In the 1934 presidential elections, the official party received 98.2 percent of the vote, a figure that steadily declined after that. By 1994, it received only 50.2 percent. Thus in a sense the question was not if, but when, the PRI would lose the presidency. This decline reflects a variety of changes in Mexico, such as a better-educated, more urban population. In addition, with privatization the government had less ability to intervene in the election process. As Mexico changed, more opposition political victories were recognized at the state level. Just before the July 2, 2000 election, the PAN governed 29.6 percent of the population at the state level and the PRD 20.7 percent. As these victories were recognized and people became accustomed to not being under a PRI state administration, they increasingly decided that a vote for the opposition would be respected and voted against the PRI in increasing numbers. Also, once they saw opposition administrations functioning at the state level, the notion of an opposition administration at the national level appeared less intimidating.45
The creation of a truly independent IFE was crucial for the emergence of electoral democracy. Granting independence to the IFE in 1994 was a risk the Salinas administration took because it was seen as necessary to keep the PRD from abandoning electoral politics and joining the rebel movement in Chiapas. Then-president Salinas, believing his own rhetoric, felt that his economic reforms were so successful that the PRI would be able to retain power on its own merits. Once election administration was removed from the executive branch to the IFE, the PRI could not reverse this reform since it lacked sufficient seats in the Chamber of Deputies to change the law on its own.46
After 1994, the IFE made decisions affecting the entire electoral process, down to and including the location of polling places. In a process analogous to jury selection in the United States, the IFE chose citizens by lot to staff the polling stations. In addition, between 1994 and 2000 the IFE spent $1.2 billion to produce a tamper-proof electoral infrastructure, including photo ID cards for each voter. In 2000, under IFE auspices, the political parties mobilized 346,958 poll watchers who were joined by 38,433 independent election observers. It also provided public financing for political parties, so among other things, Fox could blanket Mexico with his call for change.47
Much of the movement towards democracy in the 1990s occurred thanks to non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that brought together youthful reformers, environmentalists, old leftists, feminists, and other reform-minded people. These NGOs formed the non-partisan Civic Alliance (Alianza Civica) which observed the 1994 elections. It continued to observe elections and press for further reform to correct the faults in the electoral process that it had observed. Rather than mobilizing to support any one candidate, the Civic Alliance remained strictly non-partisan and dedicated itself to ensuring electoral fairness.48
Independent media was also crucial to the emergence of democracy. In the 2000 elections, the all-important TV coverage was generally balanced. In addition, repeated press reports on scandals had undermined the establishment. Finally, the publication of polling data proved crucial to efforts by civic groups to monitor elections and prevent fraud.49
The PRI lost power because it implemented too many political reforms. Each reform was designed to placate the opposition while maintaining hegemony. After economic crises, it offered political reform, since it had nothing else to offer. Eventually these reforms created a relatively even playing field, forcing the PRI candidate to run on his own merits, which the voters found lacking.50
World History
