Spanish Political News

[littlebabyjesus]

A king preparing to involve himself directly in politics? Dangerous thing for a monarch to do - at least openly.

 

[butchersapron]

With the benefit of hindsight, you can say that, yes.

Although I'm sure Gonzalez and others would say that they felt there was no peaceful choice but to allow the existing elite to maintain a position in the new Spain. Franco, on his deathbed, thought he had everything 'all tied up' to continue his regime after him. Suarez and others decided differently - what was the correct response to him? I don't know. Blow up Carrero Blanco - yes, fucking well done. But once Franco had gone, and one of his ministers wants to talk? There were fears of another civil war.

There was a time in Spain, in the 80s, before they joined NATO, when the left had some purchase. I think at that time, many people would have said that Felipe had done well to get to that situation.

Don't ask Gonsalez or the PSOE goons about how great they are and how worthy of them it was that they took the coin then. Ask the people who outlined - accurately - what would happen and why it was happening. You sound like Clegg or Cable bigging up the coalition agreement here.

Do you really think that there were no other options other than elite managed transition with no change of social content? At a time when spain was on the verge of following portugal? Oh, there were options alright - the transition helped close them down. But, for the good of the country and the economy and blah blah blah

(btw: a film is being made about the vittoria revolt and it's going to be fantastic)

 

[Favelado]

Do you really think that there were no other options other than elite managed transition with no change of social content? At a time when spain was on the verge of following portugal? Oh, there were options alright - the transition helped close them down. But, for the good of the country and the economy and blah blah blah

Don't the other options linked to there show us how a civil war might have come about? Imagine 100 Antonio Tejeros watching reds taking control of the nation before their very eyes, very shortly before deciding to lead columns of tanks into every major town and city.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Do you really think that there were no other options other than elite managed transition with no change of social content?

I think the compromise reached was pretty rotten in many respects, although we weren't to know what PSOE and Gonzalez were to become. Making people basically suck it up about what had gone before. Must have be very hard for many to take. But the comparison with Clegg is spurious - the stakes were of a different order. There is no real comparison between the Spanish transition and the coalition govt.

I don't have easy answers, or a firm opinion about what was right. But the Spanish constitution was not simply a capitulation to the existing elite. It guaranteed minority rights at the same time as compromising over a 'United Spain'. It outlawed the death penalty, it recognised in principle certain human rights to welfare, etc. You have to look at where they were coming from as well. To characterise the 78 constitution as a capitulation to the Francoists isn't really right. It was not in any sense a defeat of the Francoists, but it wasn't intended to be. That was the compromise.

 

[butchersapron]

Don't the other options linked to there show us how a civil war might have come about? Imagine 100 Antonio Tejeros watching reds taking control of the nation before their very eyes, very shortly before deciding to lead columns of tanks into every major town and city.

It shows how challenges to power are met by power yes. It doesn't show that they shouldn't be made. (That was a quick reading btw)

 

[Favelado]

It shows how challenges to power are met by power yes. It doesn't show that they shouldn't be made. (That was a quick reading btw)

I only scan-read. Forgive the simplistic answer I gave. I find it an inescapable conclusion, but am grateful for the link to an interesting article that I will give the full attention it deserves.

 

[butchersapron]

I think the compromise reached was pretty rotten in many respects, although we weren't to know what PSOE and Gonzalez were to become. Making people basically suck it up about what had gone before. Must have be very hard for many to take. But the comparison with Clegg is spurious - the stakes were of a different order. There is no real comparison between the Spanish transition and the coalition govt.

I don't have easy answers, or a firm opinion about what was right. But the Spanish constitution was not simply a capitulation to the existing elite. It guaranteed minority rights at the same time as compromising over a 'United Spain'. It outlawed the death penalty, it recognised in principle certain human rights to welfare, etc. You have to look at where they were coming from as well. To characterise the 78 constitution as a capitulation to the Francoists isn't really right. It was not in any sense a defeat of the Francoists, but it wasn't intended to be. That was the compromise.

Of course we were to know that the PSOE was to become ffs.

Where who was coming from? Where was the popular participation in this compromise? Of course it wasn't a capitulation to the elite - the elite write it amongst themselves. There were no other actors at play. A compromise knocked out by that elite isn't a compromise agreed to and signed by the masses - it's an agreement imposed on the latter. The word compromise here is distasteful as it suggests some wider participation - it should read democratic victory of the elites hand in hand with the francoists.

This is basic stuff for people left of fucking kinnock.

 

[J Ed]

Don't ask Gonsalez or the PSOE goons about how great they are and how worthy of them it was that they took the coin then. Ask the people who outlined - accurately - what would happen and why it was happening. You sound like Clegg or Cable bigging up the coalition agreement here.

During the mid to late 70s Felipe Gonzales himself called for a total break - a revolution like in Portugal, rather than a transition and basically begged European centre-left parties for support for that position. On the subject it's worth reading Pilar Ortuño Anaya.

Her European Socialists and Spain is good on this, review here (though I no longer have access to it!)

 

[littlebabyjesus]

During the mid to late 70s Felipe Gonzales himself called for a total break - a revolution like in Portugal, rather than a transition and basically begged European centre-left parties for support for that position. On the subject it's worth reading Pilar Ortuño Anaya.

Has Felipe himself stated why he changed his position?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Don't the other options linked to there show us how a civil war might have come about? Imagine 100 Antonio Tejeros watching reds taking control of the nation before their very eyes, very shortly before deciding to lead columns of tanks into every major town and city.

This is why comparisons with Clegg or Kinnock are rather spurious. Comparing the polities of 80s and 2010s Britain with Spain immediately post-Franco is a bit silly. It is interesting that Felipe had been calling for a break. I didn't know that (before Franco's death, it's not surprising, though). Something changed his mind. That something might just have been talking to Suarez and realising that there was another way to do things. I don't immediately jump in and judge him as self-serving for taking that option, not in a country with Spain's history.

As I'm sure most of you know, when Franco died, people emerged from hiding. They had been hiding for 36 years! There had been no forgiveness from Franco for the Civil War, ever. It was still a live issue.

 

[butchersapron]

You do though jump in and assume that there is a level of genuine intention and strategy behind something that you admit that you've never heard of until a few minutes ago. Despite it not being in clandestine PSOE politics beyond the rhetorical for years and year - and one wheeled out at times of conflict with the PCE and others to their all-encompassing left. Sort of like around the death of Franco.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You do though jump in and assume that there is a level of genuine intention and strategy behind something that you admit that you've never heard of until a few minutes ago. Despite it not being in clandestine PSOE politics beyond the rhetorical for years and year - and one wheeled out at times of conflict with the PCE and others to their all-encompassing left. Sort of like around the death of Franco.

Ah, no attempt to engage, just a whole paragraph slagging me off. Disappointing. Very disappointing.

You knew something I didn't! I didn't pretend that I already knew it.

Well done. You knew Felipe would be what he would become even then. You saw he was a treacherous dog. Anyone who would negotiate with Francoists must be. I think you underestimate the potential for war. Or perhaps you would have preferred war? I don't know.

 

[butchersapron]

I did engage - i suggested that your trust in the historical PSOE is misplaced and based on nothing/historical ignorance. What else did you want me to do other than respond directly to your post? Massage your feet? Make you a cuppa?

 

[J Ed]

Has Felipe himself stated why he changed his position?

Not that I know of, these days he spends his time red-baiting people like Pablo Iglesias. If I were him I wouldn't explain why I abandoned all of my stated principles either.

 

[butchersapron]

Ah, no attempt to engage, just a whole paragraph slagging me off. Disappointing. Very disappointing.

You knew something I didn't! I didn't pretend that I already knew it.

Well done. You knew Felipe would be what he would become even then. You saw he was a treacherous dog. Anyone who would negotiate with Francoists must be. I think you underestimate the potential for war. Or perhaps you would have preferred war? I don't know.

Why on earth did you add these last bits in?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Just to reiterate one thing (BA has gone back on ignore - I do not conduct discussions on here on the basis of personal attacks, but he does, and he can piss off.):

The 78 Spanish Constitution was not a negotiation between elites. It was a negotiation between the only elite that existed (Franco had been in power so long that only one elite existed) and organisations that had been illegal under Franco, whose legitimacy came from their popular backing.

Whatever you may think of the constitution, to characterise it as the carving up of power among the elites is not correct. You might as well say that decisions taken at the TUC conference are decisions of elites. They are not. They may well be corrupt and wrong, but they remain decisions taken by delegates whose mandate comes from their members.

 

[Favelado]

Just to reiterate one thing (BA has gone back on ignore - I do not conduct discussions on here on the basis of personal attacks, but he does, and he can piss off.):

The 78 Spanish Constitution was not a negotiation between elites. It was a negotiation between the only elite that existed (Franco had been in power so long that only one elite existed) and organisations that had been illegal under Franco, whose legitimacy came from their popular backing.

Whatever you may think of the constitution, to characterise it as the carving up of power among the elites is not correct. You might as well say that decisions taken at the TUC conference are decisions of elites. They are not. They may well be corrupt and wrong, but they remain decisions taken by delegates whose mandate comes from their members.

Even if we say it was an elite, an elite that included Santiago Carrillo and Manuel Fraga working together was pretty extraordinary.

 

[butchersapron]

So much historical ignorance - last week it was 1933 and hitler was back after UKIP scored 27% on a 34% turnout , this week a much derided and challenged top down elite led transtion is popular legitimacy. That's a personal attack somehow. saying that you are wrong to someone who is wrong is a personal attack. Pathetic.

 

[butchersapron]

Even if we say it was an elite, an elite that included Santiago Carrillo and Manuel Fraga working together was pretty extraordinary.

Yep, pretty fucking dangerous too. Look out Vitorria, the democratic cops are coming to crack your skulls...

 

[Favelado]

Yep, pretty fucking dangerous too. Look out Vitorria, the democratic cops are coming to creak your skulls...

Tonight's the night I hear of the Vitoria uprising for the first time, so I need to go away and better inform myself. Thanks.

 

[butchersapron]

Tonight's the night I hear of the Vitoria uprising for the first time, so I need to go away and better inform myself. Thanks.

That's the way to do it

 

[J Ed]

Even if we say it was an elite, an elite that included Santiago Carrillo and Manuel Fraga working together was pretty extraordinary.

Yes, interestingly it was Carrillo who specifically called for the Alianza Popular to have a role in writing the Spanish constitution.

 

[J Ed]

Republican protest, Monarchist protest - spot the difference

 

[J Ed]

Getting put on the throne by a fascist dictator - #justbourbonthings

 

[J Ed]

Here is an interesting article about what the British left can learn from Podemos, there is a lot in there that's interesting but I especially like this.

The fundamental problem of the Left is a communication problem

Pablo Iglesias stands out amongst many other socialist activists in Spain for the primary role he has attributed to political communication. He was the first to set up a very modest TV program to discuss issues from a left wing perspective: la Tuerka and then Fort Apache. In these debates Pablo Iglesias and his colleagues challenged the idea that “the revolution will not be televised” by covering topics which would be otherwise dismissed or biased by the mass media. Most importantly la Tuerka and Fort Apache showed a new way to communicate radical politics; both approachable and entertaining.

Pablo Iglesias is extremely popular today in Spain – because he appears on TV. He has rendered the left visible in one of the most virgin fields for us, despite being heavily criticized by sectarians for accepting the invitation by mainstream TV channels which usually depict our protests in the most biased way. Pablo Iglesias is aware that the only reason why he is invited there is because the antagonism with right wing journalists and politicians pushes up audience share. However, if we seriously aim at persuading the unconvinced, we cannot just simply neglect spaces with such a huge ideological influence like television. Despite all its contradictions, we have to occupy these spaces as much as possible.



In fact, the problem the left has with the media is not different from the problem it has with elections. This is the rationale behind Pablo Iglesias saying “we have to be everywhere” (in workplaces, the media, the institutions of power). Podemos’ great success is to not dismiss politically any social space. Take the traditional motto of the left “the streets are ours” for instance. Pablo Iglesias is always pointing out the fact that, when one walks around town, you do not have the impression that “the streets are ours”. As a matter of fact there are increasingly more banks, cameras, police… In brief, the streets are theirs as any other place under capitalism and it is only when we demonstrate there that we start reclaiming this social space. The necessary conclusion is that we have to be everywhere.

But Podemos’ communication success has not only to do with visibility, but more fundamentally with discourse. Pablo Iglesias has also been heavily criticised by sectarians for not using the TV platform to recite the orthodox dogma of the left. He has never explained the core principles of Marxism; in fact, he does not even use terms like “capitalism” or “socialism”. The reason being that he understood from the very beginning that the fundamental problem of the left today is a communication problem: “if you are trying to communicate and you are not being understood, you are not more revolutionary, you are an idiot”.

When you listens to Pablo Iglesias on TV, you have the impression that what he is saying is actually common sense. Despite being a teacher in political science, he never flaunts those academic credentials. He communicates in plain language the popular outrage against an establishment that permits 500 daily evictions, 6 million unemployed and rampant corruption. Podemos has created a discourse of its own, which has become very characteristic and identifiable. With two main anchoring points, the “political caste” and “the people”, Pablo Iglesias has got rid of all academic language which prevent us every day from convincing the majority of society.

Every new political formation which seriously hopes to be successful must create a new language. If that is the task ahead of Left Unity for instance, it has to learn from Podemos how to construct a political discourse which appears to be both approachable and exciting for the majority of people.

Just where is the British equivalent of La Tuerka or Democracy Now or even more limited examples like the excellent podcasts from Richard Wolff or the Left Business Observer? Why is the British left so deficient here in ways that the left isn't in other countries?

 

[J Ed]

Some interesting opinion polling here from El País

62% in favour of a referendum and 49% would vote to continue as is while 36% would vote for a Republic BUT only a slim majority in the 35-54 age group would vote for the continuation of the monarchy and a slim majority of those 18-34 would vote for a Republic.

 

[Favelado]

Some interesting opinion polling here from El País

62% in favour of a referendum and 49% would vote to continue as is while 36% would vote for a Republic BUT only a slim majority in the 35-54 age group would vote for the continuation of the monarchy and a slim majority of those 18-34 would vote for a Republic.

Did you see how El Pais decided to run the headline for that polling as a ringing endorsement of Felipe? As drippy and useless as PSOE. I should stop being surprised really. It's my fault.

 

[Favelado]

Spain is mayonnaise and how Felipe's handling of Catalonia will be his Tejero moment.

Apologies there's no English version.

http://elpais.com/elpais/2014/06/06/opinion/1402070875_528833.html

 

[JHE]

It's no surprise that a majority agree that there should be a referendum, though of course most Spaniards are less passionate about having a referendum than the mainly leftist republican demonstrators of the last week or so.

If Felipe de Borbón were keen to legitimate his reign he could side with calls for a referendum. It could be a clever move. If there were a referendum, I think he would win. He is quite widely respected.

Spain is not awash with monarchists, but there are many Spaniards who, though they are not monarchists in principle, are willing to accept a monarch if the individual is seen to serve his country well. Back in the years of the Transition, there were many who agreed with the famous comment (sometimes attributed to Carrillo, though I'm not sure who coined it), "No soy monárquico. Soy juancarlista." Many now would opt for Felipe VI, despite not being convinced monarchists.

I don't suppose Felipe will ask for a referendum, though. He is much more likely to opt for not rocking the boat.

 

[Favelado]

I don't suppose Felipe will ask for a referendum, though. He is much more likely to opt for not rocking the boat.

Then he can get all unpopular, fuck it up and lose a later referendum. Hopefully, anyway. It's like Catalonia, a politician with any sense of strategy would have called a referendum while there was a clear majority of Catalans in favour of staying in Spain a few years back. I'm happy for Catalans whatever they want to do, but if your agenda is to keep Spain "united" in its current form, you've missed the boat. The window of opportunity was there for anyone with vision.