Fascism, Hugo Chávez and the King of Spain
The King of Spain, Juán Carlos I de Borbón y Borbón, recently told Hugo Chávez, President of Venezuela to, in no uncertain terms, shut up, after the latter called the former Spanish Prime Minister, José María Aznar, a fascist. Now, I am no fan of Aznar, but Chávez’s comments are not just mistaken but actually damaging to the cause of combatting ‘fascism’ or, more particularly, positive revisionism of Spanish falangism.
The Spanish Civil War and the long dictatorship of Francisco Franco continue to cast a shadow over Spain. It remains a strong argument for liberal, military intervention.
While the west dithered, Nazi Germany was both supporting the loose aggregation that would become the FET y de las JONS1 and trying out methods that it would use in the Second World War. Guernika, home of the tree that symbolises the Basque nation and immortalised in Piccasso’s painting of the same name, was where dive-bombing was first used. As the war continued, the only state to support the Republican side was the USSR, strengthening one faction within that grouping.
The Spanish Civil War deeply affected the British Labour party. George Lansbury was set dead against all wars, perhaps believing that the only outcomes for Spain were Falangism or Soviet communism2. Many people, though, not only desired intervention on the part of Britain France and the like, but went to fight themselves, forming the International Brigades. I think that the long-lasting impressions of the atrocious ferocity of a war that set, in many cases literally, brother against brother is in no small part due to the writings of Hemingway and the like.
The Spanish experience of the civil war is not as clear cut as dark against light. Although a victory by the Republican side would, of course, have been preferable, to say that the Nationalists were all fascists and that the Republicans were all saints on earth would be a gross oversimplification.
It is certainly true that Francisco Franco was deeply unpleasant3 and that the main ideology of the Nationalist side was essentially that of the founder of the Falange, General Primo de Rivera. However, bundled in on that side were Carlists, the Church, all groups that didn’t buy into Falangism so much as see their interests threatened by a return to anything like the Second Republic. Equally, the Republican side had its fair share of self-interested parties, although it was the side that fought for the kind of liberal, plural democracy I would want to see across the world.
The Civil War having been concluded, it is wrong to use a single descriptor for Francoist Spain. There are at least two distinct phases, the one ending around 1960 with the entry of the tecnócratas, all very much connected with Opus Dei, to rising influence. You can argue for many more, but that is, I feel, the single biggest ‘moment of differentiation’.
It is against this background that the Pope has beatified 498 Spanish martyrs who were killed in the run up to and during the Spanish Civil War. I can’t find a list of those who have been elevated, only a mention on Giga Catholic about the service, so it is difficult to substantiate my following thoughts. As with those who joined the Nationalist side out of self-interest, the members of the Catholic church who saw a possibility of a resurrection (no pun intended) of their religion were deeply misguided. I tend towards thinking that their beatification was because they are seen as having honestly died for their faith and to reinforce what might be called a revisionist interpretation of the Catholic church’s role in Spain since 1936.
It is worth remembering that there are Falangist symbols across Spain. In the popular tourist destination of Marbella, one of the main squares has a mosaic depicting the yoke-and-arrows motif; the coat of arms has the same motif and the King himself was chosen by Franco. That choice was a bad one for Franco, as Juan Carlos prepared for democracy before the Generalisimo’s death by meeting with politicians including, I believe, Santiago Carrillo, leader of the Spanish Communist Party (PCE), fought for democracy during the transition and did much to secure it through his actions on the day of Colonel Antonio Tejero’s attempted coup.
The Socialist government of Zapatero has passed a ‘Law of Historical Memory’ that calls for the identification of the graves of people, principally Republicans, killed by the Nationalists and a prohibition on the celebration of franquismo. Opponents of the law, mostly in and around the Popular Party, are being lumped in with a group of people that they are not.
The PP was led by José María Aznar, who was recently branded a ‘fascist’ by Hugo Chávez. The King of Spain has a better record of defending democracy than Hugo Chávez and told Chávez, in no uncertain terms to shut up: “¿Por qué no te callas?”, which is very definitely in the informal voice.
While I don’t believe that he is as much of a demagogue as some make him out to be, he has taken some actions that do concern me; periods of rule by decree, closing of opposed media and interference with trades unions4. Juan Carlos I made an unqualified defence of democracy during the Tejerazo; Chavez has, in some areas, improved the lives of the poorest in Venezuela but I question how long-lasting these positive effects will be and how the negative effects will last.
The negative effects can be put simply in two ways; firstly the curse that has affected Latin America from the days of the Captaincies-General through clienetelism to demagoguery - the image of un fuerte de caballo, a strong man on a horse. Secondly, it could be, in less emotive terms, the concentration of power in one person or small group of people. If for no other reason than this, Chávez cannot call himself a Bolivarian. Simón Bolívar instituted, in his constitution for Grán Colombia, a tricameral system to guarantee representation for different groups in society and to prevent any one group having overweening power.
It is perhaps unsurprising that Chávez, who wheels freely with the term Bolivarismo, would brand anyone he does not like, or who he considers to fall into the neoliberal camp, a ‘fascist’. As I have said before, the term fascist is at best useless and at worst misleading. In the Spanish conext, it leads to associations between people who are not fascists (in any definition less broad than ‘to the right of Hugo Chávez’) and ‘true believers’ of the Movimiento Nacional (as the FET y de las JONS became) that puts them on the defensive. It poisons the debate and leads to even more controversy around and opposition to the investigation of Nationalist crimes during the Spanish Civil War and the years of the Franco regime.
xD.
1 - Falange Española Tradicionalista y de las Juntas Ofensivas Nacionalistas-Sindicalistas or, more or less, Spanish Falange of Traditionalists and Forces of the National-Syndicalist Offensive Front, its unwieldiness showing that it was a mongrel movement. Falange is a derivation of the Greek for finger, cognate with phalanx, and makes a similar return as the Fingermen of V for Vendetta.
2 - Communism was always weaker than anarchism in Spain, so I think Lansbury was mistaken. Anarchism’s relative strength was due in no small part to its less condescending attitude to rural workers.
3 - Unpleasant both in politics and personality; Adolf Hitler remarked after having spent a few hours in Franco’s company that he would prefer having ‘three or four teeth removed’ to repeating the experience.
4 - Which has been condemned by the ILO and the ICFTU.
November 13th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Yes and there is a further consideration that as soon as you say someone is a fascist who isn’t you empty that word of a little bit of its meaning. Furthermore by labelling neo-liberals fascists you make it easier to justify their suppression by armed force. We should keep the word fascist for fascists- and we should be clear about saying that most of the democratic spectrum aren’t fascists.
I agree with you on Franco- I’ve often wondered whether we shouldn’t look at him a bit more in Latin American terms- the strong man on the horse seems to sum him up. Thought I don’t know much, I do know enough to know taht there were a range of forces behind him.
As to Chávez I think the key point comes when his party loses an election. Its always the same no matter what you do, unless you can tolerate being out of power by the people’s choice you are not a democrat. I worry that Chávez might not want to renounce power- we shall see.
November 14th, 2007 at 9:22 am
That is a very interesting post. The Axis of Evil is always guaranteed to be provocative and as for the Spanish, well, do you think they lack a sense of humour? It reminds me of Mugabe vs Blair: the revenge of the colonies.
November 14th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Fascinating account, Dave. It’s good when a blogger does the research and puts it all together.
November 15th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
Gracchi - I agree that there will be, to coin a phrase, interesting times if Chavez were to lose an election but want to hold onto power. I also worry that damage is being done to the polity and the political structures of Venezuela that will last even if Chavez steps down voluntarily.
WW - Latin America was part of the USA’s sphere of influence well after the demise of the Spanish empire. Were it to be a leader from the Maghreb, you might be right, but Spain’s role in Latin America is generally positive, as I understand it, through civil society work and through investment.
James - thankyou very much! The Spanish Empire and its demise are something I’m kind of interested in and Bolivar is something of a hero to me. One day I will write a biography of him… just don’t hold your breath.
xD.
April 11th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Actually, Aznar was a member of the fascist youth organization before the PP.
April 12th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Andreas,
Yes, he was in the FES. However, that was the only permitted student political movement at the time. It’s not quite the same as being a ‘true believer’ although it’s a part of his past that he’d probably rather forget, much as the Pope would rather forget about being in the Hitlerjugend.
xD.