[ad_1]
“A collection of unrealizable theories, if they can be called theories at all, about institutions may always be impossible, but they are impossible to a certain extent in societies like ours, at a time when those institutions will be exhumed from the graveyard of human error”.
Alexander Herculano
(About the Constitution of 1822)
To understand the liberal revolution of 1820, we must briefly recall the Enlightenment and the outbreak of rationalism that took place during the 18th century, particularly among nations and peoples that adopted Protestant doctrines.
Although we are talking about the Greeks – in other words, the free men of Athens – the concept of democracy is modern, although it is ancient. It has its origins in the 18th century with the “Enlightenment” and the “rationalists” (although we can trace it back to Sir Francis Bacon, 1561-1626, and the “Glorious Revolution” of 1688), who, through the Masonic organization, sparked the first revolution inspired by this in the 13 British colonies in America in 1776. The French Revolution followed, and to this day there are attempts to “sell” products to all the peoples of the planet. Of course, there is a serious conflict with the Catholic Church on a theological and teleological level… But, anyway, this is a discussion on another level.
In summary, these ideas aimed to standardize all religions (held primarily responsible for wars – hence the supposed concept of the “Great Architect of the Universe”); to place man at the center of life (androcentrism) to the detriment of God (theocentrism) – even encouraging man to identify himself with God (“in his image and likeness”), perhaps in order to challenge him. The individual was privileged to the detriment of the family, a concept later extended to the state – a state was nothing more than a group of families united by a common destiny – the Ten Commandments were replaced by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Law of the Land. The right to vote was natural, as it was a source of legitimation for the exercise of power. To become king by “the grace of God” was a way to be hardly conditioned. However, if elections were held, the whole process could be influenced or manipulated. This led to attacks on thrones and altars.
Constitutionalism was nothing more than a transitional solution: the king ruled but did not rule… At the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, the situation became clear (in the Western world): the republic was planted by bombs, in southern Europe (where Catholicism was dominant) and the common choice of monarchy, in the center and north of the same continent, already dominated by reformists, Calvinists and Anglicans. In Russia, things went even further, the Jacobin Republic became extreme, and no “Thermidor” could oppose it. They called it “communism” – also called “mass democracy”… Through all this, political parties were invented: perhaps the greatest social cancer ever! In other words, Portugal had 700 years of self-government without any democratic ideas, and the guillotine had broken more heads in six years than the Inquisition had in three centuries, before people understood this. Our self-government does not seem to have gotten any worse.
*****
“It was they and their absurd and false reforms that brought us to this state. They demoralized the whole country, displaced it and brought it into revolution. Ignorant reformers, who could only say, like the energetic men of Barras and Robespierre: Down with them! This shabby land was transformed by the stroke of the axe!
Another ten years of aristocratic and materialistic regimes passed, and the last sigh of the spirit had undoubtedly disappeared from the dying body of Portugal.
…Not content with uprooting this poor country with incoherent innovations, mutually exclusive, almost entirely absurd, without consulting our uses, our practices, any convenient reason, they go on throwing this whole absurdity over the sea…”
Almeida Garrett
(On the implementation of liberalism in Portugal)
It remains to characterize liberalism as a doctrine. The word “liberty” is derived from the Latin word “liber”, which means “free” or “not a slave”. From a philosophical point of view, political-economic liberalism is a view of life that is contrary to Christianity. Liberalism originated in the Renaissance, survived all the political-religious quarrels of the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation, matured with the Thirty Years’ War, and took shape through the Enlightenment and rationalism of the 18th century. The “Glorious” Revolutions in the United States and France, especially this one, gave a decisive impetus to this concept and doctrine. He also drew on “naturalism” and found his answer in the philosopher John Locke (one of its main theorists), who argued that everyone has a natural right to life, liberty and property, and that young people should not violate these rights.
The main opponents of liberalism from the beginning came from “traditionalism”. The basic idea of liberalism – a political and economic doctrine – as a system is to regard law as a product of human will, without any a priori influence.(1)This would produce positive law and relegate natural law to oblivion. It would thus combine the most extreme materialistic and rationalist doctrines.
Liberalism claims the absolute independence and autonomy of man and defends the will of half plus one as always being an expression of justice. This is the imposition of quantity on quality. Since men are free, this also means that they are also equal, without any distinction. This leads to the atomization of society and a tendency towards the bottom.
Liberalism is full of naturalism, tends towards pagan rationalism, and is therefore the opposite of religion, namely Catholicism. At most, it recognizes the existence of a personal “God”, which contradicts the denial of supernatural intervention. From a political point of view, liberalism is synonymous with democracy, deifying man and making everything depend on his will.
However, a distinction must be made: the spirit of freedom only allows everyone to dispose of themselves, while the spirit of pure democracy requires that the same person can also dispose of the state. In addition, liberalism focuses on “ability”, while democracy only focuses on the law. Democracy is also equal, while liberalism recognizes class differences. In liberalism, the people can only elect legislators, while in democracy, the people can become legislators. In short, liberalism is reformism and democracy is revolutionism. This is a big difference.
Now defending liberalism, universal suffrage and man as the origin and end of law itself, liberalism cannot exist independently, it needs a republic and direct democracy. Liberalism remains the origin of capitalism, free trade and free exchange are decisively promoted by the theory of Adam Smith. Liberalism began to strengthen in the middle of the 19th century, and the organization most dedicated to the spread and implementation of liberalism was Freemasonry, especially its branches in Britain and France. Despite many people’s opposition, liberalism and its derivatives are still trying to be exported to people all over the world.
*****
“The different political parties are nothing more than schools of immorality and, therefore, companies of illegal commerce, and the different struggles they promote are nothing more than ways of carrying out the exchange of consciences, the sacrifice of friends and the interests of the country, and, therefore, of achieving the fruits of corruption after taking into account opinions”.
Luz Soriano
(On the politics of your time)
Once again, a group of people (many of them honest and well-intentioned) tried to lead the country down a path it was not prepared for, with ideas and actions that went against the conscience of the majority of the people. Their blind reasoning and appreciation, lack of self-criticism, led the country into a future full of upheavals and losses, and even if some progress was made, it was always at the cost of great sacrifices and disasters. In this case, the greatest disaster (besides the demise of the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarve!) led to the worst civil war Portugal has ever experienced, between 1832 and 1834. This was followed by two smaller disasters in 1846/47, “Maria da Fonte” and “Patulea”, which ended in a humiliating foreign military intervention! These misfortunes still leave traces today.
Human progress must be achieved through gradual evolution and not through revolutionary acts. But there is no way to learn. In this way, we still need a brutal but real and pragmatic synthesis of the 90 years that liberalism lasted in Portugal between 1820 and 1910.
Monarchy liberalism lasted 90 years, from 1820 to 1910. It was almost a century of partisan struggles and constant destruction, during which the country disintegrated from its ancient matrix, which ultimately handed it over to the republican tribes. This is his legacy: six monarchs (two of whom were murdered) and three regents; four constitutions, one of which, the 1822 constitution, was in force twice, one of which, the 1826 constitution, was in force at three different times (still undergoing four amendments-additional acts), and another of the 1838 constitution; 142 governments (one and a half per year); 42 parliaments, 35 of which were dissolved by violent means; 31 dictatorships (one third of the time not in accordance with constitutional norms), and 51 revolutions, declarations, coups d’état, seditions, etc. This is the tragic “responsibility” that the Republic has inherited.
The following 16 years were one of astonishing anarchy. The Republic had a Jacobin background and was therefore anti-clerical, and led to the late implementation of the French Revolution. Liberalism was dead, and “direct democracy” began. As a legacy, the 16 years of “direct democracy” of the First Republic left the country: eight heads of state, one of whom was murdered, two were exiled, one resigned, two resigned, and another was dismissed; 45 governments (with the head of government murdered), an average of 3 governments per year – for example, one lasted a few hours, one lasted a week, and three of them; 8 parliaments, 5 of which were violently dissolved, and 11 dictatorships, which left us with only five years of the constitution adopted in 1911.
When we take a very general assessment of a century of liberal democratic rule, we find that from 1820 to 1926, the country had 16 heads of state, 189 governments, and 50 parliaments, 40 of which were violently dissolved. There were 42 dictatorships, almost one every other year. It converges into a logical and reasonable synthesis: Down with the revolution; long live the counter-revolution!
It is good to remember all this, for the Portuguese learned very little, owing to the strange design of Providence.
Pilot Pilot (reference)
(1) Costa Brochado, “Towards a History of Liberalism and Direct Democracy in Portugal”, p. 14. 13
[ad_2]
Source link
