Elecciones generales de 26 de junio de 2016 (II)

Por otra parte, Podemos es quien más tiene que ganar, siendo el otro partido de reciente formación que aspira a ser segunda fuerza política y principal partido de la izquierda. Con un líder carismático y un excelente manejo de las técnicas telecomunicativas, ha aprovechado el descontento de la ciudadanía, marcándose un objetivo claro con un itinerario detalladamente calculado y exitosamente ejecutado. En este sentido, ya ha absorbido a IU y el siguiente paso será la fagocitación del PSOE, tendiendo su mano al líder socialista y asegurando que sólo pactará con él. Si la ambición de Sánchez es mayor que su prudencia, y acude a los cantos de sirena de Iglesias, el PSOE caerá en manos de los populistas.

Aunque Iglesias se reivindique como garante de la socialdemocracia y asuma posiciones más moderadas, sigue siendo de extrema izquierda. Su ideología, manifestada en sus programas y entrevistas, no puede maquillarse de un día para otro. Cualquier moderación en su discurso responde a intereses electoralistas. Iglesias no es socialdemócrata, sino bolivariano; tampoco cree en la UE, sino que aboga por salir del euro; y no sólo asesora a una dictadura de facto, sino que ha sido financiado por la misma para fomentar sus políticas en España. Es difícil que lleguemos a la situación de Venezuela, pero no porque Iglesias no esté dispuesto a aplicar ciertas políticas, sino porque nuestro país pertenece a ciertas organizaciones internacionales que dificultarían su aplicación.

Sin duda alguna, la situación más complicada es la de los socialistas, quienes siguen lastrados por la herencia de Zapatero. Tras sus casi ocho años de Gobierno, los socialistas no han logrado recuperar el electorado perdido ni con Rubalcaba ni con Sánchez, evidenciándose este hecho una y otra vez en unos cada vez peores resultados electorales. La conjugación de nefastos líderes, la falta de un marco discursivo común y la incoherencia de sus pactos electorales con las “filiales” de Podemos, han hecho del PSOE una sombra de lo que en su día fue. Es triste cómo el partido de izquierdas por excelencia en España, garante de estabilidad y con experiencia de Gobierno, naufraga de semejante manera.

Los socialistas saldrán mal parados sea cual sea la decisión que tomen. Las alternativas reales se reducen a formar un Gobierno progresista con Unidos Podemos, o bien permitir que el PP gobierne en minoría. Respecto a la primera opción, Sánchez no tiene la certeza de ser presidente del Gobierno debido al eventual sorpasso. Sánchez ambiciona el poder, pero es dudoso que esté dispuesto a alcanzarlo a cualquier precio. Pactar con Podemos supone abrazar el populismo, las políticas que han llevado a Grecia al abismo y la posibilidad de que los secesionistas consigan sus propósitos.

La segunda posibilidad pasa por pactar con el PP, formando un gobierno de coalición o permitiendo que gobiernen en minoría. Ello supondría pactar con aquellos a quienes llevan cuatro años criticando, y con quienes han “destruido” los derechos sociales. La continuidad de las políticas populares significaría la destrucción de los socialistas y su completa pérdida de credibilidad. En cualquier caso, la abstención para que gobiernen en minoría permitiría a los socialistas aguantar la posición a Podemos y a los populares, de tal manera que podrían calcular los tiempos y derribar el Gobierno conservador cuando fuera el momento oportuno.

Todas las encuestas auguran similares resultados a los de las anteriores elecciones, con algún ligero matiz. No habrá mayorías amplias que permitan formar un gobierno estable, sino más bien débil y de legislatura corta. El objetivo principal debe ser alejar a Podemos del poder, evitando que destruyan el mínimo progreso que haya podido conseguirse en los últimos cuatro años. En este sentido, será trascendental el papel que juegue el PSOE. Si consigue ser segunda fuerza política, Pedro Sánchez pretenderá formar gobierno con la abstención de Podemos. Si no lo consigue, Sánchez se abstendrá y permitirá formar gobierno a Rajoy, con tal de impedir que Iglesias sea presidente. En cualquier caso, Sánchez no tardará en ser sustituido sea cual sea el resultado.

Todas estas suposiciones ignoran ciertas variables, como el eventual apoyo de Sánchez a la formación de un frente popular, o el requisito sine qua non de que Rajoy abandone la presidencia. Teniendo en cuenta los tiempos de inestabilidad que se avecinan, los diferentes candidatos deben abandonar sus posicionamientos personalistas y anteponer el interés de España. Es evidente que la situación de desgobierno no puede prologarse por más tiempo, nuestro país necesita un Gobierno, y sobre todo políticos con visión de Estado. 

Elecciones generales de 26 de junio de 2016 (I)

El pueblo español ha sido convocado a las urnas el próximo 26 de junio, tras el fracasado intento de formar Gobierno tras las elecciones del 20 de diciembre. Aunque PSOE y C´s lograron llegar a un acuerdo de mínimos para evitar el bloqueo institucional, el mismo no convenció al resto de formaciones políticas. En consecuencia, tanto el PP como Podemos votaron en contra de la investidura de Pedro Sánchez como Presidente del Gobierno de España.

Lo sucedido no sorprende, claramente la época del bipartidismo ha terminado y nos encontramos ante un Parlamento enormemente fraccionado. Por tanto, la formación de Gobierno será sumamente complicada, especialmente debido a la disparidad ideológica de las cuatro principales fuerzas políticas. Resulta muy interesante la situación en que se encuentran dichas fuerzas, las cuales deben actuar prudentemente y gestionar los eventuales pactos electorales conforme a sus principios ideológicos y las necesidades de la nación.

Respecto al Partido Popular, Mariano Rajoy es el máximo responsable de todo lo ocurrido desde 2011. Entender la política en clave exclusivamente económica, la ausencia de comunicación y la corrupción sistemática son las causas de la presente situación de disgregación política. La transición entre alcanzar una mayoría absoluta aplastante y, a los cuatro años no obtener ni la sombra de dicho resultado, es un enorme fracaso. El PP tiene la suerte de ser el único situado en el centro derecha, pues de lo contrario podría haber sido víctima de un trasvase de votos aún mayor.

Los populares no conseguirán formar gobierno si no se replantean ciertos posicionamientos, aunque sean la lista más votada. En este sentido, tal vez Rajoy deba dimitir si con ello facilita la formación de un gobierno de coalición, o corregir ciertas decisiones puntuales de enorme trascendencia, como el aforamiento de la señora Barberá. Es necesaria una auténtica regeneración del PP que devuelva la confianza a la ciudadanía y sitúe a los conservadores en una posición reforzada para poder negociar la formación de gobierno.

En cuanto a C´s, una de las nuevas fuerzas políticas, las encuestas de las anteriores elecciones llegaron a situarlo en tercera posición, e incluso en segunda. Finalmente eso no ocurrió, quedando como cuarta fuerza política a cierta distancia del PSOE y Podemos, lo cual no deja de ser un buen resultado. La opinión pública y la izquierda le han acusado de ser escudero de los populares, alegando que su programa electoral constituye una copia del de aquellos, y situándolo en el espectro político de la derecha. Por otra parte, los populares han lanzado las mismas acusaciones en sentido inverso.

Las acusaciones de la izquierda no son del todo justas. Rivera ha tendido puentes con el PSOE antes que con el PP, proponiendo un modelo socio-económico distinto y defendiendo la legalización de ciertas drogas, la eutanasia y la regulación de la prostitución. De lo anterior no se desprende ningún tipo de conservadurismo. Ciudadanos puede ayudar modestamente y dentro de sus posibilidades a la formación de un Gobierno de mínimos, habiendo demostrado que apuesta por la estabilidad y unidad. Ahora bien, su insuficiente mayoría parlamentaria, la elección del socio incorrecto, la intención de agradar a todo el mundo y su excesiva moldeabilidad contribuyen a que C´s no sea una alternativa completamente creíble. 

Autonomic Catalan elections on 27th September 2015

The date 27th September 2015, the last episode from the independentist challenge, will be decisive for Catalonia and Spain future. The independentists are agglutinated around a single list whereof they hope to get the enough Parliamentary majority which let them to unilaterally declare the independence and create a new State. In order to achieve that, Arthur Mas is advised by an “experts group”, building authentic State infrastructures straight from inside the Catalan Community and disposing of everything they need to take that goal.

The independentists have understood these elections as plebiscitary ones; despite the elections order did not mention anything about that with the purpose of avoiding an eventual complaint before the Constitutional Court. However, although from the juridical view are just an autonomic elections, these elections are crucial and mean a decisive battle in the dialectic war that the unionists have been losing for several decades. The massive vote, the not-independence victory and the independentists’ failure are crucial for changing the fracture tendency which has been imposed since 1980.

Mas has lost the control of the game that he began years ago, he is on a not-exit street, pressured by his partners and the independentists lobbies. The blackmail strategy has become in something dangerous which has led Catalonia to the border abysm. The President has seriously broken the Catalan society, dividing families and sowing the hate and radicalism seed. In addition, he has destroyed his own party, which is the result of a thirty years coalition. There are not politicians who had the enough legitimacy for causing that damage, skiving the attention from the really important issues in order to hide his miseries.

From an economic view, there are some doubts about the Catalonian State viability, due to the fact that many people affirm the separation from Spain would lead to the collapse and it would not be possible to pay the retirements, government officials’ wages and other essential spending. Moreover, we must take into account the difficulties due to the reestablish of customs houses and borders surveillance. However, the unionists should not focus all their arguments on the economy issue, because if the Catalan State was viable they would not be able to support their position. Although it is not the most common speech, the best reason for the not-independence must be historical, social, juridical and, specifically, the common sense.

Historically, Catalonia has never been an independent kingdom, but belonged to the Aragon kingdom. Neither, the Secession War supposed an independence war, but a civil war that was caused by an empty throne. Neither the Second Republic proclamation meant to ignore the entire Spain, but the establishment of the Catalan Republic inside to the Spanish Federal Republic. Essentially, people ignore that nationalism were born in the XIX century in the textile industry and foreign imports framework.

From the social reasoning, the independentism is inspired by the race purity and the prosecution of what is different. The race purity idea ignore the non-existence of pure Catalan people and the migratory movements from the South Spain during the XIX and XX centuries. The Catalan society is a mix from different origins and not a monolithic stone, just as some people pretend. In addition, despite the external appearance, the independentists do not constitute a social majority, since those who defend the stay of Catalonia in Spain are over the 50% and still are increasing, just as show some surveys made by the own Generalitat.

From a legal view, the secession is impossible although some people use the juridical framework for their own advantage, using distilled arguments. It does not exist the “right to secession”, despite some people try to hide it behind the opportunist “right to decide”. The Spanish Constitution recognize the Spanish Nation indissolubility and the legislation provide tools for defend it. The Mas behaviors constitute an attack against the legality and a seditionist punishable attitude. In this way, the Generalitat officials should disobey those orders which were clearly contrary to the legislation or constitute legal offence. The non-fulfillment of Constitutional Court awards in the linguistics or competences field, and the illegal summons of a consultation should have been stopped under that principle. However, the reality has been different.

From an international legal framework, the Catalan State would be out from the European Union, despite in fact it continued using the same currency. The independent Catalonia would have to apply for the entrance in the EU, which would require the unlike unanimity of all the Member States. According to that, the Mas international adventures have failed, due to the fact that the International Community has respected the principles of non-intervention on the internal affairs and the territorial integrity of a sovereign State. The responsible States reject the instability, the uncertainty and the recognition of a fact which could be qualified as “coup d´état”. That failure has happened despite the establishment of the wrong called “Catalan embassies”, and other actions.

However, rejecting the independence does not impede to debate about how Catalonia must fit in Spain. Neither to talk about the necessaries Constitutional and tax reforms. It is clear that something does not work in Catalonia, and the passive attitude from the Spanish Government does not help. Nonetheless, in order to debate about these socio-economic issues it is necessary to have enough and reliable data, checked by independent experts who confirm or refute the Catalan unbalanced budget. In any case, a best autonomic financing, the recognition of the Catalan singularity in an eventual Constitutional reform or the establishment of an asymmetric decentralized model will not satisfy the secessionist aims.

It is necessary to revise and reform the autonomic territorial, competence and financial model. In that sense, it should establish a clear competence distribution, transferring some essential competences to the Central State, such as Education. It should remove the uncertainty and duplicities, defending the territorial solidarity among the different peoples of Spain and claiming for responsibility and well management to every single governor.

Definitively, the common sense arguments are those which must be imposed: the union leads to the stronghold, and the disaggregation cause weakness. Spain is a great Nation and its diversity constitutes its best value. As big as the integrity among its peoples was, better and more effective will be the responses before the XXI century challenges. It should exist an open minded vision in a world where the borders are being blurred, the universality is growing and the ostracism does not fit.

Abraham Lincoln and our time.

The North American War Secession (1865-1865) was one of the most traumatic episodes from the short History of the United States of America. It supposed a crash between two different perspectives about the State´s territorial organization, the opinion of the Founding Fathers on the slavery and the way to understand the own democracy.

The Slavery ran a different lucky in the United States, since the North expressly banned that, or at least it was observed as a social reality which would disappeared. The South maintained it due to the white superiority presumption and an economic oligopoly which understood slavery as a legitimate institution. That debate took place in a legal framework where the slavery regulation was understood as a State field, and not a Federal one. 

Those fights between two opposite conceptions and the multiple socio-legislative battles led to a civil war, in a framework of opposite economic interests. The South States decided to proclaim the independence and organized them as a confederation, pressured by a Parliament which was against slavery. These States strongly believed that was better to strengthen the power and autonomy of the States, instead the federal power. However, the tools used were away from a democratic process and supported by the population.

Abraham Lincoln, who achieved the presidency once the war had started, emerged before that extremely situation and passivity of the unionists. Lincoln, who was lawyer and politician, had suffered a lot of punches during his life: from electoral and politic defeats to the loss of his son. His arrive to the Federal Government meant an electric shock which allowed the Union to react against the independence challenge. Lincoln knew the historical importance of the war which was taking place, since the survival of the Union meant the survival of the democracy. Moreover, behind that conflict there was a moral dilemma: the slavery debate.

The President defended the men had been created as equals by God, and for that reason the slavery was condemned to disappear in the South progressively. Given that, there was not necessity to adopt legislative measures in order to eradicate it at one time. His thought obliged him to adopt measures during the war which seemed to be too soft by the radical Republicans and inacceptable for the Democrats who supported the Federal cause. His thought can be expressed as follows: “If I could save the Union without liberate any slave, I would do, and if I could save it liberating all of them I would do, and if I could save it liberating some of them and let some behind, I also would do”.

Although the war did not started well for the unionist due to the inexperience of its army and the irresolute generals who commanded it, Lincoln never gave up. Next to the presidential determination, the Union owns the industry and amount superiority. After several defeats the course of the war changed for the Union, at the same time that the possibilities of rebel international recognition were falling. The disintegration and the inexistence of a strong central power were the keys of the rebel final defeat. During the war, the Lincoln´s moral dilemma was solved for the slaves: it was effectively proclaimed the slaves emancipation in the whole national territory, including the secessionist states.

Although in the practice it had not a relevant repercussion and Lincoln had to face crossfire from two extreme positions, the President made a decision according to his faith. The decision was made according to the fundamental conviction regarding the radical equality of all men recognized by the Constitution, and which roots were in the biblical scriptures and the Christianity faith. Lincoln was strongly convinced he was complied with the Creator desires.

Ended the war and having survived the United States, against what was expected and the revenge claims, Lincoln led a peaceful policy regarding the losers. He believed that the best way to maintain the Union and cure wounds go through reincorporating the rebels to the national life, without rancor and revenge. That purpose came true by death penalty commutations, pardons, the joining of south soldiers to the US army and the strict limitation of confiscations. However, the total national reconciliation and social integration of black people were delayed until the twentieth century as consequence of the President murder.

Disappeared the major icon of national reconciliation and moderation from the slavery ending, the radical Republicans get the control of legislative and executive powers, approving acts in order to punish the rebels and using the black vote for biased purposes. As consequence of that radicalism, it beginning a system based on the favoritism and corruption, which conducted to a legal response by the south Democrats where the black people was situated in a lower juridical and social position. In addition, it took place violent acts from some radical groups. The death of Lincoln and his policy delayed almost a century what could have been achieved in a few decades.

From this chapter of the North American History we can learn universal teachings: the necessity to strongly defend the Democracy, avoiding that minorities subvert or blackmail it and setting before their particular interest from the rest of the Nation. It is also necessary to being strong before who pretend destroy what has cost effort and sacrifice. Before who attack the democratic building, its defenders should emerge firmly. Moreover, it should recognized scopes which are above the play of parliamentary majorities and the convenience of a reconciliation policy. It is necessary to achieve a Nation where everyone can be inside, fixing wounds and looking at the future.

In conclusion, despite the non-religious character of the State, it would not be harmful that politicians leaders trust in a high being who knows the destine of men and nations, just as Lincoln did. And coherently, they worked for the poorest and the downtrodden, defending the equality of opportunities. Essentially, Spain is where these ideas need to be put in practice.