In 1975, at the end of some exams, I went on vacation. He was carrying two books, one that I don’t remember, I think by Galdós, and another that I have in my hand now: FilosofÃa y polÃtica en Julián Besteiro, by Emilio Lamo de Espinosa, published by Cuadernos para al Diálogo. Apart from my growing tendency to re-read, I confess that I have returned to it with perplexity at the present drift of the Socialist Party, which I consider injurious to the general interests as well as to itself. Perhaps I do it because of the image of moral solvency that I have always associated with Besteiro, a prime example of the many times that dignity takes refuge in losers. This book inspires what I write next, and for which I alone am responsible.
Once the Republic was established, Besteiro integrated into the republican orbit, while moving away from the dominant socialist environment. He tried to bring the PSOE to the moderate path without succeeding. From his resignation in February 1931 until Casado’s coup, at the end of the war, he distanced himself from his party. A distance influenced by two facts: 1) The progressive radicalization of the PSOE and the simultaneous moderate drift of Besteiro, which gave rise to the fact that the Claridad newspaper, first, and the Unified Socialist Youths, later, requested the ‘expulsion from the party for not being a Marxist. 2) Besteiro’s growing anti-communism, which coincided with the Bolshevization of the PSOE.
In accordance with this process of mutual distancing, Besteiro was defeated in all his proposals at the extraordinary congress of the PSOE on July 11, 1931. But he still had an important role as a republican and national politician: he was elected president of the Constituent Courts. “(His) intellectual, political and even physical distinction gave special dignity to the Assembly”, writes Madariaga. He was a good president: he tried to act impartially. Jiménez de Asúa says from the left: “He used all the resources when they were necessary, even the energy, the irritated voice and the furious pose.” And Gil-Robles praises him from the right: “Justice would be lacking if he did not proclaim here the impartiality with which Mr. Besteiro used to preside over the sessions.” But Azaña attacks him: “The socialist ministers are, of the entire Government, the ones who are most unhappy with Besteiro’s conduct in the presidency of the Courts. It doesn’t help us.”
A strong discrepancy then erupted between the PSOE and its union, the UGT. Thus, after the XVII congress of the UGT, Besteiro and his followers gained control of the executive commission, to the point that Largo Caballero, who dominated the party, resigned. The situation became very difficult, with Besteiro controlling the union and Largo Caballero the party, taking into account that Largo was evolving towards Leninism and Besteiro towards an increasingly moderate Fabianism with Keynesian influences. But what cannot be denied today is that Besteiro was accurate in his criticism of the radicalism of the socialist left. He had a great virtue: the civic value of telling the truths even knowing they would not be popular. Something unthinkable today.
This civic value, which others did not have, is what Besteiro showed when the end came. “I will stay with those who cannot leave”, he said. “Haven’t you learned the new greeting from Spain?”, one of the first Falangists who arrived at the Ministry of Finance asked him, arm raised: “No, sir – replied Besteiro – and the worst thing is that, at my age, it will be hard for me to learnâ€. And from there to Porlier prison. Thus began a viacrucis with trial (in which Felipe Acedo Colunga was prosecutor, years later civil governor of Barcelona), which ended with his death in Carmona prison. Serrano Suñer put it in writing: “We must admit that letting him die in prison was a reckless and inconsiderate act on our part.” It was a miserable crime.
Besteiro is a model of dignity: faithful to his ideas and exemplary in his conduct.
