Maurism

Gabriel Maura, whose father established Maurism

Maurism (Maurismo in Spanish) was a conservative political movement that bloomed in Spain from 1913 around the political figure of Antonio Maura after a schism in the Conservative Party between idóneos ('apt ones') and mauristas ('maurists'). Its development took place in a period of crisis for the dynastic parties of the Spanish Restoration regime.[1] The movement, which fragmented in several factions in the 1920s, has been portrayed as a precursor of the Spanish radical right.[2]

History

Antonio Goicoechea

The 1913 refusal by Antonio Maura to accept the terms of the turno pacífico (the alternation in government between the two major parties in the Restoration two-party system) and assume the presidency of the Council of Ministers led to a schism in the Conservative Party between idóneos (supporters of Eduardo Dato and dynastic normality) and the followers of Maura,[3][4] leading to the establishment of a new movement, maurismo.[5] In October 1913 a seminal speech by Ángel Ossorio y Gallardo delivered in Zaragoza gave birth to the so-called maurismo callejero ('street Maurism').[6][7] This side of Maurism became active in street politics using popular agitation, even physical violence.[8]

Maurism, aside from the figure of Antonio Maura, was partially inspired by historian Gabriel Maura[9] (son of Antonio Maura), and received some influences from the ideas of French monarchist Charles Maurras — Maura and Maurras wrote to each other — and Action Française.[10] However, Antonio Maura never got to lend support to the radical side of the movement created around him.[11] Other notable Mauristas were José Calvo Sotelo, José Félix de Lequerica, Fernando Suárez de Tangil and César Silió.[12] Miguel Ángel Perfecto identified three inner factions within the movement: the social Catholic one of Ossorio, the liberal-conservative strand of Gabriel Maura and the neoconservatives of Goicoechea.[2] Additionally, the followers of Juan de la Cierva within the Conservative Party, as they drifted away from the orthodoxy of Eduardo Dato, ended up orbiting around authoritarian stances close to Maurism, but they did not merge into the organizational structure.[4][2]

Ángel Ossorio y Gallardo

The social strata prevalent among mauristas, whose first National Assembly was held in January 1913, were young people from the aristocracy and the wealthy middle classes.[13][14] The movement built up its own organic structure and related media, created Maurist circles and even worker associations and presented candidates for local and general elections.[15] Maurists were noted for the wide dissemination of their propaganda, embracing the catch-phrase "¡Maura Sí!" ('Yes to Maura!').[16] Attempts were made to reach capture working class support but these did not succeed as it was perceived as too middle class and establishment-minded, with republican groups managing to mobilise the workers much more successfully.[17]

Presenting itself as an antithetical to the Restoration regime instituted by Antonio Cánovas del Castillo (canovismo), Maurism tried to lead a conservative modernization, endorsing an interventionist, nationalist and corporative ideological project.[18] It has been characterised as a regenerationist movement.[19] It shared with that movement the belief that defeat in the Spanish-American War had been the fault of a political system that was rife with incompetence and corruption, with Maurism prescribing the imposition of a new patriotic system from above by elites.[20] Another feature of Maurism was confessional Catholicism.[21] The movement's social action could be described as paternalist, with a tutelary function of the upper classes over the lower ones.[22] During World War I, Maurists largely supported Germanophile stances, although Maura himself defended neutrality and Ossorio endorsed Germanophobia.[23]

Manuel Delgado Barreto

In the 1917 Madrid local elections nine Maurist councillors were elected. At this election non-dynastic unconventional candidates (Maurists and the republican-socialist coalition) took marginally more seats than the candidates elected by the traditional Restoration parties.[24] The 1919 Maura cabinet, that included three Maurists, Goicoechea, Silió and Ossorio,[25] was a window of opportunity for Maurism but it ended up in failure.[26] Maura had become aware of the difficulties in fulfilling the Maurist agenda without the support of the dynastic forces.[27] Since then the movement shifted towards fragmentation.[26]

In the 1920 election to the Cortes the Maurist fraction only got 22 members of the parliament.[28] Two "antagonistic" factions split from Maurism.[29][30] In one side the scion led by Ángel Ossorio y Gallardo, supportive of social Catholicism and Christian democracy, founded the Partido Social Popular in 1922. On the other side Antonio Goicoechea led an anti-liberal and authoritarian scion,[31] vouching for an "organic democracy", concept later advanced by Francoism.[32] In 1922 the Maurists around Manuel Delgado Barreto and the journal La Acción looked to Italian Fascism.[33] Goicoechea insisted on a proclaimed popular support in Spain for the rise of "a Mussolini" in the country.[34] The very vagueness that underpinned Maurism, which insisted on a "revolution from above" but left the interpretation of this vague concept up to individual adherents, has been characterised as encouraging this factionalism and preventing it from fully emerging as a coherent ideology.[35] For his part Maura never addressed these issues, preferring to remain an aloof figurehead rather than seeking to lead an organised political movement.[35]

Maurists such as José Calvo Sotelo and Goicoechea gave support after the September 1923 Primo de Rivera coup d'etat to the dictatorship of the later — whose coming was cheered by the overwhelming majority of the Maurists —[36] and they would finally participate in Renovación Española ('Spanish Renovation') during the Second Republic.[37] José Luis Rodríguez Jiménez notes that Maurism added at some point the "Neither Right Nor Left" rhetoric, identified by the author as a feature of a drift from liberal conservatism towards authoritarian conservatism.[38]

References

  1. ↑ González Cuevas 2008, p. 31.
  2. 1 2 3 Perfecto 2012, p. 60.
  3. ↑ Romero Salvadó 2002, p. 28.
  4. 1 2 Avilés Farré, Elizalde Pérez-Grueso & Sueiro Seoane 2002, p. 236.
  5. ↑ Marín Arce 1997, p. 130; González Hernández 1989, p. 19; Payne 1999, p. 19.
  6. ↑ Hernández Burgos 2011, p. 197.
  7. ↑ Cabo & 2009 Miguez, p. 90.
  8. ↑ Avilés Farré, Elizalde Pérez-Grueso & Sueiro Seoane 2002, p. 239.
  9. ↑ Pasamar Alzuria 1993, pp. 207-208.
  10. ↑ González Cuevas 1990, p. 353; Blinkhorn 2003, p. 122.
  11. ↑ Payne 1999, p. 20.
  12. ↑ González Cuevas 2008, p. 41.
  13. ↑ González Calleja & Souto Kustrín 2007, p. 78.
  14. ↑ González 1988, p. 148.
  15. ↑ Rodríguez Jiménez 2006, p. 227; Tuñón de Lara 1976, pp. 75-76.
  16. ↑ González 1988, p. 149; Perfecto 2012, p. 60-61.
  17. ↑ Romero Salvadó & Smith 2010, pp. 18-19.
  18. ↑ González Cuevas & Montero 2001, p. 43.
  19. ↑ Tusell & Avilés 1986, p. 361.
  20. ↑ Preston 1981, p. 333.
  21. ↑ Rodríguez Jiménez 2006, p. 227.
  22. ↑ González 1988, pp. 148 y 155.
  23. ↑ Fuentes Codera 2013, p. 71.
  24. ↑ Romero Salvadó 2002, p. 215.
  25. ↑ Gómez Ochoa 1990, p. 242.
  26. 1 2 Payne 1999, p. 19.
  27. ↑ Gómez Ochoa 1990, p. 243.
  28. ↑ Álvarez Delgado 2003, p. 80.
  29. ↑ González Calleja & Souto Kustrín 2007, p. 79.
  30. ↑ Gil Pecharromán 1993, p. 247.
  31. ↑ Marín Arce 1997, p. 130; Gil Pecharromán 1993, p. 247; Payne 1999, pp. 19-20; Blinkhorn 1990, p. 122.
  32. ↑ Rodríguez Jiménez 2006, p. 228.
  33. ↑ González Calleja 1998, p. 509.
  34. ↑ Rodríguez Jiménez 2006, p. 239.
  35. 1 2 Quiroga & Arco 2012, p. 9.
  36. ↑ Ben-Ami 1980, pp. 124-125.
  37. ↑ Preston 1995, p. 13.
  38. ↑ Rodríguez Jiménez 2009, p. 32.

Bibliography

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 12/3/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.