Florencia Peyrou

The role of Spain and the Spanish in the creation of Europe's transnational democratic political culture, 1840–70

During the mid-nineteenth century European radicals developed contacts, relationships and networks. They organized activities and plans and propagated discourses and projects that transcended national borders. This article explores this transnational dimension of European democracy by analysing the case of Spain from around 1840, when the first Spanish self-proclaimed democrats began to organize, to the 1870s, when a certain national withdrawal took place among European democratic activists. It examines the journeys and contacts made by Spanish democrats as well as the extensive coverage of leading European activists that was published in Spanish newspapers, and considers how these connections were perceived by Spanish democratic activists. It is argued that contacts and networks contributed to configure a European democratic transnational political culture characterized by interrelations, exchanges and processes of cross-fertilization, through which the feeling of belonging to a national democratic community co-existed with a strong link to a wider European democratic family. The speeches, manifestos and projects of activists of various origins affected and greatly influenced each other, as well as shaping their socio-political views and strategic options.

A Great Family of Sovereign Men: Democratic Discourse in Nineteenth-Century Spain

The article analyses how nineteenth-century Spanish Democrats understood democracy, what were the issues at stake, how they were debated, and how political and social discourses evolved. It focuses on Democrats’ conceptions of citizenship, freedom, equality, sovereignty, political activity and the nation, as well as on their ideas on the most convenient form of government and organization of the State. It traces the process through which their original idea of democracy as an active and immediate exercise of power evolved into another centred on the control and limitation of power and the promotion of individual autonomy. It finally points out their holistic vision of society and their difficulty accepting a plurality of interests and parties, which had considerable influence on their political practice and their attempts at self-organization.