The blows against the Monarchy
The fall of the Monarchy in both countries was not carried out by the will of the people, since the republican movements were in the minority. Those who perpetrated them also did not seem to want a change of regime, as they idealized a society with freer citizens under a republican regime.
In Brazil, there was enormous frustration among some sectors with the abolition of slavery and among military personnel who wanted greater participation in political decisions. Marshal Deodoro da Fonseca, a friend of Dom Pedro II and a monarchist, would become the first President of the Republic. Momentary convenience (the famous short time preference) dictated this.
On the Portuguese side, the coup to establish the Republic was being prepared by the secret organization “Carbonária”, whose main collective objective was precisely the extinction of the royal family so that power could then be distributed to new hands.
In a bloody crime that claimed the lives of the King and his eldest son, half of the work was completed on February 8, 1908, at Terreiro do Paço.
The young King, Dom Manuel II, ascended the throne at just 18 years of age, with little preparation for the duties that were never expected of him. Despite his personal turmoil, he tried to be a peacemaker. Under the apathetic royal guard and in a series of Hollywood-worthy antics, the King ended up in forced exile in England.
The King of Portugal was removed through the back door, as a criminal, just like Princess Isabel and her father Dom Pedro II in Brazil, who did not want to leave their homeland and did not have the freedom to reside there like any other citizens.
The phenomenon of the Republic
This modern and cosmopolitan phenomenon, with an air of the French Revolution, inspired by the Jacobin sayings of “liberty, equality, fraternity”, is called a Republic.
However, it was unpopular, for example, in rural areas. The Portuguese countryside saw its voting rights taken away after the coup. As Portuguese Prime Minister Afonso Costa said: “Individuals who have never left their land and have no clear ideas about anything or anyone should not have the right to vote” (1913).
The Carbonária flag was blatantly presented as the new republican flag. A clear sign of what was at stake: the personal interests of a group of individuals who were succeeding one another at an increasingly frantic pace, in instability, until the new regime culminated in the military dictatorship and, later, the Estado Novo.
The fall of the Monarchy was a determining factor in the loss of freedom in Portugal: since voting rights were taken away, in order to plant a new popular opinion about the regime, it was also the cause of wars between Portuguese people and culminated in a dictatorial regime for almost 50 years.
In a democracy, however, the new Constitution had two clear aspects: Portugal should have a republican form of government and should move towards a socialist society. In this way, the republican regime was never validated at the polls. It was imposed. Just like socialism.
In Brazil, monarchical initiatives have been suppressed for generations, in order to keep this idea far from the minds of Brazilians. Although the Republic was validated in the 1993 Plebiscite, the result demonstrated this distancing imposed by the Republic. To this day, for example, the “Pro-Monarchy” page on Twitter is censored and inaccessible to the Brazilian public.
The Republic is flawed
Caution is needed when it comes to holding power, and that is why the Republic fails: because the head of state will almost always be a party man. To advance within a party it is often necessary to be immoral and to give up basic values. The worst tend to come to power.
Thus, the head of state in a Republic will always be someone who knows how to play well within a party according to its convenience. Why should it be any different when leading a country? The term of office is limited, and since this is the greatest argument in favor of the Republic, I must refute it: the problem with the Republic is that the term of office is short and the institution is politicized. A constitutional monarchy with well-defined powers binds the head of state to the responsibility for his actions for several generations.
When Dom Pedro II and Dom Manuel II were asked if the troops should attempt a counter-coup, both refused: “I would never spill the blood of my people.” The same answer.
How much blood has the republic made us shed? How much delay has it caused so that the ambition for shared power can advance? History and time are merciless in their judgment.