Spanish And French Far-right Monarchism - Expressions Of A Reactionary Utopian Mentality?

To what extent can both Spanish and French far-right monarchism be considered expressions of a reactionary utopian mentality?

In the late 19th century and early 20th century the political landscape of Europe was characterised by a general shift towards a radicalised right. The legacy of the 19th century was the development of a more mass-based politics and varying political strands that, despite not having a single unifying ideology, can be termed as the `new right`. The First World War further advanced the disintegration of established government regimes and increased political radicalism. The origins of far-right monarchism in France can be traced to the 1789 Revolution. The far-right monarchist movement in Spain can be dated to 1833 the death of King Ferdinand VII created a dynastic dispute between his daughter, Isabel II, and his brother, Don Carlos. This dispute led to the three Carlist Wars of the mid-17th century. Both countries` regimes faced significant challenges from the newly radicalised political right. This essay will seek to address the extent to which both nations` far-right monarchist movements were products of the rapidly changing contemporary context of the 1930s. The discussion will focus primarily on Action Française (AF) and Accion Espanola (AE), examining the political conditions that gave rise to far-right monarchism in both France and Spain. Subsequently, the respective visions of the nation that had emanated from monarchist rule will be examined, addressing whether far-right monarchism was therefore an expression of a distorted utopic perception of the possible realisation of the nation. This will lead into a final discussion as to whether a reactionary mentality was more the expression of corporatism and self-preservation than utopian belief in monarchical rule.

In order to appreciate whether French and Spanish far-right monarchist idealism was a constituent of a reactionary mentality, it is first necessary to explore briefly the respective political conditions that were to foster this idealism. Profound differences existed between France and Spain. However, this must not discredit the relevance of superficial resemblances of the historical contexts which resulted in monarchist movements in both countries. France was an industrialised country ruled by a secular government elected by universal male suffrage and was considerably more modernised than Spain. Prior to the 1930s, Spain had been characterised by the continued power of the Church, Army and the Landed Wealth. A ruralised society, ruled by a constitutional monarchy until 1931, and simultaneously subjected to Primo de Rivera`s military dictatorship (1923-30), it is hard to argue that there was economic or social parity between the two countries. Significantly, post-World War One Europe was marked by economic uncertainty and growing socio-political upheaval. Throughout Europe liberal-constitutional regimes, such as in France, were called into question as people looked towards variants of dictatorial rule to provide stability. Herein lies the possibility to draw a superficial comparison between France and Spain in relation to their fragile governments. Both had experienced multiple changes in government regimes. In France there had been `alternation between republic and the restoration of the monarchy` since 1789. Therefore the concept of a Republic in France was relatively recent and had not been firmly embedded in the national consciousness. Spain had similarly seen a series of struggles between reactionary and reformist forces since 1808, notably the three Carlist Wars, which were to culminate in the Civil War in 1936. Indeed many Carlists considered the Civil War to be the fourth Carlist War. Such political instability not only created an ongoing factional contest for power, which discredits the hegemony of the government, but also showed the weakness of liberalised regimes. Hence it is not altogether surprising that this vacillating contest for power in both countries gave rise to the conditions necessary to foster a rightist idealism for the monarchy. People reacted to, and rejected, seemingly unstable reformist regimes. The monarchy appeared to be a stable and established alternative to the new form of democratic rule. Hence, one can certainly argue that the far-right monarchist movements were part of the reactionary mentality to wavering contemporary politics.

As such, the oscillating political contexts of both France and Spain suggested a fundamental instability that could only be resolved with a return to authoritarian rule. At this point it is necessary to examine the perceived notions of the monarchist state held by the AF and the AE. Born of the Dreyfus Affair, the AF was established in 1899, succeeding the Ligue de la Patrie Française. By 1905 the AF `had developed into a full-scale `activist league`` and in 1908 it launched its own newspaper of the same name. Led by Charles Maurras, the AF was the embodiment of the reactionary monarchist right in France. As a consequence of the changing nature of political regimes, Maurras upheld democracy as having failed to provide dynamic leadership, in turn creating a failure of political legitimacy. A leader was necessary who could be the continual embodiment of the nation someone who was above the petty political factions that France had experienced during the early 20th century. These factions had stemmed from liberal and democratic misconceptions broadcast by the French Revolution, fostering a mood of decadence. In order to find a solution to this subjective social malaise, it was therefore necessary for the AF to look further back than the Revolution to the 16th century and absolutist monarchy, upholding this as the supreme example of government. `Maurrassian monarchy was about highly visible authority embodied in one man`. A monarch is an eternal and unifying symbol of nationhood, for Maurras the importance of the institution of monarchy superseded that of a particular monarch. At best, the French monarchy had forged a great and prosperous nation and at worst, the hereditary principle had ensured continuity in the nation. The symbol of monarchy would ensure that national unity would remain strong and counteract the perceived decadence and individualism that had arisen in society under democracy. The AF presents a utopian vision of the role of monarchy in the state, since it advocates monarchy as filling the void of a national rallying point which had not existed in France since the collapse of the monarchy.

For Maurras and the AF the era of monarchical rule marked the lost Golden Age of France`s history. The AF had reached its peak of popular support during the First World War, and by the 1930s it had primarily become an intellectual movement defining the popular right revolt against the Republic. In order to create this definition, the AF took the cultural elements of Absolute Monarchy and sought to transplant them into the 20th century. The 1789 Revolution had splintered society with its notions of individualism and class politics. Maurras upholds Monarchy, Classicalism and Catholicism as being archetypal in what made France great before the Revolution this is integral to the AF. Monarchy was the solution to a problem, a solution that was necessary for the future of France, `the necessary organ of all general interests, the Monarchy revives authority, liberty, prosperity and honour.` It is this aspect of looking back at an idealised era that marks the AF as having a reactionary utopian mentality. Woolf aptly remarks, `Action Française was almost self-consciously reactionary, looking back to some mythical past untainted by the ideas of the French Revolution.` Maurras and the AF certainly created a utopian monarchist vision of France. Arguably, this was in response to the historical context of a weak liberal government, which had seemingly failed to guide France to an era of prosperity and social cohesion. In turn, this was magnified by the period of economic crisis after the 1929 Wall Street Crash. Therefore one can certainly attest to the far-right monarchist movement in France being a reflexion of a utopian reactionary mentality, as the AF turned towards an archaic form of government as a response to problems of the contemporary socio-political situation.

Spanish monarchism can be divided into two main factions the Carlists and the Alfonsists. Carlism largely depended on mass popularisation and believed in a revolutionary return to monarchism, contrasting starkly with the Alfonsists who were based far more in Spanish tradition and accidentalism fostering an according ideology. In January 1931, Alfonso XIII released a manifesto calling upon all monarchists to unite. The Carlists realised they were able to provide the army that the Alfontine generals needed to substantiate their ideology. In December 1931, the publication AE was established it was the journal of monarchist intellectuals. Edited by Alfonsist monarchists such as Calvo Sotelo and Maeztu and drawing in wide support from the Carlists, the AE quickly began to air views against the previously upheld accidentalism of the Alfonsists. The AE was heavily influenced by the AF, as is apparent in its very name, agreeing that the nation was threatened by the current liberal regime of the Second Republic. Sainz Rodriguez declared in the publication, `the Republic is a regime of denationalisation incompatible with the tradition and future of Spain.` This reference to the tradition of Spain is integral to the foundation of the reactionary nostalgia associated with the Spanish monarchy in 1931, since it establishes the notion of looking back to an era that was perceived as superior. In Spain`s case this nostalgia was for its colonial empire of the 15th Century. A cornerstone of Spanish tradition is the Catholic Church which is instrumental in the interpretation of Spanish far-right monarchism. The revolutionary Republicans wanted to reform the social structures of Spain, bringing them into direct conflict with the Church, which was the most powerful institution in the country. Catholicism had been a great unifying factor in Spanish history, and the Catholic Kings were the representation of this unity. The Carlists fought with the image of the cross signifying that they thought they were fighting God`s battle to reinstate the monarchy. The Second Republic threatened the unity of Catholicism and the State and the only conceivable way to mitigate this risk was the reinstatement of the monarchy. The AE attempted to appropriate an ideology to justify their opposition to the Republic. The AE regarded the Second Republic as the point of departure from good Catholic Spain toward an anarchist society. Therefore the Spanish far-right monarchists established a vision of a monarchical state that would be based on the perpetuation of, and nostalgia for, utopian aspects of the Spanish tradition, i.e. Catholicism, in what was perceived as an ever more anarchical Republic.

To further this theme of monarchist nostalgia, Spain`s defeat in 1898 in the Spanish-American war was firmly embedded in the nation`s psyche and there was a strong belief that it had been the fault of a liberalised and corrupt Government. In the early thirties, this led to the idea that Spain`s future could only be secured `with a patriotic cleansing of politics.` This idea of a successful military monarchy became a central myth to the monarchists in Spain, and the middle and upper classes came to regard the Primo de Rivera period as a Golden Age. This is despite the fact that the failure of the Rivera dictatorship had been a precursor of Alfonso XIII leaving Spain. This emphasises the distorted view of the superiority of a monarchist regime held by the Spanish far-right monarchists. Hence one can argue that there was a strong sense of utopian reactionary sentiment amongst the Spanish far-monarchists. For the far-right, a return to monarchy represented a lesser problem to the prosperity of Spain than the threat of a liberal republic.

The desire to preserve the status quo of the landed classes and create a corporatist state played an integral role in the Spanish monarchist mentality. Certainly, there was a sense of security associated with the past as opposed to the uncertainty of Spain`s present and future state under the Second Republic. The creation of a reformist republic presented a significant threat to the right that went beyond the question of loyalty to the crown, despite this seemingly constituting the criteria of being a monarchist. Instigating a program of social and economic upheaval, the reforms of the Republic challenged the economic hegemony of the elite. Spain was an agrarian country, and prior to the Second Republic the large proprietors had been autonomous in their control of land and the labour markets. Hence any agrarian reform stood to lessen their income. A journalist of the AE decried, `the danger which threatens our altars also threatens our pockets.` To defend these interests it was therefore necessary to look for an alternative to a Republican State. This reactionary self-preservation established itself in the form of monarchism. Since monarchical rule had provided the conditions for the gentry to enjoy economic hegemony, it is therefore to be expected that the monarchy came to be seen as utopic, and a solution to the changes that threatened the Spanish landed classes. The form of government was of secondary importance, the essential thing was the preservation of their own interests. The far-right monarchy of the AE became the expression of a mentality that did not want to adapt to a more socialist society. In addition, given that the Second Republic had established itself via peaceful methods, the elite of Spain had not lost their predominance during the establishment of this new regime. Therefore enough power and influence still existed amongst them to rally against these socialist reforms. Combined with the fear of the Russian example of a socialist revolution, the Spanish gentry saw it of paramount importance to react against the socialism of the Second Republic and forming a corporatist state based on monarchical rule so as to perpetuate the status quo.

Similarly, far-right monarchism in France can also be viewed as the embodiment of reactionary opposition to change and the desire to preserve `old` France. The 1920s had seen a rupture with the belle époque and France in 1930s was rapidly changing. The politicisation of the working classes and growing social agenda was taken by many to represent anarchy. Indeed, the 1932 presidential elections which were won by Socialist President Tardieu, led to right-wing nationalists displaying Tricolors outside town halls in protest. Maurras was able to offer far-right monarchism as a means to prevent any further social, political or cultural change to French society. Maurras was explicitly opposed to this new decadent society, and the AF became an expression of self-preservation. The AF placed a great emphasis on the preservation of art and classicalism, politics and aesthetics being inextricably intertwined. Arguing that Jean-Jacques Rousseau`s harmful influence had transcended the political to the cultural, Maurras asserted that the Revolution had diverted France from its classical tradition. Maurras, therefore, sought to preserve France`s elite cultural position and recreate the conditions in which patronage of the arts, and subsequently great art, would occur. In order to facilitate France remaining a great contributor to European culture not only was it necessary to preserve the social and political conditions of France but also restore its monarchy. The relationship of the AF to the arts was resolutely anti-modernist and can therefore be termed as a truly reactionary mentality. The emphasis placed on the arts in the definition of French far-right monarchism serves to highlight the utopian vision of monarchical society held by the AF. Accordingly French far-right monarchism was profoundly reactionary in it appraisal of the rapid progression of France, as it tried to avert cultural and social change. At this point, it is interesting to draw a brief comparison of the mentality of French far-right monarchy with that of Spain. It is possible to assert that utopian nostalgia played a far greater role in the AF than in the AE. Since Alfonso XIII had only left Spain in 1931 the AE had a utopian reaction of wanting to continue the monarchy, whereas AF was arguably more focused on eliciting a lost Golden Age. Despite this difference, both far-right movements upheld the monarchy and its corresponding vision of the state as an anti-democratic reactionary solution to the contemporary liberalisation.

Certainly, differences between the ideologies of the far-right monarchist movements in France and Spain existed. The AF was arguably more focused on looking back to the supposed lost Golden Age and the resurrection of 16th century French culture since Maurras considered France to be the only true custodian of classical culture. Contrastingly, in Spain the AE placed a greater emphasis on the corporatisation of the country and fostered a monarchist ideology to justify their desire to preserve their socio-economic hegemony. The significant similarity of both the French and Spanish monarchist movements is that support for both grew out of a rapidly changing political context and a perceived threat to the social order whether that be religious in Spain or cultural in France. Neither the AF nor the AE would have been able to rally support if they had not captured, at least to some degree, the prevalent fear of the anarchy associated amongst the far-right with recently established liberal democratic regimes. The distorted utopian monarchical myth that each movement created further substantiated the mood of the far-right in this era. Therefore one must conclude that far-right monarchism in both France and Spain during the 1930s was a radical expression of a reactionary utopian mentality.