321 CHRONICLESnCaudillo and Generalissimon^’People will not look forward to posterity, whonnever look backward to their ancestors.”n— Edmund BurkenFranco: A Biography by J.P. Fusi,nNew York: Harper & Row; $25.00.nThe Franco Regime, 1936-1975 hynStanley G. Payne, Madison:nUniversity of Wisconsin Press;n$30.00.nNot long before his death on Novembern20, 1975, FrancisconFranco asked a young aide if he thoughtnSpain’s future was “inevitably democratic.”nOn receiving an affirmativenreply, he gazed sadly into the distancenand said no more. The ailing Caudilloncertainly knew that “Francoism” wouldnnot remain unchanged after he wasngone, but he clung to the hope that hisnchoice as a successor. Prince Juan Carlos,ngrandson of Spain’s last king, wouldnpreserve the regime’s basic institutions.nThat is why he always insisted that thenPrince’s accession to the throne was tonbe regarded as an “instauration,” not an”restoration.”nThis does not, of course, precludenthe possibility that Franco was secretlynresigned to a new and more stable formnof liberalism than what his countrymennhad embraced during the 19th century.nIt was that very liberalism which henblamed for precipitating Spain’s declinenand ultimate humiliation in thenSpanish-American War. For 20thcenturynsocial democracy, however, henexpressed nothing but uncompromisingnopposition. Informed by atheism andnmaterialism and characterized by sentimentalitynand indiscipline, that modernnform of state and society was, he believed,nundermining the Westernnworld’s spiritual foundations. It wasntherefore “unsuitable for our people.”nIt is precisely Franco’s rejection ofndemocracy that so exercises Juan PablonFusi, director of the Spanish NationalnLibrary and coauthor, with the leftleaningnRaymond Carr, of Spain: Dictatorshipnto Democracy (1979). Thenregime’s fundamental problem, FusinLee Congdon is a professor of historynat James Madison University.ninsists, was “its lack of genuine moralnlegitimacy by democratic standards,”nby criteria, that is, which Fusi upholdsnand assumes to be universally applicable.nAt the same time, however, he isnhonest enough to concede that therenare problems with his point of view,nnot the least of which was “the willingnand sincere acceptance of Francoismnby a very broad spectrum of Spanishnsociety.”nIndeed, some deeper reserve of resentmentndistorts Fusi’s “biographicalnnnhy Lee Congdonnessay,” which for all its protestations ofnobjectivity is an almost venomous polemic.nHis profound antipathy is especiallynon display in the concludingnchapter, where Franco’s terrible deathnagony — endured, as Fusi admits, withnfortitude and dignity — is made tonserve as a symbol for the dying regime.nIn light of this distasteful strategy, itncomes as no surprise to learn that Fusinwas born and has taught at two universitiesnin the Basque Provinces. Clearly,nhe cannot forgive Franco for refusingn