Pueblos y soberanía

The present study is a revised version of the author's bachelor thesis that focuses on the kingdom of Quito's response to the global political crisis generated by the imprisonment of Ferdinand VII in 1808. By analyzing the evolution of two concepts, pueblo (people) and sovereignty, the author seeks to demonstrate that the political language of the time used by both insurgents and royalists had its intellectual foundation in Hispanic neo-scholasticism instead of the Enlightenment, as has been assumed. After a short first chapter in which the author introduces the global context for the monarchical crisis that took place in Spain after 1808, the second chapter analyzes the intellectual debate that took place in the kingdom of Quito in the early 1800s. The third and fourth chapters center on the language utilized in the moment of the Junta Suprema (1809–10) and of the Junta Superior and Estado de Quito (1810–12). The fifth and last chapter deals with the promulgation of the Constitution of Cádiz in 1812 and its application in the kingdom of Quito.The author makes a valuable contribution by analyzing the discourse employed in the discussions over the creation of a local government (junta). His study of the cabildo's records highlights the variety of political and philosophical positions and the efforts made by the Quiteño insurgents to present their desire for more political autonomy and representation as a “change of government instead of a break from the current political system” (p. 51). Although Quiteños failed to convince a significant part of the population, they proposed an idea that would prove very popular throughout Spanish America: “The American territories had the same rights and obligations as the Iberian territories” (p. 62).Moreover, by analyzing proclamations and letters penned by different social groups, the author shows the mutability of the concepts of pueblo and sovereignty. The author demonstrates how pueblo changed from its traditional corporative definition to another that was both individual and collective. In this sense, several pueblos comprised the Spanish monarchy but could also be one people who constituted the Spanish nation. Similarly, the concept of sovereignty developed in Quito was rooted neither in one people nor in individuals but in corporative entities such as cities. For Quiteños, sovereignty was only shared with the king, which allowed them to declare independence from other cities such as Lima or Santafé. Nevertheless, Quiteños remained subordinate to the Junta Central and, later, the Constitution of Cádiz. The author successfully shows how while these and other concepts were being debated simultaneously in Cádiz and in Quito, all these ideas were rooted in the same philosophical principles of Hispanic neo-scholasticism. However, these concepts were also being shaped by local political debate and discussion that, in time, led to different meanings. This is the reason why in Quito the notions of pueblo and sovereignty differed dramatically from those conveyed in the Constitution of Cádiz. Moreover, other cities of the region elaborated their own definitions of these concepts, which allowed them to reject Quito's leadership.This is a valuable study that makes a strong case for the dynamism and intellectual complexity of the debates that occurred in Quito during the monarchical crisis. At the same time, the book highlights how Hispanic neo-scholasticism was attuned to the main political debates that happened in other regions of western Europe without copying or reproducing these debates. Nonetheless, at times the chronology of the events gets lost in the analysis, which makes the argument a bit confusing. Furthermore, the study would have benefited from dialogue with other Latin American historiographies, in particular the work of José Carlos Chiaramonte and Víctor Peralta Ruiz. As the author notes, similar debates took place in other regional spaces, but comparison with these other spaces could have strengthened the uniqueness of the political debate that took place in Quito, in particular with respect to Buenos Aires and Lima. Beyond this criticism, this is a great first monograph, and we can expect more valuable contributions from Ahmed I. Deidán de la Torre in the future

Constitution · Constitutional monarchy · Context (archaeology) · Humanities · Monarchy · Political science · Politics · Sovereignty · Historical Studies in Latin America · History · History and Politics in Latin America · Latin American history and culture · Law · Philosophy