DIANE E. DAVIS
- Published in print:
- 2009
- Published Online:
- January 2012
- ISBN:
- 9780197264461
- eISBN:
- 9780191734625
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- British Academy
- DOI:
- 10.5871/bacad/9780197264461.003.0005
- Subject:
- Society and Culture, Latin American Studies
What constitutes modern Mexico? Is there a clear distinction between the historic and modern Mexico City? And if there are, does this distinctions hold up throughout the twentieth century, when what ...
More
What constitutes modern Mexico? Is there a clear distinction between the historic and modern Mexico City? And if there are, does this distinctions hold up throughout the twentieth century, when what is apparent is a mix of legacies coexisting overtime? This chapter discusses the semiotics of history and modernity. It discusses the struggle of the Mexico City to find its own image including its struggle to preserve historic buildings amidst the differing political alliances that either promote change or preserve the past. However, past is not a single entity, hence if the preservation of the rich history of Mexico is pursued, the question arises as to what periods of history represented in the city are to be favoured in its future development. In this chapter, the focus is on the paradoxes of the Torre Bicentenario and on the pressures to preserve Mexico’s past, the ways they have been juxtaposed against the plans for its future and how the balance of these views has shifted over time. It determines the key actors and the institutions who have embraced history as opposed to progress, identifies the set of forces that dominated in the city’s twentieth-century history, and assesses the long-term implications of the shifting balance for the social, spatial and built environmental character of the city. The chapter ends with a discussion on the current role played by the cultural and historical authorities in determining the fate of the city.Less
What constitutes modern Mexico? Is there a clear distinction between the historic and modern Mexico City? And if there are, does this distinctions hold up throughout the twentieth century, when what is apparent is a mix of legacies coexisting overtime? This chapter discusses the semiotics of history and modernity. It discusses the struggle of the Mexico City to find its own image including its struggle to preserve historic buildings amidst the differing political alliances that either promote change or preserve the past. However, past is not a single entity, hence if the preservation of the rich history of Mexico is pursued, the question arises as to what periods of history represented in the city are to be favoured in its future development. In this chapter, the focus is on the paradoxes of the Torre Bicentenario and on the pressures to preserve Mexico’s past, the ways they have been juxtaposed against the plans for its future and how the balance of these views has shifted over time. It determines the key actors and the institutions who have embraced history as opposed to progress, identifies the set of forces that dominated in the city’s twentieth-century history, and assesses the long-term implications of the shifting balance for the social, spatial and built environmental character of the city. The chapter ends with a discussion on the current role played by the cultural and historical authorities in determining the fate of the city.
Alexandra Barahona de Brito
- Published in print:
- 1997
- Published Online:
- November 2003
- ISBN:
- 9780198280385
- eISBN:
- 9780191598852
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0198280386.001.0001
- Subject:
- Political Science, Democratization
This book analyses the Uruguayan and Chilean experiences with the transitional politics of truth and justice regarding past human rights violations. These policies are shaped by the legacy of ...
More
This book analyses the Uruguayan and Chilean experiences with the transitional politics of truth and justice regarding past human rights violations. These policies are shaped by the legacy of repressive rule, and the dynamics of the politics of transition and of the balance of power under the new democratic governments peculiar to each country. The issue is central to the politics of transition for ethical, symbolic, practical and political reasons: politically it is the most explosive transitional issue; on a practical level, only official acknowledgement can resolve pending legal questions for survivors and families of victims; ethically, it is hard to generate democratic consensus or social endorsement for social reform without involving principles and ideals that appeal to the underlying values and aspirations of the citizenry. Dealing with legacies of state repression permits the beginning of the process of ‘deconstruction of cultures of fear’ without which democratization cannot occur. This is not only desirable and necessary; some kind of truth telling policy has proved to be both required and feasible in a wide range of contemporary regime transitions. However, justice is not always possible: limitations on prosecutions are more self-imposed than 'structural', more political than institutional, and clearly there is a tension between the conditions necessary to ensure accountability and those that govern periods of transition. Unconsolidated democracies are not able to practise the politics of a consolidated democracy; the politics of consolidated democracies includes the capacity to call the powerful to account. This is perhaps the yardstick with which to measure consolidation. Instead of practising the politics of consolidated democracy, what these countries have to engage in is the politics of democratic consolidation. Although truth and justice policies may remain relevant after the transition and 'leak into' the politics of democratization, (where they can continue to be a source of conflict in the judicial system and of latent or overt painful and deep-seated social animosities), the resolution of the issue in the formal political arena can and does make it marginal in terms of day-to-day politics. Consolidation depends more crucially on the reform of key institutions that permitted abuse and impunity: the thorough reform of the judiciary and of the forces of repression. If a government does not undertake a proper reform of the institutions that made abuse and impunity possible, the democracy it presides over will be lame and incomplete.Less
This book analyses the Uruguayan and Chilean experiences with the transitional politics of truth and justice regarding past human rights violations. These policies are shaped by the legacy of repressive rule, and the dynamics of the politics of transition and of the balance of power under the new democratic governments peculiar to each country. The issue is central to the politics of transition for ethical, symbolic, practical and political reasons: politically it is the most explosive transitional issue; on a practical level, only official acknowledgement can resolve pending legal questions for survivors and families of victims; ethically, it is hard to generate democratic consensus or social endorsement for social reform without involving principles and ideals that appeal to the underlying values and aspirations of the citizenry. Dealing with legacies of state repression permits the beginning of the process of ‘deconstruction of cultures of fear’ without which democratization cannot occur. This is not only desirable and necessary; some kind of truth telling policy has proved to be both required and feasible in a wide range of contemporary regime transitions. However, justice is not always possible: limitations on prosecutions are more self-imposed than 'structural', more political than institutional, and clearly there is a tension between the conditions necessary to ensure accountability and those that govern periods of transition. Unconsolidated democracies are not able to practise the politics of a consolidated democracy; the politics of consolidated democracies includes the capacity to call the powerful to account. This is perhaps the yardstick with which to measure consolidation. Instead of practising the politics of consolidated democracy, what these countries have to engage in is the politics of democratic consolidation. Although truth and justice policies may remain relevant after the transition and 'leak into' the politics of democratization, (where they can continue to be a source of conflict in the judicial system and of latent or overt painful and deep-seated social animosities), the resolution of the issue in the formal political arena can and does make it marginal in terms of day-to-day politics. Consolidation depends more crucially on the reform of key institutions that permitted abuse and impunity: the thorough reform of the judiciary and of the forces of repression. If a government does not undertake a proper reform of the institutions that made abuse and impunity possible, the democracy it presides over will be lame and incomplete.
