A book a day: Manuel Azaña: The evening in Benicarló

Original language: castellano

Year of publication: 1939

Valuation: Highly recommended

Just a few months after the uprising of July 18, and given the proximity of the rebels to Madrid, Manuel Azaña, president of the Republic, established his residence between Valencia and Barcelona. Precisely there, in Barcelona, ​​he writes The evening in Benicarló, reflecting on the war that, although it would still last two more years, was beginning to have a very dark perspective for the Republic. The reflection is extended to broader aspects until it constitutes a kind of political testament in which Azaña exposes his convictions about how a democratic regime should function, the value of culture and the need for reconciliation. There is a background of stupor and despair that recalls some thinkers of ’98, and that also, of course, connects with the Jacobin liberalism that he always professed.

The text has the format of a talk between various characters, among whom we can distinguish Azaña himself, along with professionals of different tendencies within the republican political arc. We could give them names, which the author was probably thinking of, but it is the least important thing. Although it appears to be an open dialectic, it is clear that Azaña wants to convey, above all, his vision of the moment.

As can easily be deduced from the fact that he is writing his reflections at the same time that the bombs sound not far away, Azaña is, more than a politician, an intellectual, which always presents the danger of disconnecting from social reality. One of his characters openly criticizes him for dreaming about ‘a Republic of fine people, without crowds, a Republic for the Academy of Moral and Political Sciences’, senior Republicans who speak softly and sip cups of tea. He is aware of the reproach and does not defend himself, probably because it is true. That is why he does not understand, or cannot suffer, the savagery, the lack of control, the obfuscation of the aggressors but also of some sectors. red who defend their ideal Republic, but also other objectives that would ultimately lead to their own denial.

Given the gloomy panorama that is presented, identify the reasons why the war can be lost:

“French-English politics [de no intervención]; the armed intervention of Italy and Germany; the excesses, indiscipline and subaltern purposes that have undermined the reputation of the Republic and the authority of the Government; finally, the rebels’ own forces”

The third of these reasons seems to plunge Azaña into disenchantment and bitterness: he admits, admires and appreciates the popular uprising against the coup plotters, but the disorganization and the imposition of partisan interests have ruined it, at least at the time he writes. , with the command capacity of professional military personnel, who had to lead a solid strategy as the only way to face the situation. Militias, unions and political commissars impose their criteria and sometimes boycott or confront each other. Each one makes, never better said, the war on his own, and the heroic moments remain in specific episodes and of little relevance to the defense of the Republic. The president’s pessimism and perhaps lack of energy fuel, and perhaps exaggerate, this frustrating view of the moment.

Let no one think about equidistances, Azaña is a fervent republican since before the dictatorship of Primo de Rivera, someone who believes in a modern State and in the possibility of coexistence even if at that time it is somewhat illusory. He made serious mistakes and perhaps lacked the ability to maneuver in difficult moments, either due to his own limitations, or due to the explosive nature of the situation. But he is above all a democrat who, to stop the bleeding and safeguard freedoms, is willing to do almost anything. Like some other (few) voices of the time, he tries to maintain the well-known motto of “Peace, mercy and forgiveness”, with very little success of course. A proclamation perhaps too naive, or a desperate call to stop the collapse.

With its somewhat nineteenth-century prose and a way of reasoning in the abstract so far removed from our politics today, the book offers a different point of view, largely ignored as it is buried by circumstances, but which is very much worth knowing. And by the way, he leaves another reflection that seems purposely designed for current times:

“It is not enough for many Spaniards to profess and believe what they want: they are offended, scandalized, and rebellious if the same freedom is granted to those who think differently.”