The construction of continuity in post-Franco Spain

The representation of Spanish national history in commemorations 1940-2000

Spain was as if suspended, waiting for a life to end

so that it could rejoin European history

Henry Kissinger[1]

Introduction

When Franco in the summer of 1969 named Juan Carlos to be his successor and coming King of Spain, he might have thought that all problems regarding the succession of his rule had been resolved. Indeed, referring to the succession issue, he said in his new years address: “all is lashed down and well lashed down”[2]. He, however, ended the address with a rather explicit promise to stay in power as long as he would live. By reinventing the monarchy, Franco himself was probably confident of having secured the continuity of his regime. Yet by perpetuating his personal power till the time of his death, he implicitly prepared for discontinuity. The Spanish were subjected to what would be the long and slow process of his death and when it happened in late 1975 the epochal separation between a Spain of Franco and a Spain after Franco was a generally shared perception; discontinuity in some form was unavoidable.

I would therefore argue that during the last years of Francoism all the main actors in Spain were preparing to fight either for continuity or for a transition, which would involve some kind of reconstruction of an imagined community, to use the term of Benedict Anderson. One of the ways this struggle was being carried out was through a rewriting of the national history.

As the regime change was taking place it was baptised with two different names: reforma pactada seen from the government, and ruptura pactada seen from the opposition, a terminology that signals the struggle between continuity and change. The difference between reforma, which stands for continuity, and ruptura, which stands for discontinuity, marks the different ideological interests of those in power and those wanting to get in power. The presence in both terms of pactada, however, signals the will on both parts to compromise and find a ‘middle way’ between the schism of continuity and discontinuity. Paradoxically, the real discontinuity of the Spanish transition in relation to Spanish history was to carry out a change of regime without rupture through building bridges to the former regime and at the same time reforming it.

The concept of continuity

Etymologically the term continuity comes from Latin continuus meaning uninterrupted. This, however, does not mean immobile; it means gradually evolving without perceivable ruptures. In this sense the concept is connected to reform instead of revolution, and similarity instead of difference.

I believe that there exist two usages of the concept of continuity: one, which connects distant epochs due to their perceived similarity and a second, which on the contrary stresses the continuos flow of time. Quite often, however, the two usages seem to melt together. Distant epochs or events are portrayed as continuous and in this sense representing the ‘real’ time, the ‘real’ sequence of events. The period or events in between are represented as deviations or indeed perversions of the ‘real’ course of history, which, nevertheless, flows unaltered and unalterable underneath these perturbations on the surface. Both usages, however, are ideological arguments, which contain specific representations of history.

Continuity is intimately related to the concept of identity. The concepts work in similar ways: when identity is constructed with something, difference is constructed with something else. Likewise, when continuity is constructed with a certain period or event, discontinuity is constructed with other periods/events. These constructions of continuity are at the same time constructions of identity, of “we” and “them” groups. I thus conceive of the inquiry into constructions of continuity as a specific kind of identity study, which deals with arguments about the relationship between the present and the past/history in representations of history.

Problem and central questions

My main interest in this project is to explore how the representation of Spanish national history in public discourse changed during the transition to and the first decades of democracy. My principle focus will be on how the representation of history was used to explain the present and its relationship with the past national history. The overall aim is twofold: to contribute to a better understanding of what happened to the Francoist nationalist discourse as well as of what discourse(s) is sustaining the post-1975 democratic Spain, and whether that can be called nationalism.

The Francoist rhetoric had connected the idea of discontinuity with civil war and violence in order to give legitimacy to the continuity of the regime. But when discontinuity of some kind became unavoidable with the death of Franco this representation of the national history became unattractive and dangerous as a tool to understand reality. It is therefore a basic assumption of my project that the transition was perceived of as a coming crisis, which led to the activation of a range of discursive strategies to counter and overcome the threatening chaos. It is these strategies, their underlying discourses and the way in which they are constructed, which are the object of my analysis.

It is my hypothesis that the change from the Franco regime to the democracy implied and at the same time was made possible by a series of changes in the representation of Spanish history. It took several years for this new discourse to shape and cement itself. Therefore it is a secondary hypothesis that the representations of the national history also were affected by developments in post-Franco Spain like the failed coup attempt in 1981, the electoral victory of the socialists in 1982, the membership of the EEC in 1986 etc.

Research strategy

I investigate a broad spectrum of public discourses, which were struggling to define the new post-Franco Spain and were claiming to represent “the people”. At the time, however, the range of discourses was most probably being perceived of as a cacophony. Therefore the attempt to establish order and typologies can only be constructions ex post facto, which I nevertheless perform in order to structure my exposition.

For the purposes of this project, I understand representation of history primarily as explanation of the present, which is always accompanied by arguments about the ‘real’ course of history. Therefore the questions I ask my sources concern legitimacy, pride and their opposites. Where is legitimacy situated? What periods are the Spaniards to identify with and feel pride towards? And on the contrary, which periods are to be forgotten or remembered uniquely to avoid their repetition? It is also important to critically ask how continuous is that which is represented as continuity, and how much does actually change in that which is represented as discontinuity.

I principally use press material, that is, a range of different newspapers that cover the political spectrum. In them I investigate a series of anniversaries that all relate to events in the history of Spain, such as the Civil War. Due to their value as representations of Spanish history they have acquired symbolic meaning or have been subjects of attempts to be invested with such meaning. Focusing on concrete events it becomes possible to better analyse how the different discourses manifest themselves, inter-relate, and try to impose their interpretation of the event and the symbols attached to it on the other discourses.

One first group of anniversaries refers to representations of the distant Spanish history for both the Franco regime and the Constitutional Monarchy:

  • 2nd of May – anniversary of the uprising which marked the beginning of the War of Independence (1808)
  • 12th of October – Día de la Hispanidad, anniversary of the discovery of America by Christopher Columbus (1492)

A second group of anniversaries are all related to the 1930s. For the democracy this represents the more recent past, whereas it for the Franco regime represents the present glories (the Civil War anniversaries) or its antithesis (the anniversary of the Second Republic):

  • 1st of April – anniversary of the victory of the Civil War (1939)
  • 14th of April – anniversary of the proclamation of the Second Republic (1931)
  • 18th of July – anniversary of the military uprising, which marked the beginning of the Civil War (1936)

The third group of anniversaries is related to the transition itself (except for the anniversary of the death of José Antonio Primo de Rivera) and these dates are therefore not commemorated during the Franco period. To the Constitutional Monarchy these represent the present glories:

  • 15th of June – anniversary of the first democratic elections (1977)
  • 20th of November – anniversary of the death of Franco and of José Antonio Primo de Rivera, founder of the Falange (1975 and 1936 respectively)
  • 22nd of November – anniversary of the proclamation of Juan Carlos I as King of Spain (1975)
  • 6th of December – Día de la Constitución, anniversary of the constitutional referendum (1978)

As I devote special attention to the transition I cover every year from 1975 to 1978. In the following period I have selected blocks of two years out of every five. This is an intentional choice as it can be made to coincide with major events like the failed coup attempt in 1981, the entry of Spain into the EEC in 1986 etc. As the Franco period is somewhat more homogenous the same ‘tight’ coverage is not needed and I have therefore selected every tenth year[3]. This is, however, not a rigid scheme, as I also cover important anniversaries, which would have otherwise not been included like the 50th anniversary of the end of the Civil War and the 10th and 20th anniversary of the Constitution.

Although the newspaper material will constitute the most important empirical source I intend to also study other sources, which are important for understanding the representation of Spanish history. Certain legislative and parliamentary texts like parts of the constitutional debates and specific laws like Law of the Flag contain valuable information on the struggle between different representations of Spanish history. Textbooks on Spanish history, monuments, and electoral programs of political parties might also be useful in this sense.

Lastly, as this investigation deals with discourses, which claim the existence of and struggle to represent the Spanish nation it is beyond the scope of this project to deal with the peripheral national identities in Spain and their representations of Spanish history in detail. This, however, does not mean that I intend to leave it out, but that this aspect will be based on the works of others.

The construction of continuity and the representation of Spanish national history in press discourse on the first anniversary of the death of Franco in 1976

Introduction

The 20th of November being the anniversary of the death of José Antonio Primo de Rivera, the founder of the Falange, was already commemorated in Francoist times, although it did not hold a very important place in the official calendar. But with the death of Franco, on the same day of the year, it acquired central importance for the transition. Franco’s death was the event, which marked the beginning of a new historical epoch in Spain and afterwards the anniversaries were used to make a balance of the regime of Franco and what had happened since his death. Furthermore, the anniversary was occasion for reflecting on Spanish history, independently of whether the recent events were interpreted as continuity or change. It thus became an important episode in the constant rewriting of the history of Francoism and the creation of new foundation myths for democratic Spain.

According to the thorough study of Paloma Aguilar Fernández, the Franco regime in the beginning tried to base its legitimacy on the victory in the Civil War and the supposed charismatic character of Franco. Of these two, the former element was the most important and it was quickly turned into the foundational myth of Francoism. This kind of legitimacy, which Aguilar Fernández calls legitimacy of origin, founded on the victory of one part of the population over the other, however, was problematic, and around the end of the 1950s it lost its protagonism. Instead focus was put on a new myth centred around the long period after the war characterised by peace, stability and development, which were interpreted as the achievements of Francoism due to its efficient administration of power. This legitimacy, which Aguilar Fernández calls legitimacy of exercise, however, was also somewhat precarious insofar as it implicitly entitled the people to dismiss the Francoist regime if the conjuncture were to change radically. Therefore, according to Aguilar Fernández, the Franco regime never abandoned and never could abandon the legitimacy of its origin, the victory in the Civil War, totally[4]. As we shall se below, both types of legitimising myths appeared in the press in the years following Franco’s death.

Another theme, which appeared with frequency, was what has been called the myth of the ungovernable character of the Spaniards. It is related to the myth of the victory but has a history going back to the XIX century. The central idea is that there is something in the character of the Spaniards, which makes them ungovernable, and therefore they are incapacitated for democracy. This myth was instrumentalised by the Franco regime as another fundamental source of legitimacy. As the Spaniards were unfit for democracy they needed a dictatorship labelled “organic democracy”, which as a result could not be said to be abusive; on the contrary, it was a way of rescuing the Spaniards from their own dangerous tendencies. Ramón Serrano Suñer, in an article in El País, gives a perfect example of the deployment of the myth when describing the Spanish people:

“(…) the adult Spaniard of our days (…) contains, together with the finest vital virtues like heroism (…), other defects and corruptions that make him as fit for civil war as he is unfit for the task of constituting an orderly and prosperous community, which knows its own destiny.”[5]

This supposed built-in inertia in Spanish society, which inevitably leads towards civil war if it is not controlled, was the core of the Francoist self-legitimisation. The Civil War together with the experiences of failure connected with both the Constitution of 1812, the First Republic in 1873, and the Second Republic became the evidence needed for this theory, which served to convince the Spanish people that they needed a dictator.

El Alcázar[6]

In El Alcázar the myth is generally believed to be true, i.e. that the Spanish are not able to govern themselves, which is hardly surprising given the close connection between the newspaper and the Francoist hard-liners. Therefore, inorganic democracy to these authors means a return to what they perceived as the chaos of the Second Republic. The background of almost all the articles is a generalised feeling that the present political situation is running out of control, and that there is a patent threat of a return to the pre-Civil War situation. A few examples:

“Everybody shouts frenetically, confused and pretentious dogmatists, and chaos is installing itself.”[7]

“(…) the forces that fight to avoid that already known situations should reoccur, which would facilitate the entry of Communism into Spain, which is, whether one wants it or not, the danger that threatens her [Spain] (…).”[8]

Behind this fear the myth of the ungovernable character of the Spaniards is working in an unconscious manner leading the authors to interpret political debate as chaos and the beginning of pre-civil war situation. The principal perceived threat is the return to inorganic democracy and party politics, which to their minds were responsible for the development during the Second Republic.

Generally, national pride is uniquely found in the construction of Francoist Spain, which is, of course, sought projected into without any changes. At the editorial level, the oblivion into which the figure of Franco has fallen is only implicitly present, but in the supplements published on the occasion of the anniversary, however, the historical amnesia surrounding Franco and his regime is mentioned explicitly in several places:

“(…) it is still not a year ago that you died, and yet it seems as if you had not existed, and as if your life work had not meant anything for Spain and the Spaniards (…).”[9]

This amnesia is deplored, and generally the authors express nostalgia towards Franco and his regime fighting for the recognition of its achievements. Legitimacy is built up around both the types found by Aguilar Fernández stressing on the one hand the victory as a rescue from the Republic as well as from Communism and on the other the Francoist “constitutional and social politics”.

As democracy is totally deprived of legitimacy in their eyes it is seen as an extremely dangerous development. There is almost a feeling of siege among these authors; they feel impotent and that the people is being deceived. To explain that the development seemed to be leading towards democracy they construct a theory of conspiracy against Spain and the Spanish people, which has as its goal to implement a “democratic change” from above:

“(…) the change would have to be implemented from above; (…) to achieve the disappearance of the Francoist Regime forcing on the people an adverse regime of political parties, which it never asked for. (…) numerous foreigners, with the appearance of colonial inspection, (…) came to verify how what they called “democratic change” was being implemented in Spain advocating a return to the Party System of 1936, which had maintained Spain paralysed and colonised (…).”[10]