By Marcos Pérez Talia
Paraguay’s political history is full of presidents and leaders of all kinds. Intellectuals, charismatic, corrupt, sullen, irascible, authoritarian, etc. The one who stands out is Manuel Gondra -twice president of the Republic- who remains a rara avis in our political fauna. This March 8 is the 95th anniversary of his death, so this article seeks to address a side of Gondra that is still little explored: his lack of ambition to retain power, despite being the ideal and virtuous political reference of the time. To do so, we will recover some classic ideas of Machiavelli whom we assume -just metaphorically- that Gondra did not read or, even worse, did not want to follow his teachings.
The doctrine of Niccolo Machiavelli is a reference for the analysis of political phenomena. It is not in vain that he is considered the modern father of political science, a product, among other things, of his passion for understanding the results of political action regardless of morality, or the coldness with which he explores the true motivations of politicians. Almost a decade ago, Machiavelli’s book The Prince (1513) turned 500 years old, not only of existence but also of controversy, inspiration and birth of the art of politics. The book is undoubtedly the most famous member of the “mirror of princes” genre, a literary trend dedicated to instructing princes and rulers on how to acquire, preserve and expand their political power.
In the first chapter of The Prince, he states that the condition for acquiring and maintaining power depends on virtue and fortune. Then, in chapter XXV, he points out that “it may be true that fortune is the arbiter of half of our actions, but that she also lets us govern the other half… fortune demonstrates her dominion when she finds no virtue to resist her”. As fortunately political action is not only in the hands of fortune, but the other half is also played in the field of virtue.
Virtue is a key term not only for the quality it represents for the ruler but also for the new meaning that Machiavelli gives it with regards to the past. During the consolidation of the Christian creed in the Middle Ages in Europe, the praise of virtues was centered on restraint (and not impetus); on faith, charity and hope. Virtue is not the concern of the good warrior but of the saint, with strong praise for the contemplative life, obedience and discipline proper to the monastic cloister.
Machiavelli comes to turn virtue “upside down”, especially when he dispenses with its moral dimension and recovers the markedly “masculine” value (controversial, by the way) that it had in Old Age. It transforms, according to a well-known philological study, this element into a literary device, for example, by contrasting it with the “feminine” nature of Fortune. The latter, as a goddess, is a woman and, as such, will place her favors on the man of greatest virtue, the most capable, the most audacious, the most virile. Moreover, Fortune, as a female, will be more favorable to the one who knows how to impose, seduce and subdue her.
The paradox lies in the fact that medieval Christianity calls for strength in the believer, not to act, but to suffer. For Machiavelli, on the other hand, it is not “only” wisdom, prudence, and suffering, but technique for the sake of political utility, courage and competence for the ruler to overcome obstacles.
Returning to Manuel Gondra, he was the type of politician with a distinct aura, touched with the magic wand of exquisiteness, although not exempt from disappointments and failures in politics. His legacy is full of enigmas and curious facts. He was the only president born abroad -in Buenos Aires- although his origin was never an obstacle to be Paraguayan… and one of the best. The Constitution of 1870 itself facilitated, fortunately, his Paraguayan citizenship.
While he displayed an excellent and precocious intellectual capacity, even surpassing his teachers, he did not manage to obtain any academic diploma. As Justo Pastor Benítez would say, “he fled from schooling” to be, instead, a disciplined self-taught scholar who delved into social sciences, literature, geography, economics and American history. His pen was exquisite, his public speaking captivating and his knowledge encyclopedic. When the situation required it, he did not hesitate to join the revolutionary camp in Villeta in 1904.
After serving successfully in different positions, he became President of the Republic on two occasions: in 1910 and 1920. In both cases, he was unanimously nominated by his peers. Unfortunately, he was unable to resist the military rebellions that cut short his ephemeral presidential term. In 1911 he did not manage to subdue the insurrection of Albino Jara, or in 1921 that of Eduardo Schaerer and Adolfo Chirife. Moreover, in none of these uprisings did he decide to fight. His pacifism, moderation and excessive tolerance led him, on both occasions, to resign without his government firing a single bullet.
And this is where he departs from Machiavelli’s thesis. Politics and power are for ambitious politicians willing not only to acquire but also to preserve and expand. Manuel Gondra was eager to reach the Executive Branch because he sincerely believed in politics as a transformation of reality, but he lacked the iron will to hold on when things got complicated. A cardinal sin for Machiavelli. Arturo Bray’s commentary on Gondra in his memoirs is very descriptive:
“As it happened in 1911, Mr. Gondra once again showed his abulic temperament, to the despair of his friends, which has cost the country so much blood. He seemed to always walk around with his resignation in his pocket, lacking only to put the date on it… He was of extraordinary enlightenment and seductive personal attraction… but in politics he was an absolute failure, with an inbred terror of adopting strategic decisions in moments of crisis.”
Machiavelli comes to turn virtue “upside down”, especially when he dispenses with its moral dimension and recovers the markedly “masculine” value (controversial, by the way) that it had in ancient times. It transforms, according to a well-known philological study, this element into a literary gimmick, for example, by contrasting it with the “feminine” nature of Fortune. The latter, as a goddess, is a woman and, as such, will place her favors on the man of greatest virtue, the most capable, the most audacious, the most virile. Moreover, Fortune, as a female, will be more favorable to the one who knows how to impose, seduce, and subdue her.
Gondra was a man full of virtue, but one with medieval European meanings. He knew how to instruct himself and believed deeply in moral rectitude. When the situation was complicated in two similar turns, he knew how to suffer and return without rancor to the solitude of his library. To the disgrace of Paraguayan history, he lacked the virtue of Machiavellian connotation: action, skill, sagacity and competence to dominate fortune in order to preserve and expand his power, regardless of any moral content.
Perhaps he did not want or did not know how to preserve power, which was never in better hands than with him. Not having read Machiavelli -or followed his advice- will not tarnish his profile as a fertile, honest and extraordinary man. He succumbed without bravery to the recklessness of Jara, Schaerer and Chirife. However, history placed each of them in their corresponding place.
Cover image: Moisés Ruíz