Spain’s Agrarian Problem and the Second Republic
The Agrarian Problem in Spain: Text Commentary
The author of this text is Manuel Azaña, who was elected Prime Minister by Niceto Alcalá Zamora, President of the Republic, after the period of provisional government following the introduction of the new regime and the beginning of the Reformist Biennium (1931-1933). During the Popular Front government (1936), when Alcalá Zamora lost parliamentary support, Azaña replaced him as President, naming Casares Quiroga as Prime Minister.
The text was written in 1939, at the end of the Civil War, after the fall of Barcelona in January, when France and England recognized the Franco government. At this time, Azaña was exiled in France. Days later, Madrid fell, ending the war with the victory of the rebel side.
Its goal is to show that land reform was necessary for the Republic.
Key Ideas in Azaña’s Analysis
Focusing on the text, we see that it emphasizes a number of ideas:
- First, by reference: “The new regime was introduced without causing casualties or damage,” he highlights the peaceful nature of the establishment of the Republic. King Alfonso XIII accepted the new regime and thus popular sovereignty, following elections to the Cortes that resulted in Republican victories, both in the general and local elections. Therefore, as Azaña notes, the change was a decision of all or a majority through elections, albeit with some previous agreements such as the Pact of San Sebastián.
- The Republic was welcomed by the people as a solution to the multitude of structural problems that engulfed Spain (“the most urgent requirements”): an army with obsolete material and a spirit of caste and colonialism; a church accustomed to a privileged position with the state; a population with a significant education gap; a middle class that sought to impose its “moral order”; a market with low demand, hindering the development of industry; the development of nationalities against the centralist practices of the state; and finally, the problem of the structure of land ownership, which will be the focus of the rest of the text.
Contrasts Between Urban Progress and Rural Backwardness
Azaña addresses a series of contrasts between progress in the cities and backwardness in the rural areas, underscoring the great difference in technological progress. More specifically, he distinguishes between land owned by smallholders, in communities in the northwest of the peninsula (emphasizing Galicia), which was insufficient to feed the peasants, and land owned as large estates (latifundios), more typical of Andalusia and Extremadura, which were not well exploited. The latter also contributed to increased unemployment, as they brought in contract workers for short periods of time and low wages.
State Intervention and Land Reforms
The state intervened with a series of land reforms. During the Reformist Biennium, aiming to end landlordism and absentee ownership, and to provide land to the landless peasants, the Institute for Agrarian Reform was created. This institute studied farms for expropriation in exchange for compensation, to be delivered to groups of farmers. The problem was that the formulas for the awards were very slow.
During the Conservative Biennium (1933-1935), the budget for the Institute for Agrarian Reform was cut, allowances were increased, and new settlements were paralyzed. When the Popular Front governed, the processes were accelerated, leading to illegal settlements of farmers establishing a fait accompli.
Azaña’s Political Affiliation
Highlighted in the text is the phrase “with socialist or socialist-leaning.” Remember that Azaña was not a socialist, and the reform was not influenced by socialists, but rather because he felt it was necessary. During his rule, the Socialists were part of the government during the Reformist Biennium, and part of the Popular Front coalition, providing parliamentary support. During the Civil War, two socialists were appointed presidents of government: Largo Caballero and Negrín.
The Reform’s Lack of Success
The reform was not successful, as it was not well managed. On the one hand, there was not enough money for compensation, which delayed the process. As mentioned earlier, farmers occupied the land illegally, and the government took action. Finally, the reform was not well explained; the owners thought their private property would be taken away, creating a climate of confrontation, intolerance, and violence.
Other Contributing Factors to the Civil War
This, in addition to other causes such as the Church’s loss of privilege, the joining of the class providing educational policy prohibiting religious congregations, labor policy (in which workers tried by all means to preserve their rights), and the clash between autonomist and centralist tendencies, increased the desire for conspiracy that culminated in the Civil War.