The history of Paraguayan politics is a fascinating but complicated field for investigation made very difficult by the lack of adequate archival materials. In a country so small, both in area and population, the importance of intimate relationships compounds the obstacles that confront the researcher. One may overcome some of these difficulties by relying on interviews of actors in the political wars—and this is no mere figure of speech. Here, for example, the information which Lewis gathered from interviews with many Febreristas is invaluable for the political historian.
In this first full-length study of febrerismo, a political scientist analyzes the many problems of a party which has spent most of its existence either in exile or underground. Inevitably most of the study is political history, and perhaps more of it should be. In order to understand the emergence of that inchoate conglomeration known as febrerismo, we need monographs on many subjects: the post-war wrangling before the Colorados emerged under the astute leadership of José Segundo Découd, the deadly factionalism among Colorados and Liberals, and the anarchy of what is called the “Liberal state.”
The author sketches his introduction in broad strokes, many of which are not very accurate. The term “socialist,” for example, has so many connotations that its application to the dictatorial regimes of Francia and the López is unfortunate. However, this volume is to be judged not by its superficial background, but by the notable success achieved in the principal objective.
The account of Paraguay’s complex political developments from 1936 to the Stroessner coup of 1954 is excellent. After this blow against Morínigo, the Febreristas continued in exile or underground for the most part until Stroessner permitted their return in 1964. The author’s research, much of it on-the-spot interviews, reveals the continuing factionalism that was inevitable among the loose alliance of small reform groups whose discontent with the Liberal leadership had caused the revolution of February 17, 1936.
The Febreristas are largely an urban party whose upper-middle-class leaders have thus far failed to attract more than a sprinkling of laborers and small farmers. Their influence, however, is far more significant than their very small numbers would appear to warrant. The author accurately observes that “nearly all of the main tenets of febrerismo have found their way into the programs and platforms of the older, traditional parties.. . . Indeed, its ideological impact on the other parties may be, in the long run, of greater significance to Paraguay’s political, social, and economic development than the Febrerista party itself” (p. 96).
In organization the party deviates little from patterns set by long experience in Paraguayan politics, except for the requirements imposed by exile and subterfuge. Factionalism has been especially disruptive for the Febreristas, whose political activity was proscribed for so many years and is still closely controlled. Details of these factional struggles and of the loose party organization, supported by several quotations from pertinent documents, constitute an excellent case study of politics in exile. Lewis has made a valuable contribution to the slowly growing reliable literature on Paraguayan politics.