Franco Regime: Ideological and Political Nature in Spain
Franco Regime: Ideological and Political Nature
There are different theoretical approaches in contemporary political science in relation to the ideological and political nature of the Franco regime.
Juan Linz’s Thesis on Authoritarianism
When Juan Linz published his thesis, he discussed the authoritarian nature of Franco’s political regime. This started a theoretical and methodological polemic that is still not resolved.
Linz defined authoritarian systems as:
- Political systems with limited political pluralism
- Non-responsible
- Devoid of a developed and defined ideology, but with characteristic mentalities
- Without intense and extensive political mobilization, except in some stages of development
- In which a leader or a small group exercises power within formally ill-defined but predictable boundaries
Linz’s thesis has been hotly debated. It has been accepted only by those authors, such as Fraga, who share its conservative ideological dimension and had some personal political prominence during the years of the dictatorship.
Morodo’s Stages of Franco’s Regime
Morodo highlights various stages in the political evolution of the Francoist regime:
- 1936-1945: The regime adopted a totalitarian-fascist way, even though it retained an atypical structure. This atypical character can be analyzed to some extent as a form of Bonapartism, and it made it easier for the regime to evolve toward authoritarian forms.
- Post-World War II (especially in the 1950s): Several trends led to a change in the structures of power and social channels of pressure. This ultimately translated into a more authoritarian political regime than totalitarian. In this sense, it would ascribe to the characteristics that Linz attributed to this type of political regime.
Characteristics of Authoritarianism According to Linz
- Limited Political Pluralism: In authoritarian regimes, there is a degree of pluralism of trends. These never become as diverse and not as important as in democracy, but at least they exist, something unthinkable in totalitarian fascism. The problem lies in qualifying as political pluralism the existence of internal tendencies within the government or the state apparatuses that require the prior authorization of the leader.
- Absence of a Strong and Consistent Official Ideology
- Apathy: The regime hopes for passive and apathetic acceptance of authoritarian rules and refrains from action.
- The Authoritarian Party: In contrast with fascism and totalitarianism, the authoritarian party in authoritarianism is not a well-organized ideological identity that monopolizes access to power.
- Methods of Social Control: Both fascism and authoritarianism tend to have control of all media and propaganda tools. However, social and political control as a whole is less extensive and profound in the case of authoritarianism.
- The Authoritarian Elite Legitimacy: The existence of an authoritarian elite that is less homogeneous, less dominated by the party, and more “plural” in its composition, makes the forms of legitimacy to which the authoritarian regime appeals less monopolistic than in fascism and totalitarianism.
Franco as Totalitarian or Authoritarian Fascism
Other authors, such as Ferrando Badia, Julien, Stanley Paine, Gino Germani, and Tuñón de Lara, shared, with nuances, the thesis of Franco as a totalitarian or authoritarian variant of fascism.
Bonapartist Interpretation of Franco
In contrast to these authors, Amando de Miguel and Benjamín Oltra proposed a “Bonapartist” interpretation of Franco.
Bonapartism is a unique form of capitalist state in which the bourgeoisie consents to losing its crown to save its wealth. These authors attribute to Franco an instrumental Bonapartism and conclude their review by stating that what is characteristic of Franco was a political construction halfway between Bonapartism and Fascism.
Franco’s Regime as Despotism
Another interpretation of the political nature of Franco is made from the concept of despotism by Sevilla, Pérez, Giner, and Yruela.
The problem posed by this typology of Franco is that it does not differ fundamentally from the interpretation of the Franco regime as totalitarian.
Other interpretations of Franco consist of attributing a changing character to the political regime as a function of different periods or in considering that it consists of a sequence of changing forms of authoritarianism in a unique situation.
Guy Hermet’s “Conservative-Authoritarian Modernization”
Guy Hermet uses the term “political situation” or “regime” because it has the advantage of referring to both a global perspective and the state and the nature of relations between the political system and the social environment. He uses the term “conservative-authoritarian modernization” to refer to Spain.
A characteristic feature of this type of situation is the position of “imperfect hegemony” of its bourgeoisie, forced to share power with the traditional oligarchy and aristocracy. Another feature of identity is that resorting to an authoritarian solution makes possible a bourgeois revolution without the potential threat of the people.
Ramirez’s Stages of Franco’s Regime
Professor Ramirez believes that Franco’s regime is characterized by crossing a totalitarian stage from 1939-1945, a second phase from 1945-1960 that he calls a conservative dictatorship, and a final stage of Franco that he calls techno-pragmatic, covering 1960-1974.