Mexico’s mythology dates back all the way to the Aztecs, Mayas, and Olmecs. Those civilizations were among the most fascinating, advanced and culturally rich people living on the planet for their time. However, the case can easily be made that Mexico’s modern historical figures are far more mythical than any of the ancient cultures, because people can agree on the role the Aztecs and Mayas played in the nation’s history. On the other hand, the role of certain political figures in creating mdoern day Mexico is the cause of far more disagreement.

Mexico’s national history is not just a different story than any other country’s national history: History carries an entirely different connotation in Mexico and other Latin American countries. In Spanish, the words for history and for story are the same word: historia.

It is evident in many Spanish-speaking countries in Latin America that history has an almost mythic stature to it. In this sense, it is like folklore with leaders being turned into populist heroes by the masses who project their hopes and dreams unto them. Because of the rigidity of the class structure, the masses historically have not placed realistic expectations of policy so much as unattainable dreams and ideals upon their politicians. Similarly, because of the weak structure of many of these patronage-heavy caudillo-style governments, leaders can rarely live up to these images that the public has placed on them.

The best example of this is the “heroes” of the Mexican revolution (1911-1920). Francisco Madero, the man who initiated the Mexican revolution through challenging the dictatorial reign of Prifirio Diaz. He came along at a time where the need for an icon was at its peak, and it created an irreconcilable rift that carried on to Madero’s successors until the PRI could properly manage the iconography. Madero was a humanitarian who had an atypical interest in a just political system when one considers that being born to a rich family, he had little at stake in the problem of Mexico’s widespread poverty. Although the corruption of the Diaz administration was hardly worse than most of Mexico’s other heads of state, Madero felt a need to speak out against the administration by publishing a book in 1908. Madero became idolized in myth almost instantly upon entering the political scene and it was to a degree that he could never live up to almost as soon as he was exiled. At first, the mythology helped Madero. Prominent Mexico historian Thomas Benjamin (of the University of Central Michigan) characterizes the makers of this myth as the Voceros de la Revolucion, (translated to spokesmen of the revolution) who sought to attach a vision of Madero with the great eras of Mexican history (however limited they might be). Accounts of their own political insurrection was invented to some degree as well. Consequently, Madero could not live up to his myth. He was never a particularly strong advocate for massive social change. His original manifesto was, hardly inflammatory, this volume didn’t even call for Daz to step down - it merely urged an honest election with the removal of Corral and representation for those who opposed Daz’s reelection, writes Jim Tuck. Madero was overthrown within two years and executed by the liberator of that regime. Ironically, the assassination of Madero contributed to his legend as he became a martyr and a rumor circulated that he had a halo above his head.

Out of a very strong necessity to unite people who had idolized different leaders into a coherent support base for a national government, the subsequent leaders iconicized virtually every figure that fought in the Mexican Revolution. The official stance is that whether the pivotal historical figures- Emiliano Zapata, Pancho Villa, Francisco Obregon, and Venustino Carranza - fought alongside or against Francisco Madero, they all took the battlefield to fight for a new Mexico. The political party that came into office in 1920 and stayed in power for 80 years eventually adopted the name of “Partido Revolucion Institucional” which means party of The Revolutionary. They saw themselves as the keepers of the revolution and literally opened a state-run archive in 1930 to document the pivotal moment in history.

Whether the actual historical period was consequential towards democracy didn’t matter as far as history was concerned because the Revolution was already the stuff of legend.