No One's Monopoly: Chilean Liberalism in the Post‐Independent Period, 1823–1830

Abstract

This article begins by arguing that military officer Ramón Freire and his successor, Francisco Antonio Pinto, advocated for a form of liberalism that, although supportive of individual rights, depended upon a centralised system of government. Then it claims that there was a consensus in Chile in the 1820s that the best political regime for the country was republicanism, and that differences between factions did not concentrate so much on ideological issues as on specific aspects of Chilean politics. These included the articles of the Constitution of 1828 that jeopardised the economic supremacy of landlords and debates regarding the limits of the freedom of the press. The third section of the article shows that 'conservatives' pushed for a freer Press Law than the 'liberals' at the end of the 1820s, thus proving that different liberal traditions emerged in Chile in the aftermath of independence. The conclusion of the article emphasises that liberalism in Chile was no one's monopoly.

Independence(s): What Is a Revolutionary Law?

“…Supporters of centralism fought against federalists, and in both factions, many disagreed about what centralism and federalism actually were, and how they should best be designed and implemented (for a more detailed discussion, see Sections 5.1, 5.3, and 6.1). 28 Regions clashed with each other, rural and urban interests competed, liberals faced conservatives, and each of these groups was internally divided on multiple issues. Instability was permanent, as different projects were experimented with, polities were constituted and broken up, constitutions were drawn and redrawn, and governments constantly changed.…”

El gobierno de Bernardo O’Higgins visto a través de cinco agentes estadounidenses, 1817-1823

“…Sin embargo, en Chile nunca prosperó un régimen federal o confederal de gobierno y, de hecho, el constitucionalismo de los años veinte estuvo lejos de seguir el modelo estadounidense. La gran diferencia entre O'Higgins y Freire descansaba, pues, en el tipo de republicanismo representado por ambos: mientras el primero dio a los militares un rol desmedido en la política y prefirió siempre un Ejecutivo fuerte, el segundo tendió a equilibrar los poderes y a dar a parlamentarios civiles responsabilidades hasta entonces para ellos desconocidas (Jocelyn-Holt, 1992: capítulo VIII; Collier, 2012: capítulo VIII;Ossa, 2016c). En eso al menos el gobierno de Freire tuvo reminiscencias estadounidenses y por eso, quizás, su llegada a la primera magistratura fue aplaudida por los agentes Robinson, Prevost y Hogan.…”