Electoral reform during the constitutional monarchy, 1852-1910

Abstract

There has been a great deal of writing, generally negative, about the constitutional monarchy. Studies of history, whether written from a left or right wing point of view, have given us a monolithic picture of a system dominated by a corrupt, retrograde, and fanatical oligarchy. Seen in this context, nineteenth century elections were fraudulent, and the electoral reforms were just deception. In this article the author analyses the electoral reforms and their effects in detail. What is the origin of the 1859 law that ended elections by lists? Why was there an enlarged electorate between 1878 and 1895? In favour of whom, and against whom, were the successive reforms made? What were their origins and consequences? These are some of the key questions that the author examines. In particular six moments are examined in the article: 1852, when elections became direct; 1859, when the system of lists was substituted by the system of single name constituencies; 1878, when the suffrage was widened; 1884, when the proportional representation system was introduced; 1895-1896, when the electorate was again restricted; and 1901, when the decree was promulgated which has become known as the ignóbil porcaria (ignoble mess). Of these changes, the first and last were made dictatorially. However, in the parliamentary debates about the other changes there was strong and heated participation, and the discussions were very interesting.