Blog 8 - Spanish Civil War

David J. Samuels, in his text Comparative Politics, defines political violence as “the use of force by states or non-state actors to achieve political goals.” I will continue to examine Spain as I consider an example of political violence in order to test the soundness of Samuels’ definition of a type of political violence.  Particularly, I will examine what is known as the Spanish Civil War and determine if Samuels’ definition of civil war is sufficient for this instance of political violence.
Samuels’ definition of civil war is the following: “armed combat within the boundaries of a sovereign state between parties that are subject to common authority at the start of hostilities.”  This is the definition to be tested.
The Spanish Civil War lasted from 1936 to 1939 and is described by Encyclopaedia Britannica as a “military revolt against the Republican government of Spain, supported by conservative elements within the country.” The rebellion was formed by a coalition between various nationalistic groups, particularly officers of the military.  Although the initial military coup was unsuccessful, General Franco of the Nationalists carried forward a war of attrition that led foreign forces to become involved.  Both the Nazis in Germany and the Fascists in Italy provided aid to the Nationalists, while Mexican, Soviet, British and American aid was provided to the Republicans.  The war became a true source of division in Spain, which eventually led to the overthrow of the Spanish Republic and the establishment of a dictatorship under General Franco.
According to Samuels’ definitions of the various types of political violence, the Spanish Civil War is certainly not an instance of interstate warfare, terrorism, or genocide.  What deserves some clarification is the distinction drawn by Samuels between civil war and revolution.  His definition for civil war is provide above; his definition for revolution is the following: “armed conflict within a sovereign state between insurgents and the state, in which both the insurgents and the state claim the allegiance of a significant proportion of the population; authority over the state is forcibly transferred from the state to the insurgents, and the insurgents subsequently bring about wholesale political change.”
Here’s the clincher: according to Samuels’ definitions, the greatest difference between a civil war and a revolution is whether or not there is a change in regime at the end of the conflict.  In the case of the Spanish Civil War, the Nationalists overthrew the Republic and established a dictatorship.  Thus, according to Samuels’ definitions, the Spanish Civil War might more appropriately be recognized as a revolution.  While labeling the conflict as a civil war may, to some degree, label the Franco dictatorship as illegitimate - particularly in the minds of Americans - it would be more appropriately labeled a Spanish Revolution.  While powerful, liberal Western democracies may be uncomfortable with the idea of a revolution that leads to a dictatorship, it is nonetheless the truth that a revolution does not need to be a revolution of liberalization.  Conservative as well as socialist revolutions ought to be recognized as such; otherwise, the term revolution will certainly lose a great deal of meaning.

Sources
Samuels, David J. Comparative Politics. Pearson: Boston, 2013, pp. 258-259, 269, 276, 279.
Spanish Civil War. Encyclopaedia Brittanica. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/558032/Spanish-Civil-War.
Spanish Civil War. Wikipedia. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War.