page_title: Integrism (Spain)
section_title: Program
hierarchical_section_title: Integrism (Spain) / Program
caption_attribution_description: Imagen de Cristo Rey, como la que se ponía en las puertas de las casas católicas a principios del siglo XX.
context_page_description: Integrism was a Spanish political philosophy of the late 19th and early 20th century. Rooted in ultraconservative Catholic groupings like Neo-Catholics or Carlists, the Integrists represented the most right-wing formation of the Restoration political spectrum. Their vision discarded religious tolerance and embraced a state constructed along strictly Catholic lines; the Integrists opposed Liberalism and parliamentarian system, advocating an accidentalist organic regime. Led first by Ramón Nocedal Romea and then by Juan Olazábal Ramery they were active as a political structure named Partido Católico Nacional, but the group retained influence mostly thanks to an array of periodicals, headed by the Madrid-based El Siglo Futuro. Though Integrism enjoyed some momentum when it formally emerged in the late 1880s, it was soon reduced to a third-rate political force and eventually amalgamated within Carlism in the early 1930s.
context_section_description: There was no work which served as official or semi-official lecture of the Integrist doctrine; its theoretical body was laid out mostly in press articles, with the so-called Manifestación de Burgos the most frequently cited piece. The closest thing to an ideological manual was El liberalismo es pecado, a little book published in 1884 by Félix Sardà y Salvany. It was an exposition of papal teachings on Liberalism, but presented in most absolute and intransigent form. Sardá argued that since Liberalism was a sinful heresy, every Catholic was obliged to fight it; “one is not integrally Catholic unless he is integrally anti-Liberal”.  The book immediately defined the group as militantly anti-Liberal movement seeking to re-introduce unity between religious and political goals.
  The mediaeval Spain usually served as an inspiration; Integrism did not seek a blind transferral of past institutions, but rather an infusion of their spirit into modern structures. The party rejected Liberal constitutional monarchy and despotic absolutism alike; its ideal envisioned a king which would rule and govern, with his powers executed along and limited by the Catholic principles, as well as by traditional liberties of the social bodies making up the country. The very person of the king, however, posed a problem. Since there was no candidate and even no dynasty they supported, the Integrist monarch was increasingly turning into a theoretical being, with the movement gradually embracing monarchy without a king. In the 20th century the Integrists became even more ambiguous and some of them adopted accidentalism, prepared to accept a republican project.
  In terms of political representation the Integrists favored organicism; it envisioned a society as an organism composed of traditionally established components, like families, municipalities, provinces, institutions or professional corporations. Representation was to be exercised and channeled within and in-between these bodies, as opposed to representation exercised by means of popular elections; the latter, based on the Liberal preference for individuals, served only further atomization of the society. Since the Integros considered parliamentarian system incompatible with genuine representation, this led some scholars to conclude that they opposed universal suffrage as not democratic enough. The state itself was envisioned as a very general framework encompassing its heterogeneous components; its powers were supposed to be rather limited and necessitated only by basic practical requirements. At some point this highly regionalist vision attracted activists with pro-Basque leaning.
  The Integros refused to recognize the social issue as such and approached it as part of the religious question. Class conflict or poverty were unavoidable results of Liberalism and could have been addressed only by rigorous application of Christian principles, exercised within the framework of organicist institutions. Socialism, though viewed as ultimate apocalyptic barbarism, was considered heir to Liberalism (and its branches, Jewry and freemasonry) and hence lesser evil between the two. Some scholars claim that social question distinguished Integrists from Carlists, lambasted for their Manifesto de Morentin; as it contained vague references to possible future adjustment of Traditionalist doctrine, the Integrists named it treason and deviation from principles. Other scholars dismiss the Morentin issue as an ex-post invented justification for the secession.
  During its nascent period Integrism retained a certain degree of moderation; it was only after Aparisi's death that its position began to harden considerably. Over time, as Integrism failed to materialize as first-rate political force and gradually formatted itself as a party of protest, politically located at the sidelines of the system, in the practical order its cause became hopeless. This resulted – apart from successive waves of defections – in growing inexorability, as the party could have easily afforded the luxury of intransigence. Some scholars note that its 
caption: Rule over Spain, Navarrese rural house entrance emblem
exif: {}