As the nation struggled to overcome the effects of a ruinous decade of civil war that had given it life, it continued to stagger under repeated economic crises, quarrels between Church and State, the machinations of predatory and often illiterate army officers, the defiance of local leaders whose regional interests ran deeper than their allegiance to the nation, and the threats of foreign invasion.
David J. Weber, 198286
Between 1829 and 1855, there were forty-eight changes in the presidency and 319 in the four-member cabinet. However, since the executive branch had not become the all-pervasive hydra it was to become in the twentieth century, such changes were not as devastating as they might appear. While the executive resembled a merry-go-round, members of the national Congress demonstrated considerable courage and determination to sustain the independence of the legislative branch, often in the face of open hostility from the military men who dominated the executive.87
State governments, which affected individuals more directly, were neither chaotic nor anarchic. After independence, the national government did not have sufficient strength to challenge village councils and mayors, leaving them with a high degree of local autonomy. While those applying European notions of sound governance saw only chaos, the regions functioned with far more efficiency. Regular elections were held at the state and local level. As historian Timothy Anna observed:
One has the strongest sense that it mattered very little who occupied the National Palace and that brief sojourns in office should not be counted as “regimes” . . . It is not clear if any president could get his orders obeyed beyond the outer patio of the palace.88
Despite its remoteness from the lives of most Mexicans, it is worth considering why the executive branch remained so unstable.
World History
