- Mexico and Brazil are both characterized by powerful central
governments, which operate essentially as the patrons of
their citizens, applying pressure granting favors, and carrying
out threats. As a result of historical developments in the
two countries, not only was the centrality of the government
and administration established, but also the central elite
managed to gain control over the regional elite by tying
their leaders to the central elite. The process of centralization
is linked to the discovery of gold and diamonds in the central
Western highlands in the second half of the eighteenth century,
and to the arrival of the Portuguese king upon Napoleon's
invasion of Portugal in the beginning of the 19th century.
His arrival and appointment of his son as king of Brazil
weakened the movement - that had arisen in other Latin American
countries - towards achievement of independence. Brazil's
transformation from colonial settlement to independent state
led to the expansion of the local bureaucratic system and
the de-politicization of public lives, a phenomenon reinforced
by the army's disregard for the influences and trends of
a greater part of the society. This situation strengthened
the status of the landowners, who were given the opportunity
to influence military appointments, and who together with
the government bureaucracy constituted the ruling party.
This was at the root of additional developments, including
pressures to grant rights to the provinces (though not to
the lower districts), the strengthening of the army and
operation of the government according to the model of the
old republic of 1889-1930 characterized by a weak opposition,
and increased public involvement in politics - even though
the percentage of voters did not exceed 3.5% of the population.
In 1945, upon the onset of a multi-party period, the percentage
of voters rose to 15%, following the establishment of countless
professional unions from 1937-1945, during the period of
'the new state'. Groups connected to the bureaucracy established
some of the modern political parties. In 1964, a military
faction took over control of the government. In Mexico,
as a result of local uprisings and military struggles with
the US, the army and the central government became stronger,
with the Congress and Courts serving mostly as 'rubber stamps'
for the government's actions. The strength of the central
government stemmed from its revolutionary ideology and political
reforms that called for a more liberal distribution of land
also to Indians and the agricultural classes. The central
government's ties were not with the elite, like in Brazil,
but rather with the masses, a connection formed as a result
of the government's need for their support during military
conflicts. The most glaring common denominator between Mexico
and Brazil is the corruption - the bribing of bureaucratic
officials in order to earn political favors. The basic difference
between Brazil and Mexico is that in Mexico, the majority
of the population has some degree of Indian blood, while
in Brazil the Indian population was essentially wiped out,
and the Blacks form a sizable minority alongside the European
majority. The slaves underwent a process that eradicated
all former tribal connections, and integrated them fully
into Brazilian society. Assimilation and integration are
far stronger forces in Mexico, as is their national cohesiveness.
The bonds of patronage, therefore, extend to the masses,
while in Brazil, narrow oligarchic elites control the path
to governmental preferential treatment. Income differentials
are far higher in Brazil than in Mexico; 1:20 in Brazil
compared to 1:9 in Mexico. Nevertheless, the central government
in both countries tries very hard to maintain its ties to
venture capitalists and foreign investors and to support
industry, though most of industrial production is for domestic
consumption. These activities, of course, are pursued at
the expense of the lower classes, though the precise effects
differed between Brazil and Mexico. In Brazil, they prompted
an escalation of a process, which turned farmers into proletariat,
while in Mexico, they followed massive agricultural reforms
enacted in the first half of the twentieth century. In Mexico,
the political system allows people in the administration
considerable freedom to grant political favors, thus promoting
and ingraining the institution of bribery. In both Brazil
and Mexico, intermediaries known as the Cossix in Mexico
and the Colonels in Brazil used to - though they no longer
do so - mediate between the government and the country's
citizens. The Cossix may have enjoyed a less established
position than the Colonels, and Mexican citizens may have
possessed somewhat greater power vis-?-vis the Cossix than
Brazilians did vis-?-vis the Colonels, but these were essentially
parallel institutions. Mexican Cossix possessed economic
and political power over the local government and over means
of law enforcement. They served their communities by acting
as go-betweens between them and the federal and state governments.
They served their governments by providing them with inside
information and by maintaining the peace in their districts.
They mediated between distant rulers and local farmers and
appointed municipal officials. They maintained monopolistic
control over agricultural production and commerce, and controlled
the best lands. They maintained power even through unlawful
means. Yet, like the Colonels in Brazil, the Cossix lacked
any formal status or appointment, and it was not always
clear who in fact was a Cossix. Public opinion was divided
regarding the Cossix depending on people's personal experience
with them. Brazilian Colonels operated both on the regional
level and through political parties. They basically filled
the same functions as the Cossix, but their social status
was higher, and even served as a substitute for titles of
nobility - titles, which were unattainable by local elites.
Patron-client relationships today very much parallel those
of the Cossix and Colonels and the citizens of their respective
countries.
