Artigas versus the Leviathan: federalism as a guarantee of freedom

Among the names that appear in the secular altar of Río de la Plata history, few have been as distorted by civic liturgy as José Gervasio Artigas. The official Artigas—the one of school murals, empty speeches, and protocol marches—is merely a bland shadow of what he truly was: a liberal insurgent who confronted not only the Spanish Empire, but also its most dangerous and enduring Creole version: enlightened centralism. Far from being a precursor of populism, statism, or modern egalitarianism, Artigas was, at his deepest core, a radical republican inspired by Anglo-Saxon thought. His reading—direct or indirect—of Thomas Paine, his conception of the political pact as an agreement among free communities, and his outright rejection of all concentrated power place him among those who understood that freedom is not decreed: it is built from the ground up, among equals, and without cabinet intellectuals. Thomas Paine was not a sentimental revolutionary. He was a relentless polemicist, a defender of natural rights, and an enemy of any power that did not arise from the explicit consent of the governed. His work Common Sense (1776) is, without exaggeration, one of the foundational texts of modern political liberty. He did not preach Jacobin centralization, but rather individual and collective emancipation through limited, accountable, and federated governments. Artigas, already shaped on the frontier and exposed to ideas crossing the Atlantic with the American Revolution, embraced that spirit. His defense of the sovereignty of the people, his conviction that each province should govern itself without dictates from a capital, and his proposal for a Confederation of autonomous republics, reveal an instinctive understanding of the liberal principle: legitimate power can only arise from a free pact, never from imposition. You may also be interested in this article on the little-known files of iconic left-wing figures, which sheds light on gray areas of recent memory. It is no coincidence that the Instruction of the Year XIII, attributed to his most enlightened circle, demands not only absolute independence from Spain, but also from any centralizing power: a truly federated republic, with religious freedom, free trade, and sovereign local governments. Paine would have gladly signed it. In Artigas's thought, federalism is not an administrative tool, nor a pragmatic concession to the "realities of the interior," as those who still view politics as an engineering problem repeat today. It is a principle of liberty: an institutional architecture that prevents the accumulation of power, that distributes authority into the hands of those who truly exercise it, and that recognizes that local communities know better how to live than any technocrat in the capital. You may also be interested in this visual critique of the concrete results of social democracy, where the impact of decades of technocratic management is analyzed. Artigas's federalism is, in this sense, the negation of the modern Leviathan. It is the antithesis of the French model of a rationalist, centralized, and uniform nation-state that so fascinated Buenos Aires's founding fathers. While they dreamed of a republic designed from above, Artigas defended an order built from below. His revolution was not social engineering: it was a restoration of the natural right of peoples to live according to their own law. Artiguism was crushed not by the royalists, but by the centralists. His Confederation project—closer to Philadelphia than to Paris—could not coexist with Buenos Aires's hegemonic ambition. The Directory, symbol of enlightened unitarianism, could not tolerate the provinces choosing their destiny without asking for permission. Like every authentic liberal project in these lands, Artiguism was betrayed before it was defeated. Since then, Argentine and Uruguayan history have oscillated between two poles: technocratic centralism, with its promises of rational order, and the always stifled outbreaks of genuine federalism. Artigas's figure, emptied of content, has been used by all, but understood by few. Reclaiming Artigas from a liberal perspective is not a historiographical eccentricity: it is an act of intellectual justice. He was an enemy of enlightened despotism, a defender of limited government, a believer in distributed power and in the free pact among equals. He was, ultimately, a man who understood that freedom doesn't arise from the center, but from the margins. When the center claims the right to plan everyone's destiny, freedom dies. Artiguism was a defeated liberal revolution. But its message, still ignored by official pedagogy, remains clear: without real federalism, there is no lasting freedom. Without limits on central power, every republic is a fiction.