Anti-Democratic Thought in Early Republican Peru: Bartolom Herrera and the LiberalConservative Ideological Struggle Author(s): Daniel Gleason

Source: The Americas, Vol. 38, No. 2 (Oct., 1981), pp. 205-217 Published by: Catholic University of America Press on behalf of Academy of American Franciscan History Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/980999 Accessed: 15/07/2009 17:51
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aafh. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Academy of American Franciscan History and Catholic University of America Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Americas.

http://www.jstor.org

ANTI-DEMOCRATICTHOUGHT IN EARLY REPUBLICAN PERU:

BARTOLOMEHERRERAAND THE LIBERALtONSERVATIVE IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLE

URING its first half-century of independence,Peru fought in five internationalconflicts, had thirty-one different govern_ mentss and operated under thirteen various constitutionsor provisionalcharters.lThe international wars,uncertaintermsof office, and a frequencyof change in constitutionswere all symptomsof an unsettledpoliticalenvironment. Additionalsymptomsincludedforceful overthrowsof government,political exile, conspiracies,and foreign intervention.By mid-century,Peruvianwriterscomplainedof political corruption,graft,lack of publicspirit,disrespect for the law, militarism, elitism, mobocracysa mania for public office (empleomania), and in generalof the social and political disintegration.2 Too widely it is believedthat this recordof politicalinstabilityand opportunism is the whole story of nineteenthwenturyPeru. Too narrowly is the ideological struggle behind the political turmoil of nineteenth-centuryPeru appreciated.3Despite the instability, the
|
IJorgelBasadre, fiIistorisdelaRepublicadelPeru(10vol.: Lima,1961-1964),VI.2644;Jose Pareja Paz-Soldan, Lasconstituriones del Peru(exposicion critica y textos)(Madrid, 1954), pp. 8385: Pedro Ugarteche and Evaristo San Cristoval (eds.) AJIensajes de lospresidentes. Recopilacion y notas (2 vols.; Lima, 1943), I, 1-6. 2Fernando Casos, Parala historiadel Peru.Revolusion de 1854(Lima and Cuzo, 1854): Juan Espinosa, Diceionario para elpueblo:republicano, moral,politicoy f losofico(Lima, 1855): Felipe Masias (pseud., un Thaboriano), Examencomparativo de la monarquia y de la republica (Lima, 1867): Jose de la Riva-Aguero (pseud., Pruvonena), AJIemorias y documentos parala historiadel Peruy causasdel mal exito que ha tenidoesta (Paris, 1858). 3See Victor Andres Belaunde, Bolivarand the Political Thoughtof the SpanishAmerican Revolution(New York, 1967): Jesus Chavarria, S4TheIntellectuals and the Crisis of Modern Peruvian Nationalism: 18701919,"Hispanic American Historical Review,L (May, 1970), pp. 257258; Rad Ferrero Rebagliati, El liberalismo peruano.Contribueion a una historiade las ideas (Lima, 1958): Jorge Guillermo Leguia, Estudios historicos (Santiago de Chile, 1939)and Hombres e ideasen el Peru(Santiago de Chile, 1941); Fredrick B. Pike, "Heresy, Real and Alleged, in Peru:An Aspect of the conservative-Liberal Struggle, 183S 1875," HispanicAmericanHistoricalReview XLVII (Februaxy, I967); Antonine Tibesar, "The Peruvian Church at the Time of Independence in the Light of Vatican II," TheAmericas, A Qvarterly ReviewoJlnter-American Cultural History, XXVI (Apnl, 1970).

205

206

PERU REPUBLICAN INEARLY TOUGHT ANrI-DEMOCRATIC

isolation of various regions of their country, and its economic backwardness,Peruvians engaged in an active exchange of ideas, attemptingto understandtheir past and to establisha set of rules for governingthemselves.This exchangeof ideas, however,failedto bridge the wide chasm separating two ideological camps, liberal and conservative,into which the ideologuesmay be grouped. Peruvianliberals have been labelled Accurately,nineteenthwentury "romanticliberals."4From the 1820s to the 1870s they consistently expressed faith in man's ability to govern himself intelligently. the notion of divinerightof kingsandupheld they rejected Consequently the idea of popularsovereignty.Liberalshad confidencein the present and in man'sprogressto a betterfuture.Beliefin educationand in order theliberals' of the law charactenzed derivingfromvoluntaryobservance philosophy. Peruvian liberals favored local autonomy, civilian rule, Theydefendedcivil andsmallcentralgovernment. supremacy, legislative for freedomof the press,and wroteenthusiastically rights,particularly as States United the took they Characteristically, extensionof suffrage. government.5 their model for republican wereessentiallyreactionary In contrastto the liberals,conservatives authoritarians.With little faith in their present and fearful of worse conservatives things to come in the future, Peru's nineteenthwentury looked backwardto better, but lost, days. They firmly defendedthe prerogativesof the Churchagainst anti-clericalliberals. Arguingthat rejected authorityfor temporalaffairsoriginatedin God, conservatives a executivesupremacy, the idea of popularsovereignty.They preferred and opposedextensionof suffrage.When powerfulcentralgovernment conservativesmentionedthe United States, Peru's nineteenth-century they referred to its society as nothing more than "a prosperous Consistentlythey arguedthat the UnitedStatescould not be disorder."6 that republicanism maintained Conservatives used as a modelfor Peru.7

Peru(New York and Washington, 1967), Chapter III. oJf 4 Fredrick B. Pike, TheModernHistory 5 For a general discussion of nineteenthwentury liberal positions seeJorge Basadre, ^ 'La Historia de los partidos' de Santiago Tavara y la historia de los partidos en el Peru," in Santiago T^vara, Historiade los partidos,edicion y notas de Jorge Basadre y Feliz Denegri Luna (Lima, 1951). Basadre discusses the liberal-conservative struggle in Chapter XXXVII of the 1961-1964 edition of del Peru.Raul Ferrero Rebagliati defines and discusses liberalism in El de la Republica his Historia pervano( 1858). Jose Maria Quimper, a life-long liberal and combatant in the ideological liberafismo de (Gand, 1886)and in Elprineipio struggle, discusses the qualities of liberalism in his B liberalismo libertad,prologo y notas de Alberto Tauro (Lima, 1948). p. 89. 6 Masias, Examencomparativo, y documentos,I, 15-16, 287. 7 Riva-Aguero, Memorias

DANI EL

GLEASON

207

had failed Peru and argued for some type of authoritarianrule, aristocracyor constitutionalmonarchy.8 Churchmen enteredvigorously into thisdiscussion,someon thesideof the conservatives,others with the liberals. FranciscoJavier de Luna Pizarrohadthe distinctionof leadingthe liberalsin the firstdecadeafter independence, then later, as Archbishopof Lima,excommunicating his fellow clergymanand one-time political confrere,Franciscode Paula Gonzalez Vigil.9 Another priest, Bartolome Herrera, became the foremostconservative ideologueof nineteenthwentury Peru.Orphaned at age five, Herrera,a native of Limas received the highest quality education his city had to offer. In 1831, at the age of twenty-three, Herrera returned to his almamater,Colegiode SanCarlos,wherehehad receivedhis doctoratein law and theology,to teachlawandserveas vicerector of the school. The following years he was ordained and subsequentlygained renown in the fields of education, oratory, and canon law.' Herrerafirst gained national attention when he delivereda sermon duringthe funeralceremoniesfor the fallen general-president, Agustin Gamarra,killed in action at Ingavi,Bolivia,at the head of an invading Peruvianarmyin November,1841.Beyondthe disgraceinflictedby the "weakand puny army of Bolivia,"HerreraobservedPeruin a state of habitualrebellionsince 1820. Breakingwith Spain entaileda"massive shock;"andconsequently unrestandmisfortune wereinevitable untilthe countryarrivedat a "newcenter of order, that authoritywhich must replace the Spanish sovereign."" Peru had indeed establisheda new order,but, Herrera explained,no one respected it, no one obeyedit. He held that "the principleof obediencehad perishedin the strugglefor emancipation,"and Herrera noted that the subversion of national authorityby individualshad invitedterriblestrife and war.'2
8 Bartolome Herrera, Escritosy discursos(Lima, 1929-1934);Masias, Examen comparativo; Jose Maria Pando, Pensamientos y apuntes sobre moral y politica (Cadiz, 1837): Riva-Agueros Memorias y documentos. 9Jorge Basadre, SSLos hombres de traje negro," Letras (Lima), I (1929), 29-59. 10For biographical sketches of Herrera (all favorable) see Edmundo Ames Gonzalez, Ideas pedago'gicas de Bartolome'Herrera (Lima, 1958):Gonzalo and Rodrigo Herrera,S'Biografia de don Bartolome Herrera,"in Escritos y discursos: RubEn Vargas Ugarte, "Bartolome Herreray la lucha contra el liberalismo regalista,"Biblioteca de culturaperuana contemporatnea ( 12vols.; Lima, 1963), VII. 531-538. l l ZOracionque en las exequias celebradas el dia 4 de enero de 1842en la Iglesia Catedral de Lima por el alma de S. E. el Jeneralisimo Presidente de las Republica D. Agustin Gamarra, muerto gloriosamente en el campo de Incahue, pronuncio el Dr. D. Bartolome Herrera,Cura y Vicario de Lurin," in Escritos y discursos, I. 17.
12/bid.

208

ANTI-DEMOCRATIC TOUGHT INEARLY REPUBLICAN PERU

With this sermon Herreraemerged as the leading spokesman of Peruvianconservatism.As opposed to contemporary liberalthinkers, Herreracalled for greaterrelianceon authority,opted for order over liberty,and arguedfor greaterecclesiastical influencein worldlyaffairs. Political authorityderivedfrom God, hence all citizenswereobligedto obey duly establishedlegitimateauthorities: "He who resistslegitimate authorityresiststhe commandof God."13 BecauseGod'shanddirected earthlyevents accordingto a heavenlyplan, Herreraobserved,Peru's troublesdemonstrated divine displeasurewith independentPeru. "For twenty-oneyears,"he added, Zwehave repeatedly committedthe same sins. OurLord's continualthreatshavenot broughtus backto the pathof order.At last He decidedto punishus; . . ." Accordingto Herrera, God "chosea lifelessarm, the miserable arm of Bolivia,"in orderto chastise Peru.'4The young priest interpreted the defeat at Ingavias a message from God for Peruvians to find strength and unity in misfortune. AddressingGod directly and speaking for his countrymen,Herrera pledged that Peruvians promised "a complete renunciation of partisanship, an inalterable respect for legitimate authority, and adorationof Your Holy Laws."'5 On July 28, 1846,the twenty-fifth anniversary of Jose de San Martin's declaration of Peruvian independence, Herrera delivered his most famous speech, an eloquent and forthrightstatementof nineteenthcenturyPeruvian conservatism.'6 He reviewedPeru'sbriefbutturbulent republican historyand determined that "governments and citizenshave ben convertedinto slaves of the so-calledwill of the people, that is . . . slaves of the will of the demagogues."Condemningthe Zimpious and anti-socialerrorsdiffusedthroughthe French Revolution," he saw the social contract theory as useful only to universitystudentsfor either exercisesin logic or for humor.'7 Herrera noted that with Peru's separation from the Spanish monarchy,legitimacy of political authority became a question. He maintainedthat legitimateauthority belonged to those to whom the peoplefreelysubjectedthemselvesso that divine law might be effected.
3 Ibid., 1. 21. 41bid., 1- 30 51bid., 1, 32. X 6"Sermon pronunciado por el Dr. Bartolome Herrera, Rector del Convictorio de San Carlos en el Te Deum celebrado en la Iglesia Catedral de Lima, el 28 de)ulio de 1846,"in Eseritosy diseursos, 1, 66 85. 17Ibid., 1, 67-68.

DANI EL

GLEASON

209

Afterindependence, however,Peruvians hadacceptedtheforeignideaof popularsovereignty.Thus, believingthemselvesthe creatorsof public authority,Peruvians disobeyedlawswhenever convenient.Herrera held that his compatriotsbelieved"thattheirwillwastheirlaw;andif theydid not announcein formaltermsthat sovereignty was independent of God, theirconductconformedto this absurdand frightfulprinciple. 18 On this basis Peru built decadesof rebellion,violence,politicalinstability,and tyranny.Herreraexplained,
[B]ecause God is the fountain of all law, and because He is the only sovereign of all men, no one can have legitimate authority, if he does not receive it from God. For the Church this truth is a dogma founded on Holy Scripture.'9

Whatliberalthinkerswould considerstrictlya clericalinterpretation of sovereigntyPadreHerreramadea matterof faith. Thosewho disagreed with Herrera werenot realChristians. He continued,"Thedivineorigin of sovereignty.. . is faith; no Catholicwill dispute this."20 Herrera agreedthat becauseGod established supremeauthorityin the state,man obeyedGob by obeyingthejust lawsof the state.Liberty, then existed in obedienceand so man could attain freedomonly by feeling truly subject to the authority of God. "Underpopular sovereignty," Herrera reasoned,"every enemyof God, that is, of publichappiness, has been able to invoke the name of the people in orderto overthrowthe government and the power of laws.2' Herrera, a self-appointed spokesmanfor the Lord, admonishedhis compatriots:
Obey! Obey the constituted authorities! Let tremble those who do not obey Me, . . . and those who employ the power they have received to do the nation harm; because their rights terminate and their dangers begin where their rebellion and injustice begin.22

The July 28 sermongeneratedan immediatereactionfrom defenders of the popularsovereignty theory.Firstto challengeHerrera was Benito Laso,a veteranliberalpolitician, journalist,andjurist.OnJuly29, 1846, the Lima daily, El Correo Peruano, published a letter from Laso. Suggesting that Herrera'sopinion on popular soveriegntycould be describedas "subversive," Laso chargedthat the clergyman's argument was indeed"anti-social" and harkedback to the darkages of Europe.23
1bid.,1,81.

I9"Notas el Sermon," Ibid., 1, 96. 20Ibid. 211bid., 1, 83. 22lbid., 1, 84. 23"Polemica entre el Dr. Benito Laso, Vocal de la Crote Suprema, y el Dr. Herrera,en torno al Sermon de este," in Escritos y dwscursos,1, 104.

210

ANTI-DEMOCRATIC TOUGHT INEARLY REPUBLICAN PERU

Laso retiredabruptlyfrom the polemic when a letter abusive of his personappearedin the press. HerreraregrettedLaso'sdecisionsincehe believedthe exchange would have demonstrated "theabsolute lack of foundation"for Rousseau'sSocial Contract, "the seed of revolution, crimesand inevitableslavery."24 Editors of El Correo Peruano and its rival, El Comerico, kept the questionof the natureof sovereignty beforethe publicby continuingthe polemic. El Comercio printed a letter signed by Un Patriota which explainedthat the debate"dealswith a principleon which our political existence is based, a principlewhich dominatesall our institution."25 Continuing,Herrera's criticequatedthe cleric'spositionwithdespotism, charging that denial of popular sovereigntyconstituted denial of a people'sright"to selectits own rulersand to organizethe body politicas best suits its interests." The next day Los Patriotas upheldthe principle that Zthegovernmentemanatesfrom the will of the people"and argued that Herreraowed his criticsan answersincethe peoplehad manifested disapprovalof his theories.26 Herreraconceded, in answer to the suggestionthat his sermonwas subversive, that everyconstitutionof Peruhad assertedthat sovereignty resided in the nation. Without elaborating, Herrera maintained, however,that most peoplelackeda properunderstanding of sovereignty withinthe context of Peru'sconstitutions.Herrera explainedthatjust as man cannot make scientificlaws, he cannot create political principles. "Reason,will, and force," Herrerawrote, "are means which God has given us in orderto discover,love, and execute His law, not to createit; divine law is a gatheringof necessary and absoluteprinciples." 27 Onlyin these principleslies real absolutesovereignty. The next day'sEl Comercio carriedHerrera's categorical denialof the liberalposition. For Los Patriotas, he noted,popularsovereignty did not dependon eternalprinciples basedon the natureof thingsbuton whether or not the public has the capacityand rightto expressand formulate "generallaws"and to establishthe means to enforce those laws.28 The truth was, Herreramaintained," [Tlhe people, that is, the sum total of

241bid,1

111.

25"Remitidos de El Comerefo de Lima contra Herrera," in Eseritos y diseursos,1. 119.Jorge Guillermo Leguia suggests that Laso may have written the articles which appeared in El Correo Peruano.See Estudioshistoricos.p. 22.

26lbid., 1. 129. 27Ibid., 1, 125. 28/bid.,l, 127-129-

DANI EL

GLEASON

211

individuals of every age and condition, DO NOT HAVE THE CAPACITYNOR THE RIGHTTO MAKE LAWS (Herrerass use of upper case letters).29Herreraconoeived of societysslaws as coming directlyfrom God and thereforeperforcemandatory. The patriotssawa distinctionbetweennaturallaw, admittedly established by God, and the form it might take as interpreted by the duly-electedlawmakersof the nation. In contrast,Herrera arguedthat beyondlackingthe capacityto make law, most people could not perceive natural law. The rector reasoned,"Therightto dictatelaws belongsto the most intelligent-to the aristocracy of knowledge, created by Nature.ss30 Here, too, the patriotsdisagreed,holdingthat the people delegatedthe rightto make laws to their elected representatives. Bothsidesappeared satisfiedthattheyhadexhaustedusefuldiscussion of the questionfor the time being.As oral examinations in publiclaw at San Carloswere approaching,Herrera, who had been namedrectorof the school and had made San Carlosthe ideologicalcenterof Peruvian conservativism, chose to continue the polemic in that forum. Government-appointed examiners,Benito Laso, Deputy Jose Manuel Tirado,and FatherAgustinCharun,supporters of popularsovereignty, agreed to question candidate Manuel Irigoyen on the following proposition: that sovereignty originatesin thenatureof manandsociety; that the consent of the people, expressed by their obedience, is an indispensablecondition for the establishmentof sovereignty.One of Herrera's favorite students, Irigoyen aptly defended his mentor's interpretations of sovereignty.Whileagreeingwith his examinersthat the consent of the people was an indispensable condition for peaceful government,Irgoyen argued that man might well consent to obey a
291bid.,1,131.

301bid. Jose Arnaldo Marques, a nineteenthwentury Peruvian statesman, poet, translator, and inventor, was a student at the Colegio de San Carlos during Herrera's tenure as rector. In ZE1Dr. Bartolome Herxra, Extracto de las memorias ineditas de uno de sus discipulos," in EscrEros y discursos,Marquez recalled a rather perverse diversion of the schoors rector:
Dr. Herrera amused himself with the intellectual and physical wretchedness of other men. He found relaxation from his literaly labors at the Colegio de San Carlos by gathering about his writing table a half-dozen unfortunates, more worthy of compassion because of theirignorance, incompetence, and physical deformities than to be used to provide third-rate entertainment. These individuals belonged to the poorest class of our society. . . [Herrera] took delight in surrounding himselfwith these wretches and discussing the most intricate metaphysical problems and the most mysterious phenomena of nature, finding pleasure in hearing the nonsense and absurdities of these feebles minds full of darkness. Such scenes stirredwithin me a sense of painful indignation; but this was the favorite pastime of Herrera and continued to be so for about two years. (11, lxiii)

212

ANTI-DEMOCRATIC TOUGHT INEARLY REPUBLICAN PERU

governmentwhose sovereigntyderived,not from the people, but from God.31 Newspapers fromTrujilloand Arequipa, as wellas thoseof Lima, carriedarticlessummarizing the debatesat San Carlos.32 For threeweeksin January, 1847,Carolinos,writingin El Comercio, and the editors of El Correo Peruano traded daily rejoindersin the lengtheningpolemic. In ratherdesultoryfashion both sides alternately paraphrased the arguments of the opposingside in orderto portray their adversaries as self-contradictory, absurd,and illogical.Theeditorsof El Correoattemptedto depictthe Carolinosas subversive anti-republicans and absolute monarchists. In response, the Carolinas argued that popularsovereigntyled directlyto the tyrannicalrule of demogogues, who gained power by deceivingpeople lackingthe capacityto govern themselves. More concernedwith invectiveand debating points than detailing their respectivearguments,the contestants finally quit the debate after eleven exchanges.33 Exceptfor the three-year period, 1851-1854,GeneralRamonCastilla governedPerufrom 1845to 1862.The "Soldierof the Law,' as he styled himself,CastillaruledPeru longerthan any other chief executivein his countryss historyand did so withinthe confinesof constitutional limits. A caudillowillingto take up his swordwhencompromise failed,Castilla held Peru togetherat a time when Mexicanliberalsand conservatives clashed in the Reformaover issues which Peruviansresolvedthrough debate. For over two decades,from his accessionto the presidency until his deathin 1867,Castillaquelledpotentiallyviolentforces,enablinghis country to experience its first extended period of relatively stable political life.34Earlyin Castilla'sfirst administration, Herrera optimistically observedthat the constitutionalgovernment of the Soldierof the Law was slowly undoing the ravagesof the past.35

3l^Articulo editorial de El Comereio de Lima sobre los examenes, de San Carlos en que se discutieron las doctrinas de Herrera," in Eseritos y dlscursos, 1, 140-143. 32ZArticulosde S Republicano de Arequipa acercadel mismo asunto," and XArticulosdel Diario de Trujillo resumiendo la discusion realizada en San Carlos de Lima,"in Eseritosy diseursos, 1, 143150. 33ZPolemica entre El Correo Peruano y el Colegio de San Carlos, alrededor de la soberania de la inteligencia i n Eseritos y diseursos, 1, 15S224. 34For biographical sketches of Castilla see Pike, The Modem History of Peru ( 1967),Chapter IV and the prologue by Alberto Tauro in Ramon Castilla, Ideologia (Lima, 1948) Carlos Wiesse, BiograSia en aneedotes del Gran Mariseal Ramotn Castilla (Lima, 1924), includes anecdotes and syntheses of other writings on Castilla. 35-Sermon pronunciado . . . el 28 de julio de 1846," in Eseritos y diseursos, 1, 72.

DAN IEL

GLEASON

213

Castilla demonstratedhis commitment to constitutional rule by turningover the reignsof office to a duly electedsuccessoron April20, 1851.Onlyonce before,in 1833,hada Peruvianpresident completedhis term of office. Unlike Agustin Gamarra,who attemptedto impose his successoron the country,Castillaallowed Peru'sfirst real presidential campaignto takeplace. He did, however,lendopensupportto one of the candidates, General Jose Rufino Echenique, his vice-presidentat election time. A contemporaryobserver noted, "GeneralEchenique distributed a greatdealof moneythroughout the Republic andsucceeded in winninga majorityof the votes."36 Lackingvision, energy, and leadershipability of Castilla, President Echeniquedepended heavily on his cabinet, composed of apparently outstanding men. Castilla quickly found that he could exert little influenceoverEchenique afterthe selectionof Juan CrisostomoTorrico as Minister of War.An adventurer, Torricohad occupiedthe presidency brieflyin 1842and had plottedto overthrowCastillain 1849.Echenique selectedBartolomeHerrera as his Minister of Justiceanddepended upon the arch-conservativeclergyman for political advice.37A liberal journalist, Fernando Casos, charged that the cabinet, believing themselves to be abovejudgment,reliedupon ';theprinciple of authority [which]as they understoodit, consistedof imposingtheirdecisionsby force."38 As Casos publishedreportsof ofElcial corruptionand lack of confidence in Echenique and his cabinet grew, "agents of the government" began to spy on citizens, Casos wrote,
The [Echenique] government always suffered from the deplorable mistake of attributing the spontaneous protests of the people to few individuals; this consistent error caused the cabinet to display a base policy in its correspondence, explanations, verbal orders, requests, and espionage, from the very beginning; it caused the cabinet to become careless about the elements of its own destruction and to lose its way on a bright, clear day.39

Herrera, the mostinfluential member of the cabinet,becamediscouraged when liberalsin the PeruvianSenate blocked approvalof a concordat with Pope Pius IX. Disillusionedby the ingloriousend of one of his cherisheddreams, Herreraresignedfrom the governmentin 1853and temporarilyretiredfrom active participation in politicalaffairs.40 The
36Juan Gualberto Valdivia, Las revolueiones de Arequipa (2 vols.; Arequipa, 19s8), II, los. 37casos,Para la historia del Peru, pp. 1-ll; Pike,7he Modern History of Peru, pp.98-103. sesidesTorncoandHerrera, Echenique appointed Manuel de Mendiburu andJoseJoaquin de Osma to his cabinet. 38 Para la historia del Peru, p. 15.
391bid., p. 5.

40Leguia, Estudios historicos, pp.

141-143.

214

ANTI DEMOCRATIC TOUGHT INEARLY REPUBLICAN PERU

following year, Ramon Castillaled a successfulrevolutionagainst the nakedlycorruptand increasingly repressive regimeof Echenique.4' Herrera returned to publiclife Elve yearslater,electedto represent the sierra town of Jauja in the predominantlyliberal Congress of 1858. Charged with revising the controversialultra-liberalConstitutionof 1856,the Congressprincipally concerned itselfwithkeepinga closecheck on Castillaand summoningministersto answer questions. Leavinga recordof disputeover a few articles,the congressrecessedabruptlyin April, 1859, and never reconvened.Following congressionalelections, Herrerareturnedto the legislatureand was electedits presidingofficer when it met in 1860. Voting to proceedwith constitutionalreform,the Congress appointed a six-man committee to draft a new charter. However,beforethe committee couldcompleteits task, Herrera outlined his preferencesfor reformin a speech to the Congresson August 14,
.42

Callingfor a total revisionof the 1856charter,Herrerapresenteda projectwhich included149articles.His constitutionwouldhavedenied citizenshipto a ratherlong list of Peruvian adults:propertyless peasants, maids and servants,soldiersand sailors, and those who lacked either intelligenceor known means of support. Citizenshipwas also to be denied to those who presumably lacked propriety,such as drunkards, beggars, or divorced people. Individuals in the remainder of the populationmight have exercisedtraditionalcivil rightsso long as they did not violate publicorder,the rightsof othersor of the Church.Ever the proponentof elitism,Herrera held, in articleseventeen,that "noone deservesspecial considerations, except for their serviceto society,their talents, and their virtues.ss Herrera proposeda thirty-man senate,composedof representatives of ten functional interestgroups. Under his scheme, only men who had beneEltted from the Peruvianeconomy might have been elected to the senate. For example, representatives of miners, farmers, and businessmen, wouldhavebeenrequired to own property valuedat 20,000 pesos. For senators,Herrera wanted"distinguished, mature,andcapable men who would represent "thepermanent interestsof all social classes, the eternalprinciples of law and the stabilityof institutions.ss43 Herrerass senatewould haveexerciseda varietyof functions,in additionto sharing
40Valdivia, Las revolueiones de Arequipa, II, 149-158. 42See Pareja Paz-Soldan, Las eonstituefones del Preu, pp. 845-880. 43Quoted in Pareja Paz-Soldan, 375.

2l5

DANI EL

GLEASON

law-makingpowers with the chamber of deputies. The senate alone would have approvedor rejectedconcordatesor treaties.Herreraalso would have attributedto the senatejudicial powers, in impeachment proceedings andthe interpretation and suspensionof laws,including the constitution.Herrera believedthat senateapprovalshouldbe necessary for promotionsto the highestranksof the armyor navy. Furthermore, the senatewould have exercisedelectoralpower,choosingthe president of the republicundercertainconditions. Functionsof the chamberof deputies,in contrastto those of the senate, were strictlylegislative. Herrera would have lengthenedthe presidential termto six yearsand allowed successive re-elections of incumbents. Chief executives, in Herrerass project,might have vetoed legislationand closed or dissolved congress. The president would also have enjoyed broad patronage powers,includingthe authorityto transferor suspendcivil servants,as well as to reducetheirsalaries.Herrera also proposedthat the president be empowered to transfer or dismissany memberof thejudiciary.Peruss foremost conservativeideologue envisioned a president chosen by indirectelection,yet able to depriveany Peruvianof his citizenship and orderthe deportationof indigentcompatriots.UnderHerrerass scheme the president wouldhavefoundconstitutional supportto continueas the supremearbiterof Peruvianpoliticallife. Despitea generalafElrmation of democracy in the secondarticleof the proposal, limitations on citizenship made Herrerassconstitution undemocratic. Throughsevererestrictionson suffrage,Herrerawould have assured the continued political pre-eminence of the propertied classes in both the cities and the ruralareas. By denyingthe rightsof citizenshipto ruralday-laborers and servants,Herrera would have lent constitutionalapprobationto the disfranchisement of PerussIndian masses. His project constituted a re-inforcementof the status quo, particularlyin the rural areas. Whereas the Constitution of 1856 attemptedto instituteequalitybeforethe law, Herrerass planwouldhave assertedelitistprivileges. Not onlywastheecclesiasticalfuero, whichhad been abolished by the 1856 charter,to be re-established, but Herrera would also have constitutionalized his concept of specialprivileges for virtue and talent. It is not surprisingthat the predominantly liberal Congressof 1860rejectedHerrerass planwhenit wasformallymovedfor adoption beforethe assembly.44
377

441bid.,

216

ANTI-DEMOCRATIC TOUGHT INEARLY REPUBLICAN PERU

The Constitutionof 1860was a compromisebetweenthe 1856charter, whichmanyPeruviansfoundtoo radical,andthe authoritarian proposal of Herrera. While the 1860 constitution pledged protection of the Church,it also abolishedthefuero. This secondsuppressionofecclesiastical privilegeso perturbed presidingofElcer Herrerathat he renounced his presidency and resignedhis seat in the assembly.NamedBishopof Arequipain 1860, Herrera took up his episcopalduties in the southern Andeancity,retired frompoliticallifeentirelyanddevotedtheremaining four yearsof his life to improvingthe educationofferedby the diocesan
seminary.45

Liberals and conservatives helddiametrically opposedconceptsof the common man. Both sides agreed that the common man had not demonstrated the abilityto participate in the politicallife of the country. Liberals,however,wereconEldent that the common man could become an active member of the polity. They consistently argued for the extension of suffrage to progressivelywider circles of Peruviansand recommendedpopular education as a means of ultimatelypreparing Perussmasses for political action. One liberal,Juan Espinosa,argued that socialization, not nature, had enslaved some men to others.46 Espinosa spoke for all liberalswhen he condemnedthe theory that a certainclass of men should rule by virtueof theirbirthor divineright.47 Conservatives, agreeingwith the outspokenHerrera, did not expectthe common Peruvian, illiterate and politically ignorant, to exhibit a capabilityfor self-government. Bartolome Herrera was not an isolated Elgure.He wrote in the tradition of Jose Pando, an advisor of both Simon Bolivar and the dictator Gamarra, and merely stood out above contemporary conservatives,such as Pedro Gual, Jose de la Riva-Aguero,Felipe Pardo, Juan de la Cruz Garcia, and Felipe Masias. As an educator, orator, polemicist, politician, and political theorist, Herrerawas the most influentialPeruvianconservative of his century.HistoriansJorge GuillermoLeguia and Jose ParejaPaz-Soldanmaintainthat Herrera, indeed, succeeded in educating a generation of young Peruvian aristocrats to directthe affairsof state,puttinginto practice histheoryon the "capacityto govern.ss48
45See Gonzalo and Rodrigo Herrera,wBiografia de don BartolomeHerrera," in Eseritos y diseursos. 46Dieeionario para el pueblo, p. 563. 471bid., p. 183. 48Leguia,Estudios historicos, p. 112;ParejaPaz-Soldan,Las constituefones del Peru, p. 368.

DANI EL

GLEASON
217

Despite the significance of Herrerasscontribution to Peruvian thought, North American students of Latin American intellectual history, with few exceptions, have overlooked Bartolome Herrera.49 John Martzand MiguelJorrin,LatinAmericanPolitical Thoughtand Ideology(ChapelHill, NorthCarolina,1970),fail to mentionHerrera at all, althoughthey includea chapterentitled"Natural Rightsand Popular Sovereignty in their book. Nor do Harold Davis, Latin American Thought(Baton Rouge, Louisiana,1972),or Rex Crawford, A Century of Latin American Thought, (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1944), mention Herrera.Most studentsof Latin Americanintellectualhistory begintheirtreatmentof nineteenth-century Peruvian ideaswiththe postWar-of-the-PaciElc thinker, Manuel Gonzalez Prada. Yet accounts of nineteenthwenturyPeru consistently describe an unrepresentative, undemocratic governmentpresidedover by a minisculeelite. Herrerass interpretation of his countryss politicalreality,includinghis arguments concerning the form of government most appropriatefor Peru and pervasive question of Church-state relations, constitute a largely untappedsource for scholars who would reconstructearly republican Peru. St. ThomasUniversity Fredericton,New Brunswick,Canada DANIEL GLEASON

49Two welcome exceptions are Fredrick B. Pike, ZHeresy,Real and Alleged, in Peru: An Aspect of the Conservative-Liberal Struggle, 183(S18tS," Hispanie American Historical Review, XLVII (February, 1967) and Antonine Elbesar, "The Peruvian Church at the Time of Independence in the Light of Vatican II." The Americas, A QuarterlyReview of Inter-American Cultural History, XXVI (April, 1970).