Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vsgnj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T16:19:00.421Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Elite Polarization Meets Mass Moderation in Mexico's 2006 Elections

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 January 2007

Kathleen Bruhn  and
Kenneth F. Greene
Kathleen Bruhn
Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Barbara
Kenneth F. Greene
Affiliation:
University of Texas at Austin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Even before the 2006 presidential election dissolved into a nasty street battle, it was widely perceived as strongly polarized. The two leading candidates, Felipe Calderón of the conservative National Action Party (PAN) and Andrés Manuel López Obrador of the leftwing Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD), staked out starkly different positions on key economic issues. Calderón promised continuity with Mexico's free-market reforms, focusing on investment as the engine of growth. López Obrador, in contrast, argued that the neoliberal strategy would benefit only a few and he instead promised to alleviate poverty through state spending on infrastructure and social welfare. Unlike in prior presidential elections where the PAN and PRD candidates downplayed their differences to challenge the authoritarian dominant PRI with broad pro-democracy appeals, in this first post-transition election, the candidates made their differences clear.

Type
SYMPOSIUM—THE 2006 MEXICAN ELECTION AND ITS AFTERMATH
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 40 , Issue 1 , January 2007 , pp. 33 - 38
Copyright
© 2007 The American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barnes, Samuel H. 1977. Representation in Italy: Institutionalized Tradition and Electoral Choice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bermeo, Nancy. 2003. Ordinary People in Extraordinary Times: The Citizenry and the Breakdown of Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Converse, Phillip E., and Roy Pierce. 1986. Political Representation in France. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Dalton, Russell H. 1985. “Political Parties and Political Representation: Party Supporters and Party Elites in Nine Nations.” Comparative Political Studies 18: 267–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenstadt, Todd A. 2007. “The Origins and Rationality of the ‘Legal versus Legitimate’ Dichotomy Invoked in Mexico's 2006 Post-Electoral Conflict.” PS: Political Science and Politics 40 (January): 39–43.Google Scholar
Kitschelt, H., Z. Mansfeldova, R. Markowski, and G. Toka. 1999. Post-Communist Party Systems: Competition, Representation and Inter-Party Cooperation. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Klesner, Joseph L. 2007. “The 2006 Mexican Election and Its Aftermath: Editor's Introduction.” PS: Political Science and Politics 40 (January): 27–32.Google Scholar
Langston, Joy. 2007. “The PRI's 2006 Electoral Debacle.” PS: Political Science and Politics 40 (January): 21–25.Google Scholar
Mainwaring, Scott. 1993. “Presidentialism, Multipartism, and Democracy: The Difficult Combination.” Comparative Political Studies 26 (2): 198–228.Google Scholar
Miller, Warren E., and Donald Stokes. 1963. “Constituency Influence in Congress.” American Political Science Review 57: 165–77.Google Scholar
Pitkin, H. F. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Powell, G. Bingham. 2004. “Political Representation in Comparative Politics.” Annual Review of Political Science 7: 273–96.Google Scholar
Weissberg, R. 1978. “Collective versus Dyadic Representation in Congress.” American Political Science Review 72: 535–47.Google Scholar