowered the State over fundamental aspects of property ownership and resulted in expropriation and distribution of lands, while limiting the right to sell communally-held ejido lands, and most famously in 1938, the expropriation of foreign oil companies.
Article 27 also prevented churches from holding real property at all. For the Catholic hierarchy,
Article 130 prevented the recognition of the Church as a legal entity, denied to clergy the exercise of political rights, and prevented the Church from participating in any way in political matters. The Church had contested all these restrictions from the beginning. With the possibility of changed relations between Church and State, "the main demand of the Catholic hierarchy was centered on the modification of
Article 130" to recognize the Church as a legal entity, restore political rights to priests, and to end restrictions "on the social actions of the Church and its members." The initial reaction to changing the constitution was quite negative from members of the
Institutional Revolutionary Party who saw anticlericalism as an inherent element of post-Revolution Mexico. It was clear that given the contested nature of the 1988 elections that Salinas could not expect to operate with a mandate for his program. However, the debate was now open. Leftists led by
Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas opposed any change in the anticlerical articles of the constitution, since they were seen as the foundation for the power of the secular state. However, the
National Action Party in alliance with the weakened PRI became allies to move toward fundamental reforms. The Vatican likely sensed a sea-change in the Mexican ruling party's stance on anticlericalism. In 1990, John Paul II visited Mexico, his first since 1979 for the Puebla conference of Latin American bishops. After the announcement of his intentions, the Mexican Minister of the Interior (
Gobernación) stated flatly that the government would not amend
Article 130. Nonetheless, the Mexican government began moves to normalize diplomatic relations with the Vatican. The pope's second 1990 trip in May put increased pressure on the Mexican government to take steps toward normalization, particularly after the Vatican and the Soviet Union did so that year. Although Salinas planned a trip to the Vatican in 1991, the Catholic hierarchy in Mexico did not want normalization of relations with the Vatican without discussion of significant changes to the constitution. An even more significant change came in Salinas's official state of the nation address in November 1991. He stated that "the moment has come to promote new judicial proceedings for the churches," which were impelled by the need "to reconcile the definitive secularization of our society with effective religious freedom." The government proposed changes to the constitution to "respect freedom of religion," but reaffirmed the separation of Church and State, keeping in place secular public education, as well as restrictions on clerics' political participation in civic life and wealth accumulation. The bill passed in December 1991 with the support of the conservative
National Action Party (PAN). The enabling legislation was debated far more than the initial bill, but in July 1992, the enabling legislation,
Ley de Asociaciones Religiosas y Culto Público (Religious Associations Act), passed 408–10. The leftist Partido Revolucionario Democrático struggled with whether to support this significant change to Mexico's anticlericalism, but most PRD legislators did in the end. The constitution still does not accord full religious freedom as recognized by the various human rights declarations and conventions. Specifically, outdoor worship is still prohibited and only allowed in exceptional circumstances, generally requiring government permission, religious organizations are not permitted to own print or electronic media outlets, government permission is required to broadcast religious ceremonies, and ministers are prohibited from being political candidates or holding public office. In 2009, it was reported that changes to the ejidal system have largely failed to improve ejidal productivity. The changes have been implicated as significant contributing factors to worsening rural poverty, forced migration, and the conversion of Mexico, where the cultivation of maize originated, into a net-importer of maize and food in general.
Capital punishment and 2005 amendment On 8 November 2005, The
Senate of Mexico adopted a final decree amending the Constitution as approved by the majority of the Federated States, modifying
Articles 14 and 22 of said Constitution banning the use of
capital punishment in its entirety within Mexican territory.
Constitutional right to food, 2011 Article 4 and
Article 27 were revised to guarantee the right of food In Mexico. "[T]he State has an obligation to guarantee the right [to food]... and to assure sufficient supply of basic foods through integral and sustainable development (
Article 27)." The formal language is "
Article 4: Every person has the right to adequate food to maintain his or her wellbeing and physical, emotional and intellectual development. The State must guarantee this right." For Article 27, Clause XX, the revision is "Sustainable and integral rural development (...) will also have among its objectives that the State guarantee sufficient and timely supply of basic foods as established by law." ==Selected current articles of the constitution==