La Independencia del Perú y el fantasma de la revolución

This book aims to reflect on the political culture of Peru that emerged in the process of independence between 1819 and 1822—that is to say, between the last viceregal government and the protectorate under Argentine general José de San Martín. The book contains four chapters (some of which have been previously published as articles) and a detailed bibliography of recent Peruvian scholarship, which the author calls into debate in the first chapter. The book would have also been strengthened by a discussion of recent general reflections on independence put forth by Jaime Rodríguez, Manuel Chust, or José María Portillo. Montoya occasionally makes use of primary sources obtained from Peruvian archives, but the majority of his information comes from the Colección Documental de la Independencia del Perú. The title does not reflect the geographic limits of the study, which concerns itself only with Lima.Montoya believes that during this period, the different ideologies and doctrines expressed elsewhere in Latin America remained in conflict, because Peru’s intellectual elites lacked a true revolutionary ideology. Furthermore, he postulates that the dominant class did not act as a monolithic bloc in favor of the monarchy, and he demonstrates that there were segments of this class that supported a program of transition toward independence. He believes that the participation of the popular classes is even more poorly understood, and so he offers his reflections concerning the advances and limitations of their participation within the civic bodies put together by the secretary of state of the protectorate, Bernardo Monteagudo, in his aim to maintain public order and repress Spanish resistance. These reflections, which are the most important of the book, are clearly developed and constitute a significant contribution to recent historiographic discussion.The book’s central problem is that it attempts to clarify the complexity of Lima’s political culture during the independence period using a methodological perspective that reduces the problem to one of class conflict, despite the fact that the author himself recognizes that ethnic and caste conflict were just as important. The reduction of this conflict to an antagonism between two social classes—the dominant and the popular—forces the author to include all groups and individuals without connection to these two classes (such as the lower clergy, intellectuals of the Colegio de San Carlos, and middling provincial landholders) in a “republican faction.” But the text does not clarify the participation of this faction in the political process of the time. I also question his conclusion that the dominant class understood the nature of the political struggle taking place while the popular classes reacted in an instinctive and disorganized manner, without fashioning any class consciousness, political leadership, or alternative political programs. To explain the continuity in the social order in such a teleological and a priori manner is to ignore the complexity of the political culture that the author himself asserts in the introduction.The author believes that historians’ use of concepts such as nationalism, national bourgeoisie, or social revolution arose as a result of contemporary preoccupations and has served as an obstacle to understanding the political culture of the early nineteenth century. For this reason, he proposes (similar to François-Xavier Guerra) we reflect on terms such as citizenship, civil society, state, patria, or nation. Another concept central to his reflection is that of governability, but the author does not define the extent of this concept. When he applies it, he falls into the same sort of anachronism that he himself criticizes. For example, he mentions a liberal and integrative project of “broadening the nation” formulated in Spain and coinciding with the reestablishment of the Constitution of Cádiz in 1820, but he does not provide additional details. In reality, this constitution was imposed by Ferdinand VII; as such, there was no “national project,” aside from absolutism. The same thing happens when he defined the Jacobin project of Monteagudo as a desirable constitutional order affording broad civil liberties based on a “realistic knowledge of the political culture” of Peru. To believe what this person expressed in his vindicatory writings as the possible path toward which the protectorate would have drifted, had it continued, is a major error on the part of a historian. The author repeats the central arguments of the colonial heritage when he states that the failure of political modernity is due to the provincial, stratified, and racist character of Peruvian society. To this was added a legacy connected to the Cortes de Cádiz, which were connected to the reinforcement of “communal rights” of the populace. This localism, represented by the predominance of the constitutional ayuntamientos, would have constituted an obstacle to the formation of a national sentiment. The author simplifies, in this manner, the role played by the ayuntamientos during the liberal era in combating the arbitrary acts committed by viceroys and governors, not only in Peru but also in New Spain, Guatemala, and so on.This book reflects a deep conviction on the part of the author concerning the usefulness of history for contemporary times; he hints at the utility of collaboration between historians and politicians in order to achieve an “adequate understanding of the political, economic, and cultural reality of the country.” Montoya’s sympathy toward the popular classes, in their role as political watchdogs, is evident—so much so that he includes in his chronological list of mobilizations such things as the acts of vandalism and social violence that occurred in Lima on February 5, 1975. Aside from these exaggerated affirmations, the product of the social project the author undertakes, the book is a useful reference within the renewed historiographic debate that is occurring over the topic of independence

Art · Government (linguistics) · Humanities · Ideology · Independence (probability theory) · Latin Americans · Political science · Politics · Protectorate · Scholarship · State (computer science) · Windsor · Historical Studies in Latin America · History and Politics in Latin America · Latin American history and culture · Law · Philosophy