Well you are simplifying Mexican history quite a bit here, and ignoring a good bit of it that doesn't fit in with your scenario. But even assuming your version of it was correct, your final statement that the revolution occurs because the "masses can only be appeased for a certain time" is what undoes your whole house of cards. There is no way that the majority of Mexico's population is going to peacefully acquiesce to ongoing conservative rule for over century without constant coup attempts, revolts, etc....UNLESS the Conservatives enact some major reforms (such as seizure and redistribution of Church lands, reducing the political and economic power of the hacienderos, etc., to keep them happy. And if they do that, the Conservatives will have essentially given away their own agenda, which was to PREVENT reform. Thus, no conservative government could enact the reforms which would allow them to stay in power and prevent ongoing political instability.
Thi is absolutely correct, but history has seen many cases in which "conservatives" were either forced to adopt some reforms or convinced themselves out that making some concessions was the only way to keep some form of control or to save the country from a foreign domination.
The clearest case is Meiji Japan, were a group of Samurais radically reformed the country (even abolishing the Samurai class). Yet this Samurais had started attacking the Shogun for being too weak in the face of "barbarians", and did all what they did in the name of the Emperor. It was only when they got to power thet they realised they had to reform in order to keep the country strong (and to preserve some form of control).
In Argentina, for example, conservatives reformed the electoral system in 1912, universalizing sufrage. This led to the victory of the radical party i n 1916. Why did they do this, then? Because they thought it was better to lose the power in an election than to lose it in a revolution, cause that would give the radicals control not only of the excecutive, but of all the resorts of power.
I know both cases aren't similar, but I don't think it's ASB to hava an ATL in which a Mexican elite realise that some reforms are necesary in order to keep the independence of their country... and for their own survival.
Last edited: