Ruling the Empire: The Portuguese Colonial Office (1820s-1926)

Portugal was one of the first and most enduring European colonial powers of modern times: 1415 and 1975 mark the beginning and the end of a long empire cycle that left impressive imprints in many places. Since it started, the overseas expansion and the exploration of the colonial resources were closely articulated with state-building and the preservation of national independence. A forerunner at the Great Age of Discoveries, but a latecomer in the era of industrialization, in the 19th and early-20th centuries Portugal was a peripheral country, and the economic gap with the rich and industrialized core of Europe was wide. During this period, however, the country faced the critical challenge of ruling vast and geographically scattered overseas territories, and of preserving them from the greed of strong imperialist powers. This article starts by outlining the major developments in the Portuguese colonial policy over a century, since the 1820s until 1926. The independence of Brazil (1822) was a crucial turning point, which brought about a shift towards Africa. The First Republic (1910-1926), pervaded by a nationalist ideology, gave a new impetus to the efforts towards a more effective colonisation. Symptomatically, a Ministry of Colonies was then established for the first time. Second, it describes and analyses the transformation of the central office for colonial affairs – from a small ministerial department to an autonomous ministry -, stressing the increasing bureaucratic specialisation, the growth of the apparatus and its staff, and the introduction of new criteria for the selection and promotion of permanent officials (namely a higher profile given to careers in local colonial administration). Finally, it presents a collective biography of both the politicians (Cabinet ministers) and the administrators (directors-general) who ran the Colonial Office for a large period of the Constitutional Monarchy (from 1851 to 1910) and during the First Republic, thus enabling to assess the impact of regime change on elite circulation and career patterns.

The Portuguese Administrative Elite, 1851-1910

The aim of this article is to examine the composition and patterns of recruitment of the ministries’directors-general, as well as to assess the interconnections between bureaucracy and politics, from the beginnings of Regeneração (1851) until the breakdown of Monarchy (1910). The post of director-general was considered one of “political trust”, that might be filled by individuals from outside the civil service, and the selection and de-selection of officeholders depended exclusively on the ministers’ will. Nonetheless, most directors-general were experienced bureaucrats, boasting a steady career as civil servants, and remained in office for long terms, regardless of ministerial discontinuities. In other words, High Administration became relatively immune to party-driven politics. Due to their professional background and lengthy tenure, directors-general were usually highly skilled specialists, combining technical expertise and practical knowledge of the wheels of state bureaucracy. Hence, they were often influential actors in policy-making, playing an active (and sometimes decisive) part behind the scenes, in both designing and implementing government policies. As regards their social profile, directors-general formed a cohesive and homogeneous elite group: being predominantly drawn from urban middle class milieus, highly educated, and appointed to office in their forties.

Musealização da Levada de Tomar: subsídios para a conservação do património industrial da moagem A Portuguesa

Trabalho de Projecto apresentado para cumprimento dos requisitos necessários à obtenção do grau de Mestre em (designação da área científica do mestrado)

Humor and the framing of the public sphere and public opinion in Portugal (1797-1834)

In his Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment (1784), Kant puts forward his belief that the vocation to think freely, which humankind is endowed with, is bound to make sure that “the public use of reason” will at last act “even on the fundamental principles of government and the state [will] find it agreeable to treat man – who is now more than a machine – in accord with his dignity”. The critical reference to La Mettrie (1747), by opposing the machine to human dignity, will echo, in the dawn of the 20th century, in Bergson’s attempt to explain humor. Besides being exclusive to humans, humor is also a social phenomenon. Freud (1905) assures that pleasure originated by humor is collective, it results from a “social process”: jokes need an audience, a “third party”, in order to work and have fun. Assuming humor as a social and cultural phenomenon, this paper intends to sustain that it played a role in the framing of the public sphere and of public opinion in Portugal during the transition from Absolute Monarchy to Liberalism. The search for the conditions which made possible the critical exercise of sociability is at the root of the creation of the public sphere in the sense developed by Habermas (1962), whose perspective, however, has been questioned by those who point 2 out the alleged idealism of the concept – as opposed, for example, to Bakhtin (1970), whose work stresses diversity and pluralism. This notwithstanding, the concept of public sphere is crucial to the building of public opinion, which is, in turn, indissoluble from the principle of publicity, as demonstrated by Bobbio (1985). This paper discusses the historical evolution of the concept of public opinion from Ancient Greece doxa, through Machiavelli’s “humors” (1532), the origin of the expression in Montaigne (1580) and the contributions of Hobbes (1651), Locke (1690), Swift (1729), Rousseau (1762) or Hume (1777), up to the reflection of Lippman (1922) and Bourdieu’s critique (1984). It maintains that humor, as it appears in Portuguese printed periodicals from 1797 (when Almocreve de Petas was published for the first time) to the end of the civil war (1834) – especially in those edited by José Daniel Rodrigues da Costa but also in O Piolho Viajante, by António Manuel Policarpo da Silva, or in the ones written by José Agostinho de Macedo, as well as in a political “elite minded” periodical such as Correio Braziliense –, contributed to the framing of the public sphere and of public opinion in Portugal.

Res Publica: Citizenship and Political Representation in Portugal, 1820-1926

The term res publica (literally “thing of the people”) was coined by the Romans to translate the Greek word politeia, which, as we know, referred to a political community organised in accordance with certain principles, amongst which the notion of the “good life” (as against exclusively private interests) was paramount. This ideal also came to be known as political virtue. To achieve it, it was necessary to combine the best of each “constitutional” type and avoid their worst aspects (tyranny, oligarchy and ochlocracy). Hence, the term acquired from the Greeks a sense of being a “mixed” and “balanced” system. Anyone that was entitled to citizenship could participate in the governance of the “public thing”. This implied the institutionalization of open debate and confrontation between interested parties as a way of achieving the consensus necessary to ensure that man the political animal, who fought with words and reason, prevailed over his “natural” counterpart. These premises lie at the heart of the project which is now being presented under the title of Res Publica: Citizenship and Political Representation in Portugal, 1820-1926. The fact that it is integrated into the centenary commemorations of the establishment of the Republic in Portugal is significant, as it was the idea of revolution – with its promise of rupture and change – that inspired it. However, it has also sought to explore events that could be considered the precursor of democratization in the history of Portugal, namely the vintista, setembrista and patuleia revolutions. It is true that the republican regime was opposed to the monarchic. However, although the thesis that monarchy would inevitably lead to tyranny had held sway for centuries, it had also been long believed that the monarchic system could be as “politically virtuous” as a republic (in the strict sense of the word) provided that power was not concentrated in the hands of a single individual. Moreover, various historical experiments had shown that republics could also degenerate into Caesarism and different kinds of despotism. Thus, when absolutism began to be overturned in continental Europe in the name of the natural rights of man and the new social pact theories, initiating the difficult process of (written) constitutionalization, the monarchic principle began to be qualified as a “monarchy hedged by republican institutions”, a situation in which not even the king was exempt from isonomy. This context justifies the time frame chosen here, as it captures the various changes and continuities that run through it. Having rejected the imperative mandate and the reinstatement of the model of corporative representation (which did not mean that, in new contexts, this might not be revived, or that the second chamber established by the Constitutional Charter of 1826 might not be given another lease of life), a new power base was convened: national sovereignty, a precept that would be shared by the monarchic constitutions of 1822 and 1838, and by the republican one of 1911. This followed the French example (manifested in the monarchic constitution of 1791 and in the Spanish constitution of 1812), as not even republicans entertained a tradition of republicanism based upon popular sovereignty. This enables us to better understand the rejection of direct democracy and universal suffrage, and also the long incapacitation (concerning voting and standing for office) of the vast body of “passive” citizens, justified by “enlightened”, property- and gender-based criteria. Although the republicans had promised in the propaganda phase to alter this situation, they ultimately failed to do so. Indeed, throughout the whole period under analysis, the realisation of the potential of national sovereignty was mediated above all by the individual citizen through his choice of representatives. However, this representation was indirect and took place at national level, in the hope that action would be motivated not by particular local interests but by the common good, as dictated by reason. This was considered the only way for the law to be virtuous, a requirement that was also manifested in the separation and balance of powers. As sovereignty was postulated as single and indivisible, so would be the nation that gave it soul and the State that embodied it. Although these characteristics were common to foreign paradigms of reference, in Portugal, the constitutionalization process also sought to nationalise the idea of Empire. Indeed, this had been the overriding purpose of the 1822 Constitution, and it persisted, even after the loss of Brazil, until decolonization. Then, the dream of a single nation stretching from the Minho to Timor finally came to an end.

O Conselho de Estado na monarquia constitucional: uma reflexão preliminar

This article summarises the transformations in the State Council’s functions and membership throughout the Portuguese Constitutional Monarchy, and makes a preliminary attempt to scrutinise the political role played by an institution designed since its inception to advise the monarch. In spite of the parsimony of contemporary sources, and even contradictory empirical evidence, it seems indisputable that in several critical occasions the monarch’s political decisions were influenced by the dominant view in the State Council. Finally, the article presents the collective biography of the 73 individuals appointed to the State Council between 1833 and 1910 – who may be defined as the inner circle of the ruling elite - focusing on basic background features (birthplace, age, education, occupation, noble titles and political experience).

As Comissões Parlamentares de Inquérito no Portugal democrático, 1976-2015

As transformações operadas no mundo contemporâneo, em especial no que respeita às estruturas do poder, à sua maior autonomização e diferenciação, tiveram particulares reflexos ao nível dos Parlamentos e das funções que prosseguem. Desde a sua origem, no passado século XIII, à atualidade, grandes acontecimentos, clivagens e factos históricos estão presentes na sua linha evolutiva. A democratização do regime parlamentar e a legitimidade outorgada através de eleições democráticas e concorrenciais são um marco ímpar na sua história. A complexidade das sociedades hodiernas catapultou o Poder Executivo em detrimento do Parlamento, enquanto órgão legislativo por excelência. Tal circunstancialismo levou, não ao proclamado declínio dos Parlamentos, mas a reformas estruturantes. Outras e mais importantes funções seriam prosseguidas. Se as iniciativas legislativas e a definição das políticas públicas passaram a ser quase um exclusivo do Governo, havia que desenvolver e ampliar, por parte dos Parlamentos, os instrumentos de controlo, fiscalização e escrutínio da ação governativa. Entre os clássicos instrumentos de controlo avulta o Inquérito Parlamentar, materializado em Comissões Parlamentares de Inquérito, dotadas de poderes especiais para recolha de informação e para investigação. No seu percurso parlamentar, também as Comissões de Inquérito foram sendo alvo de constantes aperfeiçoamentos, de ordem constitucional, legal e regimental. A excessiva partidarização da atividade parlamentar de outrora e sobretudo a confusão entre o governo e o partido que o sustentava a nível parlamentar, o confronto desequilibrado de meios entre as maiorias e as minorias, levaram a um reposicionamento do inquérito parlamentar enquanto garante do direito das minorias. Não sendo expectável que as grandes iniciativas de controlo sejam tomadas pelo partido maioritário, cabe à oposição esse papel. Em Portugal, diminuta era a tradição do instituto do inquérito parlamentar, razão porque foi efémera e sem resultado a sua utilização no tempo da monarquia constitucional. O regime democrático, abraçado com o 25 de abril de 1974, relançou o órgão de soberania Parlamento e estabeleceu prioridades. Até ao amadurecimento da democracia viveram-se tempos mais conturbados mas de grande aprendizagem. O inquérito Parlamentar, a partir da revisão constitucional de 1982, passou conceptualmente a integrar um dos meios mais relevantes da fiscalização política. É, pois, o levantamento exaustivo e a análise das Comissões Parlamentares de Inquérito no Portugal democrático, período de 1976-2015, o objetivo a que nos propomos neste estudo.