Antonio Navalón
There is global unanimity that the 21st century, which has brought and contributed so much to the history of the modern world, has also witnessed an enormous depreciation in the quality of the political ruling class. This is not a problem that only affects one country or group of countries but a problem that is repeated without distinguishing geographic location – or any other characteristic element – among democratic nations. Naturally, it is more difficult to see the mediocrity of the ruling class when the society in question does not have to face a ballot box or a ballot paper but an army, a gun, or a party that prevents you from thinking individually and buys your life in exchange for thinking for you.
Spain is not only a close and well-known case. Not only did it have – four centuries ago – the capacity to build the most dominant empire the world had seen since the Roman Empire, and in less time. Spain is not only a nation that, based on hunger, strength, and unshakable faith in God, was able to dominate and subdue many nations and societies around the world, but it is also a country that – while fulfilling the characteristics described above – always had a historical and permanent lack of institutional values.
In 1976, Adolfo Suarez told the correspondents of Paris-Match – a renowned French magazine of that time – “We will amaze the world because we will be able to carry out an exemplary democratic process”. And indeed, the world was amazed. After forty years of General Franco’s dictatorship – forged by blood and fire – after three years of civil war and more than a million dead, Spain was able to turn itself around and, going from Law to Law, managed to perpetrate the miracle of transforming an almost perfect dictatorship into an exemplary democracy. Moreover, that period left behind the best legacy of institutions and collective freedoms in its history. However, the Spanish could not replicate that apparent institutional success in the societies they once dominated in the Americas. Curiously, while Spain was undergoing its democratic transition, many countries in South, Central, and – in a sense – North America were also searching for their own democratic conversion processes.
Spain, which has existed for over five centuries, had never achieved enlightenment success or institutional stability lasting more than a few years. Remember that, in the 19th century, Spain had eight constitutions. Before 1976, the coup d’état was the most natural solution to political and social problems, and there was always the nesting doubt as to whether the Spanish empire was more or less cruel than the Turks.
Putting the laws above the will of the men in charge makes the difference between a democratic society and an authoritarian society. Since the appointment of Adolfo Suarez as Spanish president and the first constitutional general elections of March 1, 1979, until today – with rare exceptions such as the terrorist dalliances of the Basque independence movement and the secessionist attempt of the Catalan independence movement – the purity of the process and the evidence of constitutional clarity in the electoral process has been a constant.
Putting the laws above the will of the men in charge makes the difference between a democratic society and an authoritarian society.
What has happened in Spain and in the world? And the fact is that, whichever way you look at it, the only constant today is the depreciation of the current ruling classes, a situation of which Spain is one of the clearest examples. This democratic crisis that afflicts all societies inevitably leads us to ask ourselves: what should be the price of power? And secondly, what does the person who gains power want it for?
What should be the price of power?… what does the person who gains power want it for?
After elections in which they were numerically defeated, the PSOE and Pedro Sanchez resurfaced and not only managed to agree on a pact with Junts that allowed them to reach the much-desired majority to take over the government, but in these days, the leader will again be invested as president of Spain. The agreement between the Junts of Carles Puigdemont – the fugitive from Spanish justice and under whose presidency of the Generalitat of Catalonia the referendum on Catalan independence was held – and the Spanish Socialist Workers Party, a key element in the consolidation of the democratic system that was born almost fifty years ago and that has given Spain an institutional stability never seen before, changed the panorama completely.
It is too early to draw all the conclusions and consequences of the agreement between the two bodies. Although some elements have been the subject of analysis for some time, such as, for example, the disruptive tendencies of Catalans and Basques, who have gone beyond seeking due recognition concerning the place they occupy in the Spanish territory, seeking unique and different tax treatment. An essential aspect of this agreement, among other things, is that it opens the possibility of resolving the historical conflict over the political future of Catalonia, either to the benefit or detriment of the Spanish State, and marks a new political and even territorial stage that we will see how it will unfold.
Comments and reactions have not come long, and differences of opinion and analysis will continue to emerge according to the interests of those issuing them. Regarding the agreement reached, Núñez Feijóo, president of the Partido Popular, argued: “Spain has lost, the independentists have won, and the PSOE is disappearing”. For its part, EH Bildu – a coalition of Basque pro-independence parties – let its satisfaction with the agreement be known, arguing that it will facilitate a legislature in which it will be possible to “address the territorial debate of the Spanish State”, since it will be “marked by the political agenda of the stateless nations”.
An unfortunate coincidence was the shot received by the former president of the Popular Party in Catalonia, Alejo Vidal-Quadras, on the same day the agreement between Junts and PSOE was announced. It is even more curious to know that the incident occurred after Vidal-Quadras posted on his X account the following message: “The infamous pact between Sanchez and Puigdemont has already been agreed upon, which crushes in Spain the rule of law and ends with the separation of powers. Our Nation will thus cease to be a liberal democracy to become a totalitarian tyranny. We Spaniards will not allow it”.
The issue related to the Communities that sought and continue to seek their separation or special treatment by the Spanish State was crucial and one of the most complex issues in drafting the Spanish Constitution of 1978. To avoid the singularity and the chain claim of all the territories, it was necessary to institute what was called “coffee for all,” which meant the a priori constitutional recognition of the differential fact for all the Communities that make up the Kingdom of Spain. Afterwards, the story is already known. On October 1, 2017, illegally and irregularly, the referendum on the independence of Catalonia was held, obtaining more than 90% of votes in favor of the community being an independent state in the form of a republic. In this regard, the King of Spain, Felipe VI, made a televised intervention, after which he was declared a hostile and unwelcome citizen in Catalan territory. In said intervention, the Spanish monarch condemned and punished the actions of the political powers and the illegal and separatist Catalan attempt, which was the reason for the flight from the national territory – evading his corresponding legal and judicial responsibilities – of President Puigdemont. This act was also the reason for the imprisonment of Oriol Junqueras and the other leaders of that pro-independence act.
It is not true that people have the government they deserve. However, they indeed have the governments they resemble. It is astonishing the lack of intelligence, not only of coherence or institutional seriousness but of political speculative intelligence, to understand that, just as Spaniards have a high value and respect for what strength means – even if it is opportunistic or personal – that, just as Spaniards cheer the winners, it is with that same strength that they despise the losers. It is true that Sanchez finally managed to form a government, but it should not be forgotten that the Spanish leader was officially defeated at the polls and votes cast by Spanish society.
The price Sanchez has already paid is the rupture of some of the most important myths that signified the constitutional consensus of the late 1970s. Pedro Sánchez has leaped into the void, leading the country toward an inevitable confrontation. It is one thing to aspire to and celebrate a defeat – as happens to Catalan or Basque independentism – and another thing not to measure well the consequences of Castilian centralism to the rest of Spain.
My generation, those of us who, in one way or another, had to be part of the miracle of the Spanish democratic transition, thought that this incredible milestone in the history of Spain would be, if not forever, then at least lasting. We never thought that what we had worked so hard to consolidate could be destroyed so easily simply because a party, a president, and his group of interests and friends want to continue having the official payroll at their disposal.
At this moment, the danger, the example, and what personally hurts me the most – after having had the opportunity to have been part of the miracle of the Spanish democratic transition at the end of the 1970s – is that it is not admissible the ambition of power or the ego of anyone to carry out the destruction of the institutional stability. Stability has always been the great defect of origin and the great pending of Spain towards its peoples and towards the peoples it formed when it was the largest empire in the world.
