by Marcelo Fernández Portillo
Historically Peronism is discussed whether a Republican or not; closely linked to this pose also questioned the Of course little attachment to the institutions of our movement. Before outlining some answers, we should further open questions:
Is the Republican national movement character?, If it was not should it be? Do you respect a national movement normal functioning of institutions? what kind of institutions we speak, when we speak of institutions?
understand that in order to peek at a well-founded response, we must first analyze the conflicting concepts. Specifically, what is the origin of the term "republic"?, What are "institutions"?. We will draw on three examples of parliamentary democracies for three existing powers.
The "Republic" is the result legal-political the triumph of the bourgeois revolutions , understood them to processes in Europe between the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, razed the old feudal structures, forming the modern nation states in that continent ended up consolidated in the nineteenth century (with the exception of Italy and Germany, whose analysis goes beyond the scope of this essay.) Ie republicanism is the legal auction of a revolutionary process , who led the bourgeoisie against feudalism. This process was not bloodless, quite the opposite.
1) England
England since the seventeenth century world power in the thirteenth century was a miserable set of islands that sell wool, their only produce more or less sustained, the Hanseatic League . Integrated cities in the league with the wool produced fabrics made, or will they add value to that material. This production was, in turn, marketed by Venetian merchants, who had as clients the English themselves. As you see, until then the future rulers of the world were poor producers of "commodities", which sold the wool to 1 pound to buy the place for it to 10.
Until the seventeenth century, Oliver Cromwell bursts onto the scene, a bourgeois nationalist leader, political and military victory in the civil wars of their country (on the islands there were also clashes between factions representing different organizational models national). Cromwell protection tightly to the whole English (subjecting even to Scotland and Ireland) under a dictatorial regime where battery gave revolutionary measures from which England began to establish itself as a world power. He used to do a fierce protectionist system, from which England won mastery of the whole economic process: the production of raw materials, processing and marketing of the same (the latter through an aggressive foreign policy that put his hand to all available resources: diplomacy, war, bribery). To do so, imposed inter alia, the death penalty (yes, death penalty) to anyone English artisan production to unveil secrets. The changing global role of England since then is well known to abound in it.
Over the centuries, Britain has already consolidated its dominant phase, with the "national model" definitely successful, could afford to polish its internal political system, honed his parliamentary and since then, the debates in the House of Commons and in the Lords, and the functioning of its institutions, often of a beauty and harmony only comparable to certain forms of art. What no one remembers is that to get "it" happened all the "other" civil wars, political assassinations, intrigue, violent opening and closing of parliament, the death penalty. Hard to imagine that the period of struggle between two models of nation: "agropastoral wool" and "industrial", some complained about the lack of "republicanism" Cromwell, or poor adherence to the "institutions" of the dictator.
2) France
Now to France, another example of republicanism, so dear to our political and cultural elite. The bourgeois revolution had its epicenter there. The feudal power was finally destroyed in the eighteenth century the middle class that developed in the last two centuries had not done more to accumulate economic and political power. This seizure of power was violent and extreme. The so-called "Jacobins" were the head of this process: no sector were a uniform but rather heterogeneous, ranging from a "timid reformism" to "end revolutionism, with intermediate shades. The Jacobins, long before introducing the "freedom, equality and fraternity" cut thousands of heads. Indeed, the symbol of the bourgeois revolution, the fruits and products that encompass the entire political West was not one of those beautiful concepts. most perfect symbol of the revolution that led to modern nations was the GUILLOTINE , which was not only applied to the representatives of the old feudal regime, but also litigated disputes between sectors revolutionaries. Indeed, not only the last king, with his family, servants and acolytes were beheaded, but in an endless succession were the Jacobins Hébert (guillotined by Robespierre), Robespierre (guillotined for the moderates), Dalton (guillotined by Hébert's followers), and so on. Not for nothing the successive stages of the revolution were called the "Reign of Terror", the "Great Terror", the "White Terror." Tens of thousands were beheaded a few years. Far away, as seen, the good customs and manners Republicans, who came much later.
3) United States
Here is the paradigm of democratic republicanism. Clearly bipartisan, with a presidential system and two cameras, is the model relied upon most Latin American nations. The nineteenth century was crucial in the modern fate of the U.S. as it was for our nation, nothing but with opposite results. Our continent is a Balkan style, while the nation was united on the basis of an aggressive expansion annexed the states of Louisiana and Florida (through negotiations with France and Spain, respectively), and Texas, New Mexico, Utah and California (by war and looting the Mexican nation, which lost half its territory in the race).
Throughout this century nation confronted two models: the agro-export and slavery in the South (the Confederacy) and the industrialist libertarian North (the Union). It is clear that the spirit of "libertarian" North was the need for slaves to leave his status to become employees and consumers. The conflict was resolved in the Civil War the resounding success of the Union and the imposition of its model of industrial development.
Since then, it's not in the U.S. has gone the primary exploitation of raw materials, but part of an integrated and diversified.
definitely established the American model, the differences became nuances that only influence internally. Moreover, U.S. policy is out, since then one beyond that alternate "Republican" and "democrats." Of course, when dried blood turned to refine and polish the democratic mechanisms of parliamentary activity.
seen with the three examples we can see that to get refined and nearly ideal republican practices, these nations (world powers today) went through processes bloody dispute between "model nation" and that while the dispute lasted, no one noticed the good parliamentary practices, but they emerged as a correlate of the triumph of national revolutions in their territories.
4) Argentina
peripheral countries, colonial / semi or underdeveloped (Use the term the reader considers appropriate, as is assumed) have not gone through these processes described. That is, they have not consummated their "national revolution" for precisely those dominant nations, once unified and consolidated, closed its interference with the possibility that our peoples may define their national settings. Indeed, through the colonial and semi-colonial exploitation, the European powers first, and they along with the U.S. then converted by force to the rest of world markets for their products, leaving just the role of producers of raw materials ( as the thirteenth century England, and South American states nineteenth century), which plundered until exhaustion. The nations which had accomplished its national bourgeois revolution, prevented now do the same peripheral nations.
This was necessary for native support and encourage sectors such exploitation, this model, becoming junior partners in the plunder, and preventing any alternative to independence may arise, affecting the interests of the imperialist nations.
The political history of our country is an example: we have not accomplished our national revolution. Here won the side equivalent of the "Southern Americans." In the nineteenth century the federal montoneras were defeated by the forces of Buenos Aires (with their allies circumstantial, as Urquiza) that imposed the agro-pastoral model, complementing the British economy, stifling any hint of self-development diversified. Already in the twentieth century, the Yrigoyenism with universal suffrage and the incorporation of the middle class into political life, and fundamentally, the social gains Peronism and industrialization were the historical continuity of those federal montoneras, but were defeated by the oligarchic reaction (1930, 1955 and 1976), which along eliminate any popular participation in national political life, opening the economy to the rapacity of foreign capital, grueling bashing the country's productive structure, through their national representatives (Pinedo, Krieger Vasena Martinez de Hoz, Cavallo, etc.).
News finds us starring in a new battle of this war is not yet closed. Again, both models are made explicit, the bid was tense again. The national government assumes, not without hesitation and contradictions marked the defense of independent development model, politically independent and socially just. The opposing side, including shades, crouch those to bid for the continuity of the model "open", dominated by highly concentrated transnational economic groups and financial capital.
In this context, only those spokespersons of the aforementioned groups can focus on the "republican forms, or rather, in the absence of such forms by the government [1] . Ignorance do not do so knowing full well what I speak and measurably better still before them. They know this Peronism, with all its blemishes, is the closest thing to a revolutionary force can put limits on their power.
Representatives of these groups know that the most extreme and purist, the "Bride of the revolution" are pure clamor that they end up being functional. Thus in the early twentieth century, with a strong sense of class, the oligarchy voted in the Socialist Federal Capital Palacios to try to prevent the triumph of radicalism, forces that defined clearly, and rightly so, as the enemy overcome, not the harmless socialist tribune speeches, so today would not hesitate to support the "socialist" Pino Solanas not want to pay the debt, and is presented with a profile "expropriating" (which of course, not scary at all potential victims of such expropriations).
All gibberish that points to the low adherence to the principles of Peronism and defending republican institutions, has an answer: YES, Peronism, at its best, has little attachment to republican principles by simple reason that Peronism itself carries a transforming force such that, until there is flatly winner, you can not dwell on questions of quorum, "NUD", "borocotizaciones", etc. That will come at a stage Further, when social settled all accounts, when an independent Argentina, connected to the rest of the world in a "pari passu" with sovereign control over its strategic resources, can afford (as England after Cromwell as the U.S. . UU post Civil War, as the post-Napoleonic France) to polish these issues, today minors from repairing the damage caused by neoliberalism criminal, but tomorrow it important to improve the institutional life and quality of life for residents a nation and free, and just, and sovereign.
[1] Of course, opposition parliamentarians have made even greater outrages which are attributed to Peronism wild, but what we analyze is the republican character of the national movement or lack thereof.
