Electoral Carlism (Second Republic)
In terms of electoral success Carlism of the Second Spanish Republic remained a medium-small political grouping, by far outperformed by large parties like PSOE and CEDA though trailing behind also medium-large contenders like Izquierda Republicana.
[2] When competing for parliamentary mandates the party calibrated its efforts as means of political mobilization and the way to maintain momentum before the next opportunity for a violent overthrow arises.
Born hundred years earlier as epigone of feudalism, pathetically obsolete already in the late 19th century, it was supposedly delivered a mortal blow by the 1919 breakup.
[28] Some hopefuls remained ambiguous in their party allegiances, while in 1936 Comisión de Actas cancelled few Carlist mandates; some scholars quote original results and some opt for these announced after the by-election.
Javier Tusell, a scholar expert in electoral history of the period, put forward a general proposal; it is based on analysis of political allegiances demonstrated by politicians in question afterwards.
Others scholars ignore the proposal and apply their own criteria, e.g. when claiming that since 1931 the parliamentarian "minoria carlista" was divided into 2 formal factions, católico-fueristas and agrarios;[31] some consider Tusell's approach anachronistic and useless when gauging electoral support for specific parties.
[32] Two threads marking the general tone of all Carlist electoral campaigns were defense of Catholicism, perceived as endangered by militantly secular republican legislation, and countering the revolution, reportedly advanced by parties of the Left.
[34] Other motives, repeatedly featured during Carlist electoral meetings, were exaltation of Patria and patriotism, protection of traditional values, especially the family, and defense of law and order, including private property.
[36] The traditional Carlist negative point of reference, Liberalism, was gradually giving way to Marxism in both its Socialist and Communist incarnations; occasionally anti-Masonic and anti-Jewish motives surfaced in Traditionalist electoral discourse.
[37] General and vaguely specified objectives of Carlist candidates in theory seemed to facilitate their access to many Right-wing coalitions; however, in practice the party tended to rigidity when discussing would-be alliances with potentially akin political groupings.
The parties standing for regional regulations, the Basque PNV or the Catalan La Lliga, provoked skepticism about perceived support for separatist nationalisms and dubious Spanish loyalty.
[52] Apart from the fact that due to different legislation the numbers from 1931 and from 1933/36 are not comparable[53] and that there is some de-duplication needed,[54] the aggregates by no means indicate how many voters preferred Carlism as their first-choice political option.
[64] Some approximation is offered by electoral studies dedicated to specific areas – not necessarily representative for the entire Spain[65] – and by works providing social analysis of Carlism at the outbreak of the Civil War.
[69] Carlism was not a genuinely nationwide grouping; its so-called Mass Party Index, a parameter devised to gauge capacity to compete in all electoral districts, ranged from meager 20% (1931) to 48% (1933) and 43% (1936).
[70] Measured in terms of the number of mandates won, geographical support for Carlism during the Republican period remained uneven; some two thirds of seats were obtained in the Northern half of the country.
However, the result was far more balanced than in the Restoration period, when no seat was won South of Sierra de Guadarrama; in the 1930s the party recorded some modest revival in New Castile and Andalusia.
In 6 regions electoral presence of the party was merely testimonial, the ratio of mandates won ranging from 1,5% to 2%: Andalusia, Asturias, Catalonia, León, New Castile and Valencia.
Though there were Carlist politicians recognized for their intellectual format, some – like Víctor Pradera – did not aspire to the Cortes mandate, and some – like Luis Hernando de Larramendi – failed in their bids.
The MP who eventually rose to highest honors was Bilbao, in the Francoist Spain the minister of justice and the longtime president of the Cortes; on the other end, 6 Carlist MPs were later killed by their political opponents.
[92] It might look paradoxical that out of 10 candidates who gathered the largest number of votes 7 failed; the phenomenon resulted from their standing in large urban constituencies, usually at best lukewarm towards Carlism, and its key victim was Roman Oyarzun; in Madrid in 1936 he was supported by 186.000 voters.
[93] In terms of the largest share of votes gathered the best performing Carlist candidate was Miguel de Miranda y Mateo, who in Logroño in 1933 was supported by 87% of active voters.
