The recent municipal elections in Spain were seen as the lefts greatest opportunity to topple the right since it lost power to Jose Maria Aznars Partido Popular (PP) in 1996. The first victory since six straight defeats at the polls, predicted the Partido Socialista Obrero Español (PSOE) leader, Rodriguez Zapatero. It did not happen this way, and a result far closer than expected reveals a lot about the lefts weakness in reading the electorate as a whole.
The left gambled on the hope that the public would punish Aznar and his governments support for the war in Iraq, and for the way it bungled the Prestige oil tanker disaster. Izquierda Unida (IU, the United Left, dominated by the former Communist Party) had even appealed explicitly to the electorate, saying that the 25 May elections would be the countrys verdict on the conflict.
Both PSOE and IU were so sure of success at the polls that they tried to sell the results as an outright victory. Ironically, one of the most symbolic constituencies was in Muxía, the small town in Galicia most affected by the Prestige disaster. Contrary to all forecasts, the governing PP party not only won the seat back, but actually increased their share of the vote. The sound of jaws dropping could be heard among politicians and media alike.
It is true the socialists won some seats and retained others, but far more was expected of them; after all, if an opposition party, facing an unpopular mid-term government, is unable to deal a hammer blow now it is safe to assume it will not be able to do so when a general election comes along.
The costs of complacency
Why then has the Spanish political landscape remained static? Part of the reason is that Spain is a nation which, in a way, is a victim of its own success. The relatively peaceful transition from dictatorship to democracy has made the Spanish feel it unnecessary to question themselves, or how they go about doing things. Curiously for a democracy, it is a society which dislikes individual dissenting voices. Even the opposition is massed in a block with similar views.
The governing Partido Popular knows this, and was aware of the dangers to its current hegemony posed by a long, drawn-out war in Iraq. Aznar gambled that the war would end quickly and that the electorate would quietly count its earnings and vote his party back into office. This is very close to what actually happened.
To understand the opposition to the war, it is very important to differentiate between the intelligentsia and the public as a whole. There is an almost puritanical dislike for all things American among many intellectuals, writers and journalists. In fact, in what can sound like a sweepingly racist statement, they like to refer to Americans and the British as the Anglo-Saxons.
This has given rise to odd situations. Most TV channels have shown a clear bias against the war in Iraq, and have carried the search for truth/freedom of speech banner with self-righteous zeal; however, there is a tradition in the media to adopt bash the US tactics that go beyond merely criticising issues of foreign and economic policy.
Such a phenomenon was evident after the death of two Spanish journalists in Iraq. Jose Couso, a cameraman, was killed when a US tank fired a round at the Hotel Palestine in Baghdad. The TV channel he worked for claimed at one stage that this had been a deliberate attempt by the Americans to stop news of Iraqi civilian deaths from being reported. This sounded better than suggesting the tragedy could have been due to US military ineptitude. The few voices in the media that dared to suggest that a more professional, measured tone was needed in reporting the war were quickly shouted down.
Although the public may also join in this chorus of disapproval of the United States, it is clear also that younger people will quickly forget and go to the cinema to watch an American movie, listen to American music, play American computer games and dress like kids from the Bronx.
The right reinvents, the left retrenches
Pere Vilanova suggests in his article that the right has been traditionally isolationist and that its hard-line reform of employment law was an assault on Spains democratic system greatly cherished by the people. The truth is that the Spanish, themselves, have for a long time been isolationist and inward-looking, and not really interested in any cultural standards other than their own.
It has not helped that their view of history has very often been incomplete and distorted: most Spaniards know very little about Spanish history beyond 1492 except for very precise and anecdotal events, which invariably show the Spanish as tragic figures that have been dealt unfair blows either by the hand of fate or by unscrupulous foreign powers. Vilanovas mention of the U.S.S. Maine incident and the 1898 war in Cuba is one illustration of this tendency.
Yet if the Spanish perception of the world is indeed undergoing some change, then this is mirrored too in the reinvention of its political right. The Iraq war may have revealed the Spanish peoples genuine abhorrence of war and the dubiousness of Aznars democratic credentials; but, in answer to Vilanova, it is fairly clear that the people cherish their new-found wealth more than certain other rights.
Aznar has given newly-enriched groups a very pleasant tingling sensation by saying: Look, we can be somebody important again. Lets back the winning horse for a change (this last phrase was actually uttered by a government minister on a TV programme at the height of the conflict). No one was willing to admit openly to having such mercenary feelings but it reminds one of Britain during the Thatcher years: apparently nobody voted for her, but she just kept winning elections.
This will work for as long as nothing upsets the apple-cart. But there are serious problems ahead for this nation in the shape of rampant and self-interested nationalisms and not just those in the Basque country which threaten to erupt in the coming months. There are also question marks over Spains ability to roll forward economically when EU subsidies come to an end. It is still an essentially agricultural nation, and its other main source of income, tourism, is undergoing difficult times.
In the end, though, it would seem that it is the left, and many of those who comprise the intellectual and cultural make-up of the nation, who will have to evolve if they are to understand the changes that are shaking up Spanish society. To do so would not necessarily mean having to kneel submissively to the American steamroller; but it will mean burying, once and for all, the tired and hackneyed dogma to which it is attached, and which is incapable of meeting the needs of a transforming Spanish society.
