Brazilian party formation: questions of ideology, party labels, leadership, and political practice, 1831-1888

Abstract

This is a response to comments by R. Salles and M. Dantas, and discusses the use of Gramscian terminology, ideological differences between the parties, party names used during the Regency and Second Reign, and political practice at the provincial and national levels. It argues that the saquaremas were not a hegemonic party, that their leaders were organic, that the differences between the parties were fundamental on certain points, and that the use of party names in the text debated derive from contemporary usage and meaning. The response also comments on the fundamental differences involved in the Additional Act, on the significance of the reactionary centralizing legislation, and, finally, on the success and limitations of both State power and of provincial political mobilization in affecting provincial government, national policy, and imperial political practice.