Cover Page. The handle holds various files of this Leiden University dissertation.

Transcription

1 Cover Page The handle holds various files of this Leiden University dissertation. Author: Barría Traverso, Diego Title: La autonomía estatal y clase dominante en el siglo XIX chileno : la guerra civil de 1891 Issue Date:

2 SUMMARY Literature both Chilean and foreign has overwhelmingly pointed out that 19th Century Chile was a case of early State-building. Several causes have been mentioned to explain this outcome, such as the existence of an economic and geographically homogeneous ruling class. It had control over both the colonial and independent Chilean society, and could therefore take early control of the State structures. It has commonly been stated that, as a result of this process, a strong State was built ( ), characterized by the presence of a President with broad powers. This State was able to establish a political order which avoided the return to the political anarchy which Chile had experienced during the 1820 s. Nonetheless, in the mid-nineteenth century, what Mario Góngora called the instinctive liberalism of the Chilean elite began to appear. During the Manuel Montt administration ( ), the political parties emerged and they started to fight the so-called presidential authoritarianism, particularly in relation to the government intervention in the elections. As a result, the following decades witnessed the emergence of parliamentary practices through which the Congress controlled the Executive Power. Hence, the political system advanced consistently in a liberalization process which lasted until 1924, with the fall of the so-called Parliamentary Republic ( ). In August 1891, Chile was experiencing the final stage of the civil war which had caught the attention of the country during that entire year. The president José Manuel Balmaceda ( ) closed the Congress in October 1890, unable to reach an agreement with the opposition after two years of conflicts. Since January 1891, the President did not have a law to authorize a budget for the ongoing year nor to authorize the recruitment of military for the Armed Forces two of the laws through which the Congress compelled the Executive to accept parliamentary will since the mid-nineteenth century. For this reason, by early 1891, the President decided to rule de facto through presidential decrees, arguing that his first duty was not to respond to the will of the Congress but to preserve public order. Thus, in the following months Balmaceda had to militarily confront most of the Congress, grouped together as a Governing Board in the northern city of Iquique, accusing him of violating the Constitution. 391

3 This war was the culmination of a tumultuous decade in Chile. In 1883, the country defeated the Peruvian and Bolivian military troupes in the War of the Pacific ( ), thus achieving the annexation of two provinces in the North of the country and the acquisition of the global monopoly of nitrate. After the war, Chile experienced a period of financial bonanza. Balmaceda took advantage of it and developed a government characterized by a policy of public investment in education and public works, which brought him public recognition during the early years of his mandate. However, by August 1891, the President was openly described as a dictator and tyrant by great part of the political actors and the press. The 1891 civil war was very violent, to the extent that the Balmaceda administration was accused of not respecting private property, the privacy of the home nor the freedom of the press. Furthermore, he was accused of arresting and torturing opponents to his government. According to Valentín Letelier, a contemporary observer, the events occurred in a context where the administrative apparatus of the state (which had grown and been reformed during the 1880 s) had become an instrument for oppression. This narration of the civil war is not consistent with the traditional description of nineteenth century Chilean history. This dissertation starts with the premise that, what seemingly is a paradox that the oligarchic state would have repressed the class which controlled it is not truly so. This study argues that what really characterized the 19 th century in Chile was the fact that the State was a constant source of political conflict. This study seeks to fill the existing gap in literature regarding the civil war and aims to explain why the role of the State in the nineteenth-century Chilean society was a key factor to explain the war of This analysis is based on the concept of state autonomy, which has been defined as the faculty of the State to hold its own interests, different from those of the ruling class, and to act against said class. Another definition states that autonomy is a feature of the State to enjoy certain degrees of freedom of action. Those who accept these definitions, such as Skocpol, view autonomy as the ability of certain officials to make decisions freely and consider that this autonomy can be absolute. Another perspective, put forth by Poulantzas and others, considers this autonomy to be relative. According to this standpoint, the interests of the officials and their class origins are irrelevant and what is truly important is 392

4 the fact that the main function of the State is to achieve the reproduction of Capitalism. In order to accomplish this purpose, the state apparatus performs actions which may affect the short-term interests of the ruling class. Particularly, this dissertation raises the question of whether state autonomy can be regarded as the factor which triggered the 1891 civil war. In order to answer this question, the study is structured as follows. Chapter 1 analyzes the theoretical discussion regarding autonomy and bureaucratization of the State. Later, Chapter 2 seeks to answer the following research questions: the first one is whether the characteristics of the State in 19 th century Chile included having autonomy from the ruling class. If so, it is also interesting to understand: 1) whether such autonomy was a source of conflict between State and society, and 2) whether there was a change in the characteristics of such autonomy and the conflicts around it during the 1880 s. The last question is based on the strong distinctive features of this period in relation to previous decades. The second focus of attention is the bureaucratization experienced by the Chilean public administration during the 1880s. First, it is important to determine the underlying causes which explain this process. The purpose of this thesis is to establish whether it was the result of socio-economic conditions, as suggested by Max Weber and his followers (Chapter 3). Also, it seeks to determine the conditions under which the reforms were carried out in the 1880 s, what sort of problems they tried to solve and which organizational characteristics were adopted by the Chilean administrative apparatus as a result of bureaucratization (Chapter 4). The premise developed in this book is that the State was a source of conflict, which divided the different actors in the 1880s, leading to the 1891 war. To support this statement, it is necessary to hold empirical evidence which leads in that direction. Therefore, this study seeks to give an answer to the question whether the administrative changes generated conflicts in the political field and, if that were the case, to determine the topics where such disputes could have taken place. In case that this conflict in fact took place, it is expected to find antagonistic projects regarding how to organize public administration and identify their main characteristics (Chapter 5). One final focus of interest in this study aims to connect the analysis with the main topics of interest of the main perspectives in the debate on the 1891 civil war. The 393

5 autonomy approach considers, among other, that the State performs actions by itself and without considerations to society, either because it carries out functions to reproduce the Capitalist production method, or because its officials hold agendas of their own which they want to implement. In order to support this approach on the conflict deriving from autonomy, it is necessary to prove that the State in fact performed a role by itself in the development of those policies, beyond their mere implementation. It is specifically expected to answer whether the State vested interests in the nitrate, railway and financial fields, and whether these interests led to conflicts between the State and different class fractions (Chapter 6). Meanwhile, in order to contrast an autonomy-based explanation to the war with the political perspective, it is necessary to demonstrate that in the moments of greatest struggle among different political actors, the conflicts arose around the role and structure of the state rather than issues such as presidential authoritarianism or parliamentarism. For this reason, there is an attempt to answer whether there is evidence to support such claim. This dissertation also seeks to understand how these reform agendas appeared within the chronology of events which traditionally are associated with those triggering the 1891 civil war (Chapter 7). The central question addressed by this dissertation is whether the Chilean nineteenthcentury government exerted autonomy from the ruling class and whether this was a source of conflict in the political field. From the evidence presented here, it is possible to provide an alternative interpretation on the Chilean nineteenth-century political evolution, and specifically on the conflict which ended in the defeat of Balmaceda in late August This interpretation is as follows. The roots of the relationship between the State and the ruling class during the nineteenth-century Chile can be found in the colonial period. As indicated in Chapter 2, during the first stage of the colonial period a society with traditional features was formed, where a landowning class achieved a prominent status., Among other things, this was possible because the Spanish Crown did not impose a strong state, able to prevail over it. Thus, a Criollo State, a type of political structure where local interests dominated, began to form. During the mid-18 th century, the Bourbons imposed a bureaucratic structure governed by mainland officials in an effort to put an end to local domination. In Chile they 394

6 found cohesive elite. It was able to co-opt the emerging state apparatus through marriages with officials and also through access to positions within some of the newly created institutions. As a result of this process, the ruling class accepted the State because it became a useful tool to perpetuate the power relationships which existed within society. In other words, the State was not a mere instrument of one class, but an external creation to which they could co-opt. Nonetheless, at first the process of acceptance of the State was neither immediate nor easy. The State which emerged after the Independence in 1818 demonstrated that not only could it reproduce the social order, but also alter it. The first Supreme Director Bernardo O Higgins ( ) sought to eliminate titles of nobility and entailed states, altering the features of Chilean society during the entire decade of These measures are clear examples of the possibility of the State affecting sectors which, although dominant from a social point of view (such as landowners), were incapable of imposing their opinions against a minority (a reformist and intellectual sector) which dominated politics. In 1829, a group constituted primarily by landholders and merchants, led a military mobilization against this reformist sector and defeated it. In the early 1830s, and following a typical Bonapartist logic, the block formed by landowners (winners in the 1829 civil war) delegated their power on the State, for it to be able to secure class domination. As a result of this delegation of power, towards the 1850s the State had been able to consolidate. An administrative apparatus was developed and its functions were defined. This was crucial for the appearance of a State logic, independent from those political considerations which existed in the social sphere. This logic was founded upon a set of responsibilities and criteria, independent from the wishes of the governments of the moment and of the officials who guided the functioning of the State. At the same time, the hegemony of the ruling class had consolidated, creating a bigger problem. The conditions which made the delegation of power possible did no longer exist, which seemed to suggest the end of the exception period which had justified a Bonapartist solution. Nonetheless, the consolidation process of the State hindered this issue. Thus, from the mid-1850s and until the 1880s, Chilean politics revolved around the issue of State autonomy and the State logic was indeed able to prevail upon the wishes of various social sectors. The clearest example lies in what was known as the sacristan issue, a conflict 395

7 which in 1856 confronted the Executive Power with the Catholic Church regarding a series of sanctions imposed by the courts to the ecclesiastical authority. On that occasion, the government of Manuel Montt enforced the institutional framework at the expense of perhaps the most important social institution of the period. The existence of a State which fulfilled its role of regulating and guiding the relationships in society appeared at several moments and generated various crises and rearrangements within the political system. The conflict over State authority focused primarily on the ability of the State to regulate non-governmental organizations, which operated in society but were under the guidance of the logic imposed by the various functions performed by the State. Another issue raised by this dissertation is that, although a conflict over State autonomy existed during great part of the nineteenth century, it had two distinctive stages. On the one hand, between the 1850s and 1870s it referred to cultural issues, while in the 1880s it focused primarily but not exclusively on problems of an economic nature. As described in Chapter 3, during most part of the nineteenth century, the Chilean State acted in the economy to support the development of economic activities related to the commodity export model. Railways were promoted through exclusive privileges and also through direct State intervention, which allowed moving production from the inland towards the ports. In a similar manner, it supported the development of a banking system and promoted a communication infrastructure. The State, which did not have great resources, developed policies which supported economic activity, without generating rivalry between different economic sectors. In the 1880s, the socioeconomic conditions in Chile changed. As a result, the State underwent a series of alterations in its role in the economy and society, as well as in its organizational characteristics. The key factor to explain this mutation was the Chilean victory in the War of the Pacific. Chile kept the provinces of Antofagasta (formerly Bolivian) and Tarapacá (formerly Peruvian), as well as the vast nitrate fields. Thus, the Chilean economy overcame the crisis it had experienced since the 1870s, due to the increasing demand for nitrate in Europe. The industry, although in private hands, left resources in Chile through taxes charged by the State. As a result, the Treasury became the main actor in the Chilean economy, surpassing most part of the decade the combined 396

8 wealth of the private sector. Consequently, State autonomy was reinforced. This happened firstly because the Chilean state seized to depend on internal tax collection to finance itself, starting to feature characteristics of what was defined in Chapter 1 as rentier states. Similarly, the state logic (i.e. the acting criteria which responded to the functions which the State should perform according to the institutions at the expense of social pressures) a hint of which was already present during the first half of the century through a series of events, such as the sacristan issue was reinforced. This occurred mainly because the tax bonanza propelled a bureaucratization process which deepened the independence of state management processes from considerations outside of the organizational framework. A clear example in this regard can be found in the fact that, gradually, the typical parliamentary tools seized to be effective to control the Executive and that several State decisions began to be made through decrees (i.e. outside the Congress and the will of the Chilean oligarchy). This allowed for the materialization of State intervention, for instance, in Public Health, despite the fact that several sectors had halted initiatives in the matter during the 1870s. Another crucial element to understand the context in the 1880s is that the Chilean economy started to depend almost entirely on the nitrate industry. Since the State had a key position in it because of the collection of taxes and their redistribution in society a new conflict arose. An autonomous state was problematic, since its decisions would affect vested interests of the diverse class fractions which depended on the financial decisions made by the State. This became clear during the Balmaceda administration and is key to reinterpret the 1891 civil war. Interpretations on the 1891 civil war cannot as they have so far continue ignoring the underlying potential derived from analysing the role of the State to understand how a political division of such magnitude could occur. Chapters 2 and 6 illustrate that the State played an important part in the economic field, to the point that its wealth was greater than that of the private sector combined. Nonetheless, this fact is just a part of a series of other factors which must be considered to explain the political problem in Chile at that time. The answers to some of the queries raised in this dissertation reflect upon the importance of the state apparatus, both in the politics of the time and in the alignments that occurred. A first point to be discussed relates to the causes and consequences of the 397

9 bureaucratization process experienced by the Chilean public administration during the 1880s. Until that moment, the administrative structure of the State was characterized as being simple, with bureaucratic cores entirely at a central level. Similarly, the administration refrained from intervening in various social sectors, such as Health, which was delivered in private hands. During the eighties, this situation changed. The choice of bureaucracy as the means to organize public services gained ground at different levels, both centrally and in various sectors of State intervention. This occurred because bureaucracy proved to be the solution to several operational problems which affected management capacity (see Chapter 3). Not only were there more services organized in a bureaucratic manner, but the efforts stopped aiming solely to the structures, to scope the processes as well. Thus, at least formally, administrative action began to be less dependent on the discretionality of public officials and social influence. The emergence of technical councils also headed in that direction and in diverse sectors most characteristically military and health it was agreed that public acting should be based upon notions which were accepted as scientific. The present study also displays that in Chile in the 1880s, State interests were mostly of an institutional nature, that is, they aimed at issues which were of importance for the position of the State in the economy. Chapter 6 is clear when it comes to documenting the fact that the decisions made during the 1880s, both by the Santa Maria and the Balmaceda administrations, ultimately aimed to improve the tax yield of the nitrate industry. To this end, several measures were conceived, such as putting an end to the railway monopoly which inhibited competition among producers. It was also sought to increase the number of actors in the economy, in order to slow down and hinder the materialization of attempts to form cartels. In the case of banks, the positions of the authorities changed over time, ranging from a position in favour of returning to convertibility to a clear support to the issuance of paper currency under state control. What was constant in State policy in this respect was the generation of conditions for the State to have funds to support its transactions. Generally, it is argued that the conflict between Balmaceda and the opposition was due to the electoral intervention made by the Executive and the discussion on presidentialism and parliamentarism. Nonetheless, in 1890 the President did not exercise veto on the 398

10 electoral reform project pushed forward by the opposition. On the other hand, the literature which examines the conflict from a political perspective, addresses the constitutional discussions raised in 1889 and 1890 starting from the debate on whether the 1833 Constitution was presidentialist or parliamentarist. In line with the arguments raised above, it is usually stated that the Congress attempted to ensure the independence of the Legislative Power from the Executive. Chapter 7 documents the fact that Balmaceda supported many of the reforms promoted by the Congress, and even incorporated them in the constitutional reform endorsed by him in Therefore, although the parliamentary and electoral issues were topics of debate, they are not able to explain the underlying causes for the conflict. In 1889, the conflict between Balmaceda and the opposition aggravated. On the same date, the economic debates regarding the nitrate and railway issues were at the centre of the political struggle. In the early months of that year, it became evident that the nitrate problem generated a series of collateral situations which affected in opposite directions various political and economic actors as well as a series of industries. In any case, the conflict was not only present among class fractions. As demonstrated throughout the present dissertation, the State was also an actor in these discussions, with interests of its own (of an institutional nature, and not necessarily the ones of the officials in charge of it). Furthermore, State authorities were willing to make use of their powers to regulate and guide economic activity in order to increase tax collection. The economic policy options hinted by Balmaceda were potentially disadvantageous for a sector which, in the political field, unsuccessfully tried to call the Government to order through parliamentary practices. These, however, proved not to be as effective to establish political consensus as they had been during most of the second half of the century. Poulantzas argues that the power struggles among class fractions lead to pressures to change State structures. In the late 1880s, Chile experienced that situation. For this reason, the opposition to Balmaceda seemed to believe that their luck depended upon the dismantling of a State structure which, just as it had been developing during that decade, was sufficiently autonomous from class considerations. Had the 1891 civil war been a conflict on the State, then it would be necessary to reflect on whether there is sufficient evidence to determine the efforts to alter the structure 399

11 of the State. Chapter 7 is clear in presenting that the Balmaceda administration attempted to reform the institutional framework to strengthen an autonomous structure. Specifically, during 1891 they sought to provide the Executive with additional instruments to perform their functions, along with the liberation from congressional controls. Even among Balmaceda s own supporters this trend was accused of being more authoritarian than the 1833 Constitution. At the same time, in the economic sphere they intended to assure the independence of the Treasury from the banks. Thus, another step was taken towards the consolidation of State autonomy, as seen during the 1880s. Nonetheless, the ultimate goal was to establish a relative autonomy from the ruling class. State action did not aim to collide with society but to maintain and reproduce a capitalist mode of production where, in all cases, public action had a significant regulating and guiding role. Meanwhile, the opposition led efforts for the dismantling of the State, which were carried out in two phases: one of them was institutional and the other one was armed. In the first phase, the Conservative Party raised an agenda which combined a reform on the electoral system and a new institutional framework at a municipal level. As persuasively exposed by María Angélica Illanes, the second project sought to dismantle a nascent State structure which was based on organizational and in some areas scientific criteria. The purpose was to concentrate public functions in small territorial units, dominated by the power of local landowners. Consequently, the bureaucratization process developed during the 1880s would be paralysed, once again giving importance to social actors as decision makers in public policy matters. Shortly after discussing the municipal reform initiative in the Congress, its approval seemed difficult, above all because of the political radicalization which occurred in Thereafter, both sides focused on a military solution. Once the opposition defeated Balmaceda, it sought to materialise the dismantling process by passing the new municipality law and ordering a study on a possible complete reform on the administration, in order to reduce the size of the government. Nonetheless, the paradox is that the victors could not stop the bureaucratizing trend of the administration which, in any case, continued in a silent manner until it reappeared in the frontline in the 1920s. In the Latin American nineteenth century context, Chile has been distinguished for its rapid process of State formation and for its institutional abilities to penetrate society and apply public policies throughout the territory. Similarly, it has been highlighted that this 400

12 was possible to a great extent due to the existence of a homogeneous elite which after the Independence rapidly took control of the State. Nonetheless, the State development process also brought other results, such as the appearance of a State logic which ended up being a source of conflict. This was true to such extent that the 1891 civil war was the result of the role of the State in society and, furthermore, a struggle for the control of the State apparatus. This requires a further debate to explain how an oligarchic State, subject to a homogenous social class, could end up having certain levels of autonomy and lead to major political conflicts. One last aspect worth noting is that the analysis on the 1891 Chilean civil war allows for contribution in a theoretical field, addressing a number of issues which are central in the discussion on State autonomy. The first one relates to the officials making decisions within the State. Chapters 2 and 6 present evidence on that officials are constrained by a State logic which emerge from a series of factors such as the existence of legally regulated procedures or the financing sources. Thus, the institutional and organizational features become a main factor to understand the decision making processes within the State, as well as the nature of its autonomy. The case of nineteenth-century Chile also sheds light on the degree of autonomy reached. Chapter 1 analyses the theoretical debate on the matter, among those who argue that the State can be completely autonomous and those who claim that it can only achieve relative degrees of autonomy. The evidence presented in this dissertation demonstrates that the autonomy is relative, that it depends on the social structure and political dynamics. Thus, even though the State might be able to concentrate power, it is used to preserve the characteristics proper to a type of society and, in cases such as nineteenth century Chile, to strengthen class domination. At the same time, this dissertation reveals that the State is capable of developing processes of institutionalization and concentration of power. Nonetheless, this causes that, along with strengthening itself, it also become subject for the critique of social actors, inasmuch as changes occur in the cohesion levels in the ruling class or in the relation of power and hegemony among different fractions. The State is not a mere agent for one class or the oppressor of society. The relationship is more complex and is based upon a mutual control and interdependence between State and society. 401

13 Another aspect to bear in mind is that the process of concentration of power developed by the State is of an institutional nature. Thus, the autonomy is not the result of the positioning of certain actors who circumstantially manage to prevail, but it is rather the result of the combination of functions and organizational structures which endow the State with the capacity to act. This allows suggesting that the relative autonomy is possible because the State holds a structure capable of concentrating power. As a consequence, the study of the autonomy as a concept must be based on the organizational features and the capabilities of the State, rather than on the individual preferences of policy makers, as suggested by part of the literature on State autonomy. The autonomy is of vital importance for the success of the State: to grant it the possibility of operating in an effective manner to fulfil its goal to impose and reproduce a social order. This issue hides a potential conflict between the State and the ruling class since, paradoxically, State action might end up altering social order rather than preserving it. To the extent that the State apparatus uses its relative autonomy, it generates unequal effects in different social classes and between fractions within one specific class, with the possible outcome of a transfer of the hegemonic centres. This leads to a social conflict process, which is preferentially focused in the administrative structure. 402