Legislators are symbols of inefficiency, corruption and lacking in all prestige (Cosio 1972: 110) another point of great controversy in the essay Crisis in Mexico is the scathing signage that Cosio does agrarian reform during the first decades posrevolucionarias. Give to the farmer, says the author, a piece of land in property was not the solution to the problem of the Mexican countryside. Towards lack also consider the performance and productivity of the land. The federal Government never bothered to create mechanisms that facilitate this performance; of this so there was no way that the economic situation would improve for small new owners. I.e., the new legal status of the land not resulted in substantive improvements for the peasantry (Cosio, 1972: 110) not only Villegas puts in evidence the agrarian reform, but also paragraph 123, Constitution, reflection of a clear paternalism toward the workers.
Virtually all legal constraints favored employee. This, however, has created over the years a dependence of the worker towards the Government, relegating it to a mere governmental Appendix (Cosio 1972: 112) the Mexican Revolution, according to Cosio Villegas, destroyed an entire political, social and economic system but it never bothered to create a new one, without flaws and contradictions of the first. What happened at the end of the day, was the rebirth of that same system, perhaps with another name, but in essence with the same characteristics (Cosio 1972: 113). This assertion can be framed better in the light of the Gaetano Mosca theory about the political class: the end of an elite represents, in the majority of cases, the uprising of another that is in new appearance, but in fact uses the same power mechanisms implemented by the previous (Guerrero, 1975: 117). Under this order of ideas, a new revolutionary Government only could have been established de facto, since it was developed following the model of previous Government.
