Primo de Rivera's tenure as the dictator of Spain from 1923 to 1930 was a period of significant change and reform for the nation, provoking a myriad of divergent views regarding its successes and failures. De Rivera's government, backed by King Alfonso XIII, was a response to a growing socio-political crisis, marked by economic problems and separatist tensions. His authoritarian regime sought to bring stability through a unique blend of paternalistic policies, social reforms, and attempted economic restructuring, leaving an undeniable imprint on the nation's political, social and economic fabric.
Starting with the political sphere, de Rivera's dictatorship notably marked a departure from Spain's tumultuous parliamentary system. With a mandate to restore social order, de Rivera suspended the constitution, dissolved the Cortes and imposed a military dictatorship. This move towards authoritarianism was seen as a stabilising force by some. Paul Preston, for instance, underscores the significant reduction in the number of strikes and the restoration of order as one of de Rivera's achievements. However, it should be noted that these reductions were achieved through repression and censorship, which stifled dissent and curtailed civil liberties. The establishment of the Patriotic Union (UP), the state political party, was a strategic move by de Rivera to control and direct the political narrative. Stanley Payne emphasises this as an effort towards "consensual authoritarianism", where de Rivera sought popular support for his regime rather than merely imposing it. However, this endeavour was largely unsuccessful due to a lack of political freedom and the coercive nature of the UP. Hence, while de Rivera's rule brought political stability, the cost in terms of political freedom was high, and its long-term sustainability was questionable.
Shifting to the economic dimension, de Rivera's policies were a mixed bag of successes and failures. His infrastructure projects, particularly the development of transport networks, were noteworthy. They enhanced mobility and contributed to a modern industrial economy. Similarly, the introduction of tariff protections boosted domestic industries, notably textiles and shipbuilding. Shlomo Ben-Ami acknowledges this aspect of de Rivera's rule, arguing that his economic interventions marked a pragmatic shift towards state interventionism in the economy. Nevertheless, this rosy picture is marred by some serious failings. The reliance on foreign loans for infrastructure projects led to a growing external debt, making the economy vulnerable. Additionally, the protectionist policies, though beneficial for certain industries, failed to stimulate wider economic growth. Ben-Ami further critiques these measures, arguing that they resulted in a skewed industrial development and perpetuated economic inequality. Therefore, while there were tangible economic advancements, these were neither inclusive nor sustainable.
On the social front, de Rivera's government attempted to pacify the labour movement and appease the working class through a variety of measures, including wage increases and improved working conditions. This paternalistic approach found some success, with Stanley Payne noting a general decline in social unrest during de Rivera's rule. Moreover, the creation of the Institute for Social Reform reflected the regime's concern for social issues. However, these reforms were limited in their scope and depth. Most of them were confined to the urban working class, leaving rural workers largely neglected. Frances Lannon criticises this lopsided attention, arguing that it deepened social divides. Moreover, the fact that these reforms were achieved through the curtailment of labour rights points to a significant drawback. Thus, despite some apparent successes, de Rivera's social policies were flawed and insufficient to bring about meaningful change.
In evaluating Primo de Rivera's government between 1923 and 1930, it becomes clear that his rule was marked by both successes and failures. While his authoritarian regime did restore a semblance of order and embarked on a series of economic and social reforms, the costs of these achievements were significant. His government's repression of political freedoms, the economic vulnerability arising from its policies, and the limited scope of social reforms paint a picture of a regime that was far from flawless. However, the narrative of de Rivera's rule isn't a simple tale of success or failure. Rather, it reflects a complex interplay of forces in a critical period of Spanish history. Payne, Ben-Ami, Lannon and Preston, each from their respective angles, acknowledge this complexity. Their evaluations, despite differences, converge on the point that de Rivera's government, for all its faults and merits, left an indelible mark on Spain. The challenge lies in comprehending this legacy within its broader historical context.
