• Yes, provided it is not a violent revolution, change for the better is a good thing.

    As revolution implies change more than war, I think Mexico is at a point in their history where corrections need to be made in the political and social environments. Workers for well over a decade have been receiving unfair trade conditions that have led to low wages and poor working conditions. If they press for change and revolution without violence, it could lead to positive outcomes.

  • No, there shouldn't be a revolution.

    While there are plenty of problems in Mexico, a revolution and the resulting instability would only give more power to the country's drug cartels. The country has made a strong political advancement in moving away from single-party PRI rule and recently capturing some drug kingpins. A revolution would be violent and would undo this progress.

  • Revolutions are never bloodless

    Although there are valid socio-political concerns about human welfare in Mexico I do not believe that a revolution is the answer. Revolutions are rarely, if ever, achieved without severe loss of life and suffering - furthermore it may be a scenario in which the people are better with the devil that they know.

  • No, Mexico does not need a revolution.

    Mexico has been a very unstable country for the past several years. The troubled nation is probably ripe for radical reforms, even revolution. However, Mexico does not need a revolution. This would turn a bad situation into a dangerous and violent nightmare for many. Instead, the government of Mexico needs to implement political and economic reforms to stabilize the nation.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.