Mexico is a country with an abundant and long history of transformations. Land appears to be a valuable resource and a so-called symbol of freedom for the Mexican people who endured many struggles for their rights. Thus, this piece tells about the development of the Mexican land tenure reform and the importance of Article 27 of the Mexican revolutionary Constitution of 1917 in this context.
The topics covered in the article are related to the history of land tenure in Mexico. They include the development of the ejidos, rural agrarian communities eligible to use land, and numerous attempts to regulate the national agricultural sector. The history of their involvement begins in the early 16th century and goes to the second half of the 20th century. During the past one hundred years, the system of ejidos experienced failure due to problems regarding the use of land and harvests and the lack of security (Kelly, 554-556). The article also describes the measures taken to tackle the challenges, including Salinas’s revision of Article 27.
As for the main arguments, one can suggest considering the national political and economic contexts, as well as the assumption that amendments to legislation, particularly Article 27, may not ultimately lead to social justice. The first argument can be explained by various historical developments induced by colonization, for instance (Kelly, 547-548). Furthermore, it is vital to adapt to the emerging situation in terms of protecting the farmers and land from dispossession. The second argument shows historically that despite positive intentions and legal breakthroughs in the agrarian sector, it may lead to adverse consequences in social and economic terms.
Finally, the point of the discussed article is the assumption that indigenous traditions and legal approaches to land tenure may become obsolete, though they can somehow ensure the participation of farmers in the agricultural sector. Hence, there is a need to implement privatization policies cautiously, considering the political context, because it may have negative economic consequences for national agriculture. Such formations as ejidos must be appropriately protected by legal means to prevent dispossession.
Works Cited
Kelly, James J., “Article 27 and Mexican Land Reform: The Legacy of Zapata’s Dream.” Columbia Human Rights Law Review, vol. 25, no. 541, 1994, pp. 541-570.