Civic alert: rectifying the course of Spanish democracy
Spanish people are experiencing a deep crisis, greater than those known in previous decades. For the first time in the history of our democracy, foreign media have come to view Spain as a "failed state". It is not, but the collapse of its reputation and loss of reliability in the eyes of its partners and markets is undeniable. It is not just another crisis. It may end up being the turning point towards some form of "illiberal democracy", with the demolition of the political system that we, Spaniards, so largely gave ourselves in 1978.
The Civic Circle of Opinion therefore wants to join its voice to those who warn of the depth of the crisis and demand a change of course.
It is a serious crisis because of the plurality of its dimensions, overlapping each other, as in Russian dolls. Recurrent health emergency, without the mitigating now of the surprise factor. An economic crisis on a much greater scale than initially envisaged and also greater-through a drop in gross domestic product and very high levels of unemployment, debt and public deficits-than that of the surrounding countries and all the major economies. A governance crisis that has forced four general elections in five years and the same budgets three years running. A "territorial" crisis-not only one of coordination between the different levels of state administration-as the secessionist insurgency has remained alive and belligerent. Social crisis, when mass unemployment and the deterioration of the living conditions of millions of citizens are compounded by weakening expectations of time. Political crisis, meaning a climate of permanent antagonism between the main political forces, a harsh confrontation with scarcely any room for cooperation, while the gap between citizens and their representatives ("representative orphanage") is widening.
On top of this, an institutional crisis which is undoubtedly the differential element of the present situation, with the inevitable-and extremely damaging-sequel of instability, uncertainty and legal insecurity. It is not just another crisis.
The problem is not one of "material resistance", even though the pandemic has highlighted certain structural political-administrative deficiencies of the state that have been dragging on for some time. The point is that central pieces of the institutional fabric that sustains the state are being continually undermined, with the judiciary and the Crown as priority objectives, although not the only ones. The "work of the delegitimising zapa", a process that "dismisses" - whatever you want to call it - the institutional framework on which our democratic regime is based.
Those who have confessed that they have taken an ab initio stance against the institutional pact that has allowed long decades of freedom and coexistence in democratic Spain are not relenting. What is radically new about the present situation is that this underground exercise in harassment and the overthrow of the constitutional order is being carried out from within the nation's own government. This is an unprecedented and unusual situation. This situation is also unsustainable given its extreme gravity: a perverse institutional degradation.
The frontal attack on the independence of the judiciary-a founding mentality of the separation of powers-has a long history, as has the partisan proclivity to judicialise politics. More recently the Crown has been placed in the spotlight, revealing the growing polarisation of the political climate: some appear to have made the almost daily attack on the Monarchy their sole ideological point of reference; others, at the opposite end of the spectrum, are drawn into defending an institution that should not need any defence but which the government itself places at the centre of the debate (as occurred in the Barcelona incident when offices were handed out to the new judges). Apart from the fact that the responsibility for each of these behaviours is different, the fact is that both end up using the Crown to satisfy partisan interests, in an attempt to ignore the fact that the Monarchy is neither right-wing nor left-wing: it is the institution associated with the Head of State, the keystone of the original constitutional pact.
The sterilizing confrontation that prevails in the political arena is fed - deliberately, one must think - by programmes or projects that, without being a priority today, further exacerbate the tension. Perhaps the most striking case is that of the so-called "Democratic Memory". An issue that is so profound for the sensitivity of many citizens because of their personal or family experiences, and of such importance for the collective conscience and the articulation of society, is posed in such a way that, instead of facilitating a shared conscience of the past, it re-forces polarisation: a retrospective look that imposes a Manichean, partial and biased story, stigmatising, for example, those who defend the legacy of the Transition as " Franquists ".
Reopening wounds, instead of helping them to heal; dividing instead of cohering. Policies that create or exacerbate conflict rather than resolve it. Divisive political agendas at a crossroads that require, more than ever, joint efforts of civic conversation, the sum of the parts ("understanding and agreement").
Paradoxical as it may be, it is not surprising, given such behaviour, that clearly anti-political attitudes end up being fed by the political leadership. The responsibility lies with all of them, starting, obviously, with the nation's government. The course of recent events is unmistakable. Since the beginning of the health emergency, reacting late and unexpectedly, what has been perceived is an almost total absence of leadership. Communication policies have prevailed over management itself; partisan interest over the common good; confrontation over cooperation. Far from setting an example of civic-mindedness and joining forces to unite a frightened nation, each group has attempted to mobilise its followers against the others, to continue with its Cainite impulses instead of holding hands; every setback in management-whether outside the state or the autonomous communities-has been used to highlight the ills of the country and to reap political rewards from a national tragedy.
The disconnection between political leaders and citizens is huge. The gap between those who govern and those who are governed continues to widen, fuelling distrust and even rejection, and disqualifying the representative system itself. Does anyone feel represented by the spectacle offered to us by the parliamentary chambers? Is it intended to transfer this polarisation to society so that it ends up tearing at the delicate fabric of coexistence and undermining confidence in the institutions?
The costs of all kinds generated by this disastrous political practice are clear to see. Today, health care, which is in the front line, offers two conclusive examples:
- The partisan management of the pandemic at a national level, while avoiding a double requirement: on the one hand, the advisable institutionalisation of the support for this task on scientific criteria, recognising the specific competences of the corresponding committees, whose composition is public and leaves no room for doubt as to the qualifications of their members; on the other hand, the carrying out of an independent audit of what has been done so far, when the scientific community is already clamouring for it. Of course, political polarisation makes accountability difficult.
- The clearly improvable coordination between the national government and the regional governments, which are as much a state as the others. As the legal instrument needed to effectively deal with the emergency has not been developed, with the required modifications in the legal coverage available (General Health Law, Law on the Cohesion and Quality of the National Health System, General Law on Public Health...), each one has been the guideline. The recurrent disputes between the Government of the Nation and the Government of the Community of Madrid show how far the nonsense of the so considered co-government can go.
Spanish society, which has suffered and continues to suffer so severely from the health emergency and the economic crisis, is now a society that is low on defenses, enervated and discouraged. According to many indicators, Spanish society is, on the one hand, frightened by the pandemic and, on the other, atomised and dispersed by the exceptional and restrictive measures. The mixing of governments endowed with exceptional powers in a situation of national emergency with frightened societies constitutes a serious risk of authoritarianism, as Freedom House accredited in its latest report.
Outwardly, an abrupt fall in reputation, as already mentioned, in international markets: prestige, so costly to acquire, can be lost quickly. Some of the most reputable European and American newspapers reflect this. What are we projecting to make our public space look like "trenches"? What are the results of governance to make people talk about "poisonous politics" that affect the management of health and the economy? It is a bad thing when the willingness of European partners to facilitate our access to the funds of the recovery plan (Next Generation) will also depend on our credibility and transparency. They are not money, they are not resources - either grants or loans - to water the clientele networks of the parties in government; they are conditioned to help rebuild the economy with new business projects and to undertake ambitious structural reforms.
At home, the damage is no less serious: loss of self-esteem as a country. Being among the group of nations that have been least able to combat the pandemic and mitigate its consequences, where the "democratic good" of agreement is most lacking, is dealing a harsh blow to our appreciation of our own capabilities. It is a bad thing when overcoming adversity requires the gathering of forces and attitudes.
The Civic Circle of Opinion perceives with great concern that the current policy direction puts at risk the framework of legal security and institutional stability that companies need to develop their business and create jobs, and society needs to enjoy peace and well-being. Spain is threatening to slide - either through irresponsibility or ineptitude, or through the prevalence of populist ideologies of one kind or another - down the slope leading to a democracy that fails to comply with the fundamental principle of the separation of powers and is incapable of ensuring internal cohesion and the proper functioning of each of them. Maintaining this orientation may lead to the path of destructuring the state. While the parties are attacking each other in Parliament and the media, growing sectors of the citizenry are either disinterested in public affairs or are artificially feeding their political filiations and phobias. This is a risk that must be completely eliminated.
From the Civic Circle of Opinion we want to warn of this danger and insist on the urgency of rectifying the course. Two objectives are a priority insofar as they determine everything else:
- Firstly, a clear and firm defence of the letter and spirit of the constitutional order. At this point the government of the nation must not only record - permanently - the legitimacy of the parliamentary democracy born in 1978, but also set an example of respect for a Constitution approved en masse by the Spanish (including Catalonia). Is this absurd? Not under today's circumstances.
- Second, the formation of a broad and coherent parliamentary majority that will assume the task of approving the General Budget and achieving State Pacts with basic cross-cutting agreements, abandoning that now usual instrument which is the veto or, in other cases, opacity with respect to the conditions for obtaining certain endorsements. This is an objective that does not necessarily require forming broad coalition governments, but it does require renouncing political advantage in order to achieve coincidences that serve the general interest. Without such agreements, which are compatible with the exercise of a responsible opposition, it will be impossible to overcome the current critical crossroads and guarantee the country's governability in line with the open, tolerant and participatory path of our democracy. Governing for all Spaniards: should such a demand not also prove idle?
Let's go back to the initial lines. We are not facing another crisis. We are facing an emergency situation. Not only are many of our past economic achievements in danger, this great collective effort that we undertook more than forty years ago; we also risk undermining the foundations of our coexistence, the basic consensus that gave us political identity and fortunately dried up our traditional sources of division to a large extent. If at other times our divisions took on a tragic form, they are now re-emerging almost in the form of a farce, in banal clashes that are being shouted on social networks and then projected by similar means.
Let us not allow the noise and speeches of hatred to prevail over serene argument, partisanship over the general interest, and ignorance and dilettantism over knowledge and experience. As citizens, we are called upon to exercise our duties and to demand the responsible management of common interests, of what belongs to all of us. This is also our hope.