Implementation of Modernization and Progress in Colombia and Mexico

In both Colombia and Mexico, various initiatives were put in place which backfired and damaged the quality of life of the citizens by the hand of the state. Specifically, urban renewal projects and privatization of public utilities were the main contributors in this decline. Urban renewal projects include landscaping, construction projects, renovations, and street improvement, while privatization includes the transferring of power and control of public utilities and industries to capitalist corporations. In doing so, the states, banks, and developmentalists of Colombia and Mexico have all committed varied forms of human rights abuses to their citizens, using “progress” and “freedom” as justification. In combination with state support and a superficial need for “modernization” and “progress,” the nations of Colombia and Mexico both committed human rights abuses through urban renewal projects and privatization initiatives--resulting in public contempt, physical displacement of the working class, economic burdens, and damaged foriegn relations.

The Colombian government’s support of the urban renewal projects guaranteed a lasting impact on the reforms’ future success and failure. As a result of legal reforms implemented in the 1930s and early 1940s, government leaders’ support for the reform project accelerated its enforcement. Because the state publicly expressed its support for the projects, it made any resistance by the public difficult to take effect. In 1936, amendments were made to the Colombian constitution which ultimately granted the government “power of eminent domain and an increased urban reform budget” and the “power to expropriate private property for reasons of public utility or social interest”. Due to amendments like these and the specific push by the state to make such changes, citizens were left to feel unheard by their government--who now repeatedly committed human rights abuses through its “initiative” for modernization. Clearly, the Colombian state leaders lost the trust of the people, as they were physically displaced by demolition projects and ultimately impacted by the negative consequences impacting the state’s economy.

Similar to Colombia, the Mexican government’s open support of policy changes concerning economic and foreign affairs in the name of “progress,” increased the level of impact such reforms had on Mexico. The constitution of 1917 along with the creation of the National Revolutionary Party in 1929, allowed for increased state intervention in economic activity, providing legal and political foundation to do so. As legal policies were put into place, state leaders exercised their power to their own advantage and at the expense of the public. As the state increased its power in Mexico’s economy, they also elevated the power of specific groups of capitalists by transferring control over firms. Through the monopoly of firms by wealthy groups, the lives of the public deteriorated and the economy faced a huge blow. Mexico’s largest financial group, the primary beneficiaries of economic reform and given power through the state, accelerated a national debt crisis through their borrowing on international markets. The state’s direct tie to corporate powers resulted in dangerous outcomes for Mexico’s economy and status in international trade. In regards to foreign participation in the Mexican economy, state leaders restricted such access--forcing foreign firms to function as independent entities rather than as subsidiaries of their parent companies. As foreign relations changed due to state intervention, Mexico underwent significant shifts in the international market, changes in available commodities, and a complete rendering of how foreign business was executed. As a result, Mexican leaders’ backing of “progress” initiatives resulted in a threat to citizen quality of life, restrictions in foreign trade, and a concentration of profit for capitalist powers.

In addition to state enforcement, both Colombia and Mexico’s mission for “modernization” and “progress” led to their participation in human rights abuses. In the case of Colombia, modernization efforts consisted of wide-spread demolitions of “dirty neighborhoods and markets”. In connecting lack of modernity to the cleanliness of particular neighborhoods, the state created a justification for demolitions and portrayed these sites as the source for lack of progress and wealth in Colombia. As part of Colombia’s modernization initiative, the state also engaged in the artificial construction of national symbols and traditions. Attempting to lure foreign nations and businesses, orchestrating a “unified” Colombia through monuments and traditions, the state participated in a false presentation of the state of the nation. Specific areas in Bogota were claimed to be “threats” to the city’s hygiene, which threatened the moral and political order of the city. In this case, state leaders sparked discourse on morality and its direct connection to the hygiene of cities “in need” of renovations--causing the public to make this conclusion as well. Presenting Colombia as modern, through demolition and erection of monuments, gave state leaders an opportunity to attract foreign investors, promote national unification, and coordinate international cooperation. The process of modernizing Colombia was rooted in state control and benefits, with the lives of citizens impacted as a result, both physically and legally. Working class citizens faced the most adversity as a result of state-centered reforms, a consequence Colombian state leaders were aware of but didn’t express concern for.

Colombia’s mission of achieving “modernization” resembled that of Mexico--whose state leaders declared a need for “progress” and liberation from outside economic influence. In 1938, the Declaration of Principles and Program of Action was passed, which emphasized the need for Mexico’s economic freedom. In this declaration, the writers expressed the necessary step which Mexico should take in order to truly prosper as a nation: self-sufficiency. As a way of ensuring such self-sufficiency, the declaration offered the idea of de-attaching Mexico from foreign economic ties--this was said to allow for Mexico’s freedom as a nation who only relied on itself. In the name of national development and the “true satisfaction of popular needs,” the Mexican public was brought together and encouraged to set aside their particularistic interests. Often, the idea of unity and common good were used by the state as ways to A significant aspect of Mexican efforts for progress and modernization involved privatization of public industries by large capitalist powers. Through the process of privatization, Mexican leaders granted power to private corporations to control utilities necessary for the public--this enabled a complete dependance on private powers for basic needs, resulting in a direct control of the public by the state and an upper-class group of people. As the lower-classes felt the effects of such monopolization of industries like the telephone or air travel, their rights were drastically stripped at the hands of the state and their “progress” and “freedom” initiatives.

An extreme dedication to “modernization” and “progress” by the nations of Colombia and Mexico, along with state leaders’ public support of such initiatives, the people of these respective nations faced human rights abuses in the form of public contempt, physical displacement, economic burdens, and damaged foreign relations. Nations contributed to the consequences of such abuses through their push for urban renewal projects and privatization of industries.