Julio César Guanche citizenship —in line with the liberal republican framework, which privileges the protection of private property over the defence of the common good. The Cuban citizen was obliged to serve the homeland in arms and to contribute to public expenses, and had as a right the impossibility of being expatriated and prevented from entering the territory of the Republic. Politically, the regulation of citizenship configured a space for the protection of “negative” freedoms: protection against arbitrary detention (Article 20) and against deportation (Article 41). It did not contain measures to regulate political representation in a fiduciary manner — with revocation of mandates and control over representatives— nor the possibility of expanding “positive” freedoms through public interventions aimed at providing greater social equality, as was the case, already alluded to, of its limited provision of social rights. The regulations on property were limited to shielding the exclusive and exclusionary character of private property, a liberal conception of private property (Article 33). 4. Citizenship in the Constitutionalism of 1940 The official order that enabled the celebration of the constituent assembly of 1900-01 was read in English, by a military governor, Leonard Wood. In contrast, the assembly that drafted the 1940 Constitution was, emphatically, “free and sovereign”, and was experienced as a nationalist exaltation. In the tradition of the Weimar constitution, and under the influence of processes such as the North American New Deal, the struggle for the Spanish Republic, as well as Mexican nationalism, the Cuban Magna Carta of 1940 was a translation of global advances in matter of political and social rights. It became an avant-garde social-democratic text —more recently studied as “populist”— influential for the Peronist constitution of 1949 and for other constitutional texts subsequently approved in Europe. From the theoretical framework, it ascribed to democratic republicanism, unlike the clearly liberal base of the Constitution of 190116. Unlike the Constitution of 1901, written by “distinguished patriots”, the specification of the content of the 1940 text owed much more to social pressure and elaboration. It was the result of the presence of an ample spectrum of actors, the concurrence of a complete system of political parties —representing the entire political spectrum— and of a diversified public opinion. It established a broad catalogue of political and social rights and guarantees: the right to strike, habeas corpus, universal and mandatory voting, freedom of association and expression, worship and speech, business and trade, the secular state and a broad legislation of social, cultural, labour and family protection. Blas Roca, a communist leader, judged, at the time, the new text in the following way: “the Cuban constitution of 1940, by its content, can be described, in general, as progressive and, in some aspects, as really advanced” (Roca 1940, p.14). Roca explicitly valued its democratic republican contents: the consecration of the principle of state intervention in the economy; the legal regulation of lease contracts, setting maximum rent and the minimum duration; the limitation of large landownerships; the abolition of censuses and the restriction of land ownership for foreigners. Likewise, the text of 1940 established universal male and female suffrage (it had been defended since the government of the “Hundred Days”, and approved in the constitutional law of 1934, Cuban women voted in 1936, but here it acquired a definitive constitutional profile). It, furthermore, defended racial justice as a problem that 16 Domínguez has commented the “illiberal” character of the Cuban constitution of 1940, which restricted some political rights, at the same time that it extended social ones (Domínguez 1998) RSCAS/GLOBALCIT-CR 2020/3 - © 2020 Author(s) 11