Online dialogue "Spain in its labyrinth".

Summary:

On 17 October 2022, the Rafael del Pino Foundation hosted a dialogue entitled "Spain in its Labyrinth", with the participation of José Manuel García-Margallo, former Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Fernando Eguidazu, former Secretary of State for the European Union, on the occasion of the presentation of their book of the same title.

García-Margallo: Three centenaries were to be celebrated in 2021: that of Annual, which certified the decomposition of the Restoration regime; the assassination of Dato, who was the last of the regenerationists who was able to prevent the fall of the regime; and the publication of "España invertebrada", which cites the evils of fragmentation, polarisation, radicalisation and ungovernability that we are talking about. From there, we reflected on the idea of Spain. You cannot govern if you do not have an idea of Spain. At the moment there are at least three ideas of Spain and a fourth, more diffuse one.

The first is that of Unidas Podemos and the president's parliamentary supporters, who aspire to a plurinational Spain, including the right to self-determination, organised in a state that is not quite confederal. There is another idea of Spain, which they are not happy to recognise, in the autonomous regions and regions that make it up, and which also does not conceive that Spain's role in the European project is to take more decisive, stronger steps towards a United States of Europe. There is a third idea, which is the constitutional Spain, the one Spain, the autonomous regions, the separation of powers and profoundly European. And there is a fourth, diffuse idea, which was born in the Tinell pacts, which is where Spain began to break down in 2003. It was signed by the then socialist candidate for the presidency, Rodríguez Zapatero, with Esquerra Republicana and Iniciativa per Catalunya, which speaks of a pact whereby the nationalist parties undertake to support Rodríguez Zapatero's government while Zapatero undertakes to put the socialist party at their service in those historic nationalities. It happened in Galicia and Catalonia, but not in the Basque Country with Herri Batasuna because they blew up T4. That project has been recovered by Sánchez. Therefore, we have to choose between these ideas of Spain and draw the consequences.

Eguidazu: It is tragic that after forty years in which we thought Spain had settled into normality and had the cruising speed of democracy, suddenly the same problems that Ortega pointed out a hundred years ago have come upon us, and they have come upon us all at once.

The first problem is the breakdown of the two-party system. This is not a problem in itself, because it is no better or worse than the multi-party system, but in Spain it has given very bad results. The two-party system has a disadvantage and that is that, to the extent that important parties appear at the extremes, they pull the big parties towards the extremes. This is a danger we have fallen into, especially the governing party. That is the first problem and the cause of many things that have come after us.

The second, which has appeared with some virulence, is a strategy of polarisation. This is very dangerous. Spanish society is being encouraged to split again into two antagonistic groups. The third is what we call the authoritarian drift, which is the practice of occupying all state institutions, which should be neutral by definition. This process of occupation is most serious in the attempt to control the judiciary. This is very bad because it undermines democracy. Democracy is not just about voting for four years. It is about more than that, it is about balances, checks and balances. The fourth is the secessionist challenge, which has come to us with a virulence not seen since the 1930s.

In between should be added the economic problem, which is particularly serious because it comes at a time of political crisis.

Finally, there remains the great problem of our time, which is the emergence of a frontal challenge to the constitutional model. The essence, the hard core of our coexistence, has been called into question. What is serious is that it is not coming from marginal parties, but from parties in government or supporting it.

García-Margallo: Democracy answers the question of who governs, which is the people. Liberalism answers another question, which is how to govern. You are liberal if you respect the sphere of individuals and the rights of minorities. That is what has not been understood in Spanish history.

There are many parallels between the current situation and history. In Spain there have been several crises since the 19th century, such as the return of Ferdinand VII, the loss of the throne of Isabel II, the crisis of the Restoration and the fourth is the collapse of Francoism. Those that have been resolved with the agreement of the two major Spanish political forces, the Restoration and the Transition, have turned out well. Those in which confrontation has been chosen have turned out badly.

When Ferdinand VII returned from exile in 1814, he re-established absolutism with enormous brutality. In 1820-23 another pronunciamiento: Riego with the liberal triennium, which began with the applause of the bourgeoisie and very soon, when the exalted replaced the moderates, ended in a bloodbath and the mistrust of the powers of the Congress of Vienna. Absolutism was re-established and we have the last decade of Ferdinand VII, which is where the two Spains came to the fore.

The actions of Isabella II are more or less the same. Carlism continued in several regions of Spain, mainly in the north, but it would be a mistake to believe that Carlism was only a dynastic issue. There was also Catholic fundamentalism and fuerismo, which was denaturalised by the Basque Nationalist Party. The fall of Isabella II can be explained by the distancing of power from real Spain. The people were not present in political life. There were parties that were more like a gathering around a cacique. Secondly, the role of the army, called upon by the Spanish liberals to do the modernising work that they could not do, is very notable. The role of the Church is also very important. Spaniards did not become Catholics because they embraced a particular doctrine, but to affirm their belonging to a tribe. Isabel II came to an end, there was an attempt at a liberal union that failed, the queen disappeared and the situation was resolved with a democratic monarchy and a republic that made things worse.

We had to wait for the Restoration, which was the first Transition. Two major parties, the Conservatives and the Liberals, came to understand each other, came to an agreement, drew up the constitution and did a great deal of legislative work, and this union was so strong that they overcame the crisis of 1898.

Thus we come to the Alfonsina era and the Annual disaster. An attempt was made to make amends with Primo de Rivera, but it did not work out, and this ended with a republic.

Eguidazu: In the Republic there was no consensus, nor was there any interest in reaching one. The Constitution of 1931 was a constitution imposed by the left without taking the right into account. Ortega, in September 1931, criticised this drift because of the way in which it had been approved by imposition. That constitution was never submitted to a referendum, which is an abysmal difference with the Transition, in which the constitution was the fruit of consensus and approved by referendum with an overwhelming result in its favour. The right did not accept that republic and when it won the elections it set about overturning the measures of the previous government. Then it was the left that did not accept it, and along the way the country became increasingly polarised and ended up split into two blocs. The Republic lasted five years and three months and in that time it had six uprisings: three by the anarchists, one by the monarchists in 32, one by the Socialist Party in 34 and another by the right in 36. This is in stark contrast to the Transition, which followed exactly the opposite path because Spaniards decided to break with the Cainite tradition that you'll see when I come, because you're going to find out.

García-Margallo: The Transition consisted of dissolving a dictatorship that had been born of violence into a democracy, using legality and institutions not to transform it, but to renew it. We must distinguish between two stages. The first was the first government of Adolfo Suárez, in which Suarez had several fundamental successes. The first was to leave the leading role in the Transition to the king. The second was to proceed with liberalisation rather than democratisation. Suarez and his government understood that before elections could be held, freedom of expression, freedom of opinion, freedom of association, freedom to form trade unions, etc., had to be established in order to create an educated public opinion that would shun both the intimidated vote and the demagogic vote. If the elections had been called on 1 July '76, the two contenders would have been the Communist Party of Spain, which came from the resistance and had the support of the Workers' Commissions and the neighbourhood associations, and Manuel Fraga, who at that early stage was the alliance of the Magnificent Seven, believing that there was an underlying ideological Francoism that could be exploited. The third success was a style of government. In Suárez's speeches there was no threat, no insult. They were proposals open to the whole of society.

When he managed to create that climate and the elections were held, the Transition was possible for several reasons. The first was because national reconciliation took place, which was the amnesty, an amendment by Jauregui of the Basque Nationalist Party. Marcelino Camacho made a speech on the subject, talking about the reciprocal concessions we had made to each other in order to achieve a higher goal. The third point was the Moncloa Pacts. The streets had to be pacified. The economic situation was much worse then than it is now. The rise in the price of oil had led to 26% inflation, a rise in interest rates, a return of immigrants and a recession. The last one was that the constitution gave up the idea of a constitution to be by all and for all. That was the greatest success we have had in our history. This success is now being denied, arguing that this has been a parenthesis and that it is necessary to return to the legitimised republic, which is what would justify this plurinational Spain. But the Transition is the example we all need to see.

Eguidazu: It is very striking that whenever Spain has found itself in an existential political crisis, it has always found itself in the midst of an economic crisis. The Transition found itself with the 1973 oil crisis and the current situation finds us with the pandemic crisis, the crisis in Ukraine and, previously, with the financial crisis. In all cases, these crises came from outside. In the Second Republic, it also happened to us, with the crisis of 1929 and the Great Depression. They are exogenous crises, but in all of them we have been caught with our homework undone, or badly done. At the present time, we can identify three main problems that go back a long way, they are not new. The first is very low productivity. Productivity growth in Spain is little more than half that in Germany, and we have been like this for many years. The second is the labour market. When the labour market was at its best, just before the 2008 crisis, Spain had 8% of unemployment. Now it seems unattainable. In Europe, 8% unemployment is a disaster. In Europe, unemployment rates are 4%, 5%. In other words, in recent years, Spain has not had the capacity to provide work for its inhabitants. The third is the public accounts. In the last twenty years, only on three occasions have we had a surplus. In the last ten years, on four occasions we have had public deficit rates above 9%. At the moment we have a public debt that is around 115% of GDP. No one disputes that money has had to be spent to support families and companies at the time of the crisis. But we cannot get used to living with this deficit because it makes us very vulnerable to a possible financial shock and does not give us room for manoeuvre if a new crisis appears or the present one worsens. With a political crisis, economic reform is impossible because such problems require difficult and time-consuming solutions. A government cannot embark on such reforms with the opposition on the sidelines. There must be basic agreements on the principles of a structural reform programme, which is what the Moncloa Pacts did. Conversely, it is very difficult to solve the political problem without solving the economic problem, because a population with unemployment and inflation is in no mood for political jokes. In other words, both things have to be solved at the same time, and we have a precedent in the Transition. Before the Constitution was approved, the Moncloa Pacts were signed. All political and social forces took part in them. This can be repeated, perhaps not with this government, with a party going in the opposite direction, but in another political context it would be highly desirable.

García-Margallo: The immediate future does not look very encouraging. I believe that we have the capacity to change in an election and to face the future with more optimism. After that, we will have to reach major agreements with the major national forces on very obvious issues. The first is institutional loyalty. The institutional system has not failed; the disloyalty of the nationalists has failed. A staunch defence of Spain's territorial integrity. Absolute respect for the division of powers. Depoliticisation of the institutions. Zero tolerance in matters of non-compliance with laws. National pacts on the major issues of education, public safety, foreign policy and defence. And, finally, a comprehensive reform of the administrations, covering all administrations and all income and expenditure, because what is coming is tremendous.

The Rafael del Pino Foundation is not responsible for the comments, opinions or statements made by the people who participate in its activities and which are expressed as a result of their inalienable right to freedom of expression and under their sole responsibility. The contents included in the summary of this conference, written for the Rafael del Pino Foundation by Professor Emilio González, are the result of the debates held at the meeting held for this purpose at the Foundation and are the responsibility of the authors.

The Rafael del Pino Foundation is not responsible for any comments, opinions or statements made by third parties. In this respect, the FRP is not obliged to monitor the views expressed by such third parties who participate in its activities and which are expressed as a result of their inalienable right to freedom of expression and under their own responsibility. The contents included in the summary of this conference, written for the Rafael del Pino Foundation by Professor Emilio J. González, are the result of the discussions that took place during the conference organised for this purpose at the Foundation and are the sole responsibility of its authors.

• Facebook
• X
• LinkedIn