Liberal Thought in Argentina, 1837–1940. Группа авторовЧитать онлайн книгу.
in the colors under which it is offered, that even those who out of blindness, envy, or some bad sentiment praise his glory when they judge the conduct of his foreign policy, turn mute and consider themselves beaten when the picture is turned over and they are shown the domestic situation.
On this point there is no worthwhile sophism or deception. There is no written constitution in the Argentine Republic; there are no individual, fundamental laws that could take its place. The exercise of the laws that did exist in Argentina has been suspended, while General Rosas is the indefinite trustee of the sum of political power.
This is a fact. Here there is no calumny, fervor, or partisan spirit. I acknowledge, I accept all that General Rosas may wish to claim of himself as noble and worthy of respect. But he is a dictator. He is a leader invested with despotic and arbitrary powers whose exercise recognizes no counterweight. This is a fact. It matters little that he uses a power
[print edition page 25]
conferred legally. This does not detract from the fact that he is a dictator: the fact is the same, even if the origin is different.
To live in Buenos Aires is to live under the regime of the military dictatorship. One may praise all one likes the moderation of that power: it may at best be a noble dictatorship. In the times in which we live, the ideas have reached a point at which there is more appetite for stingy constitutions than generous dictatorships.
To live under despotism, even if it is legal, is a real misfortune.
This misfortune weighs on the noble and glorious Argentine Republic.
This misfortune has come to be unnecessary and sterile.
Such is the state of the question of its political and social life: the Argentine Republic is the first in glories, the first in fame, the first in power, the first in culture, the first in means to be happy; and the most unfortunate of all, in spite of that.
But her misfortune is not one of destitution. She is unfortunate in the manner of those opulent families, who amid outer pomp and luster, cry out under domestic despotism and discontent.
Forty years ago, afflicted by a less brilliant oppression, Argentina had the fortune to shake it off, and the fruits of her victorious courage were the laurels of her May Revolution.
She has gone on to make greater efforts to rid herself of the adversary who shelters in her entrails: but she has achieved nothing, for between foreign despotism and national despotism there is a difference in favor of the latter, of the magical influence that adds to any cause, the flag of the people. How could you destroy a power that has the astuteness to shelter behind national glory and raise in its battlements the beloved colors of the homeland? What would you do in the presence of such a happy strategy? Invincible by the vanity of the country itself, there is no other way than to capitulate to it, if it has enough honor to lay down in good faith his arbitrary weapons in the religious hands of the Law.
Rosas kneeling, by a spontaneous movement of his will, before the altars of the law is a picture that leaves behind in glory the lion of Castile, submissive at the feet of the Republic crowned in laurels.
But if the picture is more beautiful, it is also less plausible; as it sometimes takes less to defeat a monarchy of three centuries than to crush a proud aberration of personal self-love.
[print edition page 26]
In short: who, if not Rosas, who has gained such unexpected triumphs, is fit to obtain the no less unexpected triumph over himself?
The problem is difficult, though; and it is no small difficulty.
But whatever the solution may be, there is one thing that is true by any reckoning: and it is that the Argentine Republic has before it its most beautiful period of good fortune and prosperity. The rising sun that is seen on her coat of arms is a historic symbol of her destiny: for her, all is future, future greatness and outstanding hope.
Valparaíso, May 25, 1847
[print edition page 27]
| 2 | ESTEBAN ECHEVERRÍA Symbolic Words (1837) (Excerpts) * |
I
1. ASSOCIATION
Society is a fact embossed on the pages of history, and the necessary condition instilled in man by Providence for the free exercise and full development of his faculties in making the universe his own. Society is the vast theater where his power grows, where his intelligence is nourished, and where the fruits of his tireless activity appear in quick succession.
Without association there can be no progress; or rather, association is the necessary condition of all civilization and progress.
To work for the spirit of association to spread and be shared among all classes is to set about the great task of progress and civilization for our country.
There can be no true association except among equals. Inequality engenders hatred and passions that suffocate fraternity and weaken social bonds.
To extend the orbit of association and at the same time strengthen and increase it, it is necessary to even out social individualities, or make an effort to attain equality.
In order for association to broadly match its purposes, it is necessary to organize and form it in such a way that social interests and individual interests do not clash or damage each other, or combine the two elements: the social element and the individual, the country and the independence of the citizen. In the alliance and harmony of these two principles lies the whole question of social science.
[print edition page 28]
The rights of man and the right to association are equally legitimate.
Politics must concentrate its labors toward ensuring for each citizen his liberty and individuality through association.
Society must protect the individual independence of all of its members, as all individualities are obliged to join forces for the good of the country.
Society must not absorb the citizen or demand the absolute sacrifice of his individuality. Nor does social interest allow the exclusive predominance of individual interests, because society would then dissolve, as its members would not be joined to each other by a common bond.
The will of a people or of a majority cannot establish laws that undermine individual rights, because there is no absolute authority whatsoever on Earth, because none is an infallible organ of supreme justice, and because above human laws there is the law of conscience and reason.
No legitimate authority rules but in the name of law, justice, and truth: it is up to the national will, the true public conscience, to interpret and decide finally what is just, true, and obligatory: herein lies the domain of positive law. But beyond that law, and in a higher sphere, there exist the rights of man, which as the basis and essential condition of social order overrule and prevail over the positive law.
No majority, party, or assembly has the right to establish a law that attacks natural laws and the principles that preserve society, or that puts the security, freedom, and lives of all men at the mercy of the whim of one man.
Any people that commits this act is foolish, or at least stupid, because it uses a right that it does not possess, because it sells what is not its own to sell, the freedom of others; as it cannot do this, it sells itself, enslaving itself when it is free under the laws of God and nature.
The will of a people could never sanction as just what is essentially unjust.
To plead the national interest as an excuse for the violation of these rights is to introduce Machiavellianism and effectively subject men to the disastrous rule of force and arbitrariness. The welfare of the people does not stem from anything but the religious and inviolable respect for the rights of each and every