In the 50 hours
that Franco’s body lay in state, during up to 500,000 people
filed past for their last look at the dictator. A joke common at
the time suggested that many had come just to make sure he was
dead. Indeed there was some quiet celebration. In Barcelona the
writer Vázquez Montalbán wrote ‘champagne corks soared into the
autumn twilight. But nobody head a sound.’ There was also a lot
of genuine, private grief. But the overwhelming emotion was the
foreboding that accompanies uncertainty.
With hindsight
the Spanish transition to democracy can appear to have been an
orderly, almost inevitable process. But in the immediate
aftermath of Franco’s death, little if anything appeared to be
inevitable. The view in 1975 was captured by the academic José
Amodia: “It is naïve to expect Franco’s death to work a miracle.
In the political future of Spain I see a great deal of darkness
and hardly any light; my forecast must be pessimistic.” (José
Amodia, Franco’s Political Legacies, Penguin, 1976, p.
204.)
Reform had been
in the air for several years and the now the central obstacle to
it had been removed. Between a divided government and divided
opposition there was only consensus that Spain had reached an
historic moment. From the perspective of the reformist right,
the challenge was to initiate change that did not threaten the
foundational principals of the Francoist system. From the centre
left perspective, the challenge was to bring about an end to
Francoism without provoking the intervention of the army. For
many at the time it seemed as though Spain was attempting to
‘reconcile the irreconcilable’. (Paul Preston, The Triumph of
Democracy in Spain, p.91 Taylor & Francis, 1986 And
always in the background was the possibility of yet another
Spanish pronunciamento in a country still haunted
by the memory of civil war..
Pronunciamento is
a declaration by which a military coup d'état, i.e.
a military dictatorship, is made official.
For
most of the first year of post-Franco Spain, there were little
grounds for optimism for those who hoped for change. The first
decision of key decision of King Juan Carlos was to
re-appoint Franco’s prime minister Arias Navarro, known during
the civil war as the ‘Butcher of Malaga’.
Juan Carlos I of Spain
Born
5th January 1938 in Rome, grandson of
previous King of Spain, Alfonso XIII who was deposed
in 1931. In 1948 Juan Carlos moved to Spain, as part
of a deal struck between Franco and his father Don
Juan. This gave Franco control over Juan Carlos’
education, allowing Juan Carlos to be groomed as
Franco’s successor. In 1969, Juan Carlos was
officially designated heir to Franco and was given
the new title of Prince of Spain. As a condition of
being named heir-apparent, he pledged an oath of
loyalty to Franco's Movimiento Nacional.
Privately though from the 1960s Juan Carlos had been
meeting members of the opposition. On the 22nd
November 1975 Juan Carlos became head of state and
King of Spain. He is widely credited with overseeing
the successful transition to democracy and in
particular for the failure of the attempted coup of
1981 ‘23-F’
‘Many
people thought that he was a bland, insubstantial
representative of an autocratic regime firmly
anchored in the past. His discretion was seen as
ignorance, his discipline as docility, and his
silence as a lack of imagination or absence of
ideas. Yet when the moment came he showed that
although he might not know how, he certainly did
know what he intended to do. At that moment he
showed balance and caution, self-control and cool
judgment…’ (Javier Tusell, Spain: from
dictatorship to democracy : 1939 to the present,
p.274 Wiley-Blackwell, 2007)
In this first
cabinet, loyal Francoists still manned the key institutions,
including the Council of the Realm which nominated the terna,
the list of three candidates for prime minister presented to
the king. In January 1976, Arias introduced proposals for
limited democratic reform, a programme that was well short of
opposition demands. Clashes between police and demonstrators
were dealt with in traditional Francoist fashion and five
workers were killed. By the summer, Arias was struggling to get
the Francoist establishment in the Cortes to pass the
centrepiece of his legislative reform, the legalisation of
political parties. On July 1st with the Cortes at an
impasse, he tendered his resignation to the King. What happened
next was as unexpected as it was crucial to Spain’s
democratisation.
i) 4th
July 1976 - Suárez appointed Prime Minister.
The liberal
newspaper El País, famously responded to the appointment
of Adolfo Suárez with the headline ‘What a mistake! What
an immense mistake!’ Reformers had been hoping for the
appointment of one of the regime’s heavy weight aperturistas,
but in Suárez they had the young General Secretary of Franco’s
Moviemento Nacional. The reactionaries in the búnker
were delighted However, for King Juan Carlos, Suárez’s
impeccably conservative credentials were all part of the plan
hatched with the support of the King’s former tutor Fernández-Miranda
whom the King had manoeuvred into the chairmanship of the
Council of the Realm. Suárez’s name had been allowed to slip on the
terna shortlist of three as a safe conservative that no
one expected to be chosen. But, in the words of one commentator,
the appointment of Suárez ‘was the culmination of months of
assiduous conspiracy’. (Hooper p.39) Suárez had been
one of a number of politicians invited by Juan Carlos in the
last months of Franco’s life to outline a programme for the
future of Spain. Suárez’s plans had impressed the king with
their detail and realism.
Adolfo Suárez
Adolfo Suárez y
González, was born 25th
September 1932. A lawyer, he
served in a number of Franco governments and
became the Secretary General of the
Movimiento Nacional. He was an unexpected
choice as Prime Minister in 1976. According to
historian Raymond Carr, ‘The achievement of
Suárez was to accomplish the programme of
“democratization from above”, using the legal
institutions of Francoism.’ (Carr 174) On 8
June 2007, during the celebration of the 30th
anniversary of the first democratic elections,
King Juan Carlos I appointed Suárez Knight of
the Order of the Golden Fleece for his important
role during the Spanish transition to democracy.
Suárez himself
had the youth, persona and detailed understanding of how
politics in Spain worked. He could, in the words of Paul
Preston, ‘use the system against itself’. (The Triumph of
Democracy in Spain, p.92 Taylor & Francis, 1986) It meant
that within a few months of his appointment, Suárez was able to
present to the Cortes a thorough reform bill that would
completely transform the political landscape and take the
Francoist búnker off guard.
ii) 18th
November 1976 Law for Political Reform passed.
In addition to
the leadership of the Moviemento, Suárez had also been
director general of Spanish state television, TVE. He used his
media experience to the full in ensuring that the whole reform
process was covered on television from his announcement of the
details of the reform bill through to the televised debate on
the 18th of November. In the Cortes itself,
debate was managed by the Speaker Fernández-Miranda, who
prevented key elements of the bill from being diluted by hostile
amendments. In the end Francoism capitulated 424 votes to 59 on
live television, as one by one Franco’s deputies were called by
name to vote ‘si’ or ‘no’ for reform. On the 15th of
December the ‘yes’ campaign won 94.2% of the referendum vote in
the country as a whole.
iii) 9th
April 1977 Spanish Communist Party (PCE) legalised.
In the same month
as the referendum, the socialist party (PSOE) under Felipe
Gonzalez held its first congress in forty years. Informal
contacts between Gonzalez and Suárez resulted in an acceptance
by the nominally republican socialists of a democratic monarchy.
In February the PSOE was legalized. The Communists (PCE)
presented the government with a much more difficult problem. To
legalise the PCE was to risk right wing revolt and army
intervention. Changing public opinion in the light of the
Atocha massacre in January and the willingness of communist
leader Santiago Carrillo to negotiate with the government,
persuaded Suárez to risk legalisation of the PCE in April. It
had been, in the words of Carr, ‘the most intense political
crisis so far’. (p. 176) Also in the late spring trade unions
were legalised, the right to strike recognised and Franco’s
Movimiento was abolished.
Atocha
Massacre
The murder of
five trade unionists on January 24th 1977
by an extreme right-wing terrorist organisation.
More than 100,000 people attended the funeral which
became the first mass left wing demonstration after
the death of Franco.
iv) 15th
June 1977 Election
Suárez popularity
was such that any party led by him was likely to win the first
democratic elections. The problem for Suárez was that he did not
belong to any party. During the previous winter, various
conservative groupings had been emerging and in March Suárez
negotiated a position as leader of the most prominent of them:
Unión de Centro
Democrático (UCD).
As expected, the UCD won the election, less anticipated was
failure of the extremist parties, the Communists (PCE) on the
left and the Alianza Popular (AP) on the right, to make
much impression.
1977 Spanish
General Election Result
Party
Votes
Percentage
UCD
6 337 288
36.61
PSOE
5 358 781
29.27
PCE
1 718 026
9.38
AP
1 525 028
8.33
‘The
results showed that the electorate rejected both the extreme
right and the extreme left. The results were a triumph alike for
moderation and a desire for change.’ (Carr p.176)
In the
absence of an absolute majority, Suárez chose not to form a
coalition government but instead worked on a producing an
inclusive set of agreements, (known as the Moncloa Pacts signed
25th October) involving all the major political
parties and trades unions. As a consequence the Spanish
Constitution which was ultimately approved by referendum on
December 6th 1977 was a consensual document that
represented the spectrum of political groups in Spain. Amongst
the most liberal constitutions in Europe, it defines Spain as a
parliamentary monarchy rather than as just a constitutional
monarchy. It abolished the death penalty and the links between
the Catholic Church and the state. Most radically, the 1978
Constitution transformed Franco’s highly centralised state into
a state where significant power was devolved to the regions and
the ‘historical nationalities’ (Nacionalidades
históricas).
v) 23rd
February 1981 – The Tejero coup ‘23-F’
For
those who participated in the attempted military take
over in Februray 1981 ’23-F’, Spain was on the verge of
political and economic collapse. Demands for home rule
from the regions was getting out of hand and the
continued ETE terrorist campaign in the Basque country
showed no signs of slowing up.
In addition, throughout
1980 divisions had been opening up with the ruling UCD
party over the extent to which Spain required social
reform. Contraception had been legalised, homosexuality
decriminalised and discriminatory laws on adultery also
abolished. Proposals to reform the divorce laws split
the UCD and it appeared unable to govern effectively.
In
January 1981 Suárez resigned and in the month before his
successor Calvo Soltero could take over a faction within
the army attempted to seize power by force. Colonel
Antonio Tejero led an occupation of the Congress of
Deputies holding most of Spain’s political class hostage
for 24 hours.
He claimed to act in the name of the King,
but Juan Carlos quickly acted to reassure the public
that this was not the case whilst ordering the army to
follow his orders. It is still not known exactly who was
behind the attempted coup and the generals who were
arrested were clearly expecting others to follow suit.
But what is certain is that the failed coup indirectly
helped the socialists into power the following year.
(vi) October 28th
1982 election of PSOE
Throughout much
of its time in opposition under Felipe González, the PSOE had
been painfully distancing itself from its Marxist origins. The
failed Tejoro coup and the splits in the UCD did much to help
the cause of the PSOE. The moderate programme of reform proposed
by the PSOE and the effective media friendly leadership of
González did the rest. In the election, the socialists were
swept into power with 201 seats and a comfortable majority in
the Cortes.
1982 Spanish
General Election Result
Party
Votes
Percentage
PSOE
10 127 392
49.4
AP
5 409 229
25.9
UCD
1 425 248
6.8
PCE
846 440
4.0
The election of
González marks for many historians the end of La Transición
because it demonstrated that power in Spain could be passed
from one party to another without unrest or the intervention of
the armed forces. And this is, as John Hooper suggested,
‘ultimately the test of a democracy’ (The Spaniards p.46)
The Spanish are
very proud of La Transición. Indeed, it continues to
serve as the model and inspiration for many recent transitions
whether in Africa, Latin America or in Eastern Europe. ‘Spain is
a miracle’, Adam Przeworski, the expert on democratization
studies. ‘...the optimistic scenario is to retrace the path of
Spain.’
(Adam Przeworski, Democracy and the
Market
New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991, p. 8) But we should
be careful not to get too carried away. Often ignored by
commentators is the violence that accompanied Spain’s
Transición. In the five years following
Franco’s death more than 100 demonstrators were killed by the
police or extreme Francoist groups. (Tremlett p.75) Also
ignored has been the lack of justice for the victims of
Francoism, as the former Prime Minister Filipe González himself
explained ‘There was not sufficient strength to demand either
justice or, even, any explanation for the past’. In other
countries that have been through a transition like post
apartheid South Africa there have been ‘truth and
reconciliation’ commissions designed to heal the wounds of
dictatorship. In contrast, in Spain La Transición was
accompanied by what the Spanish call the pacto del olvido,
the unwritten agreement by all sides to forget what happened
under Franco. Only very recently has this been called into
question.
Essay writing -
How can we explain La Transición?:or the Good King Juan theory of history
E.H Carr, the
English historian once wrote famously wrote an attack on
what he called the ‘Bad King John theory of history’;
the naïve view, as he saw it, that ‘what matters in
history is the character and behaviour of individuals’.
(What is History?) In addition to the ‘childlike’
simplicity of such an approach, what Carr was also
attacking was the tendency for history to concentrate on
the ‘great men’ of history (rather than the social
history of the people) and the belief that in some way
individuals were separate from wider social and cultural
influences. Writing an essay about La Transición
offers the student an ideal opportunity to consider the
relative significance of factors which include the role
of prominent individuals.
Historians agree
that key individuals were unusually important to the
success of La Transición ‘and that amongst them
King Juan Carlos is preeminent. Historian Charles T.
Powell, for example, characterised the King as El Piloto Del Cambio,
the pilot of change. Other individuals, most notably
Adolfo Suárez also played an important role.
Juan J. Linz, has argued that Suárez exhibited ‘a great
capacity for personal dialogue and engaging those with
whom he had to negotiate, listening to them, and
creating a certain sense of trust without necessarily
making promises he was uncertain about being able to
satisfy.’ (quoted in Omar G. Encarnación ‘Spain After
Franco Lessons in
Democratization’ World Policy Journal Winter
2001-2)
Individuals can
also be important through their absence. Had
Carrerro-Blanco not been killed in 1973 the right wing
búnker would not have been denied the leadership
it lacked in 1976. This not only raises counterfactual
or ‘what if?’ questions about La Transición but
also ethical questions about whether terrorism can ever
be justified.
However, if we are
to follow E. H. Carr’s advice fully, we must recognise
that important individuals are at once ‘a product and an
agent of the historical process’ (Carr
What is History?) Beyond the role of individuals, a successful essay
must also evaluate the relative importance of the
individuals acting as groups (as political parties or
social classes for example) and the essay should also
consider how individuals are influenced and affected by
social and cultural forces beyond their control. For
example, the media in the immediate years after Franco’s
death was considerably more liberal than under the
dictatorship and enjoyed ‘a freedom unimaginable in the
heyday of Francoism.’ (R. Carr p. 174) This helped
create a climate of opinion in which by 1977, 77%
of the Spanish population deemed democracy the best
political system, compared to the 15% who preferred
authoritarianism. (Linz and Stepan, Problems
of Democratic Transition and Consolidation,
JHU Press
p. 108.)Even
more significant is the fact that press freedom not only
helped shape a more liberal public opinion, it also
reflected the extent to which liberal ideas had
become entrenched in Spain as a consequence of the
economic growth of the 1960s Desarrollo. This is the basis of the controversial view of
Franco apologists that the La Transición was a
direct consequence of the dictatorship’s policies.
Discussion
points
Who was the
most important individual during La Transición ?
‘To the extent
that it is possible to simplify this account by
establishing an order of precedence among the
individuals who took leading roles in the transition,
one might say that Don Juan Carlos headed the
list…Adolfo Suárez would be in second place, and
Santiago Carrillo would come third.’ (Javier Tusell,
Spain: from dictatorship to democracy 1939 to the
present p.274)
What
criteria might Tusell have used to rank his top
three individuals? On what grounds might the King be
seen as more significant than Suárez?
If
you were to add one more name to the list who would
it be and why?
Was Juan Carlos
II a Lenin or a mere Napoleon?
‘The great man is
always representative either of existing forces or of
forces which he helps to create by way of challenge to
existing authority. But the higher degree of creativity
may perhaps be assigned to those great men who, like
Cromwell or Lenin, helped to mould the forces which
carried them to greatness, rather than to those who,
like Napoleon or Bismarck, rode to greatness on the back
of already existing forces.’
(E.H. Carr What is
History? :55)
Spain since 1982
Timeline of key
events 1982-2000
1982 30th
May - Spain Joins NATO
28th
October –PSOE wins General Election with 202 seats
1986 1st
January – Spain becomes a member of the EEC
22nd
June – PSOE wins General Election with 184 seats
1988 18th
October – Trial of two police officers accused of assassinating
ETA personnel. Scandal of theGrupos Antiterroristas de
Liberación (GAL) begins
1989 19th
June - Spain joins the European Exchange Rate Mechanism
29th
October - PSOE wins General Election with 175 seats
1992 29th
March – 24 ETA members arrested in France
20th
April - World ‘Expo 92’ opens in Seville
25th
July – Olympic Games opens in Barcelona
1993 6th
June - PSOE wins General Election with 159 seats
1995 19th
April - ETA fails in assassination attempt on PP leader José
María Aznar
1st July Spain assumes presidency of the EU
1996 3rd
March – PP wins General Election with 156 seats. Coalition
negotiations delay Aznar’s appointment as Prime Minister until
May 4th.
1997 22nd
June - Felipe González is replaced as leader of the
PSOE by Joaquín Almunia
12th June – PP councillor Miguel Angel Blanco is
murdered by ETA.
1998 29th
July – the former Governor of Vizcaya and two senior police
officers are sentenced to ten years in prison for their part in
the GAL dirty war against ETA. They are pardoned just 105 days
later.
16th
September – ETA announces 'unilateral, total and indefinite'
ceasefire.
1999 28th
November – ETA ends its ceasefire
2000 – 12th
March PP wins General Election with 156 seats, its first
absolute majority
22nd July PSOE elects José Luis
Rodríguez Zapatero
to the party leadership
The transition
from an authoritarian to a democratic system of government
requires more than the introduction of competing political
parties and periodic elections. Democracy also requires a
complex system of laws and supporting institutions to guarantee
the fundamental human rights that are at the heart of the
democratic system. The rule of law must be paramount and
the political, business and military elites must be bound by it.
The army and police must be under civilian control. If freedom
is to mean anything then quality of opportunity provided through
universal access to quality education, healthcare and welfare
support are essential. Social freedoms and entitlements help to
encourage the spiritual and intellectual freedoms that
ultimately produce a culture of creativity; (artistic or
entrepreneurial) that legitimates the regime. And underpinning
it all, as Franco himself realised in the late 1950s, must be
successful, expanding economy. In the late 20th
century, a successful Spanish economy meant an increasingly free
and internationally integrated economy within the context of the
European Union. After nearly 40 years of authoritarian rule,
therefore, the laws and institutions of Spain still bore the
imprint of Franco’s personal rule; his priorities and his
prejudices. When the PSOE came to power in 1982, therefore,
there was still much to be done.
Rule of Law
Means that the law
is above everyone and it applies to everyone whether
they are rulers or the ruled
Army in
transition
In Franco’s Spain the army enjoyed a privileged
position of one of the families behind the Movimiento. The 1981
Tejero coup was just one of the coups that actually left the
barrack room. The key initial work in bringing the Army under
civilian control was undertaken by Lieutenant General Gutiérrez
Mellado in the Suarez government who removed the automatic right
of military chiefs to sit in cabinet. From December 1982 until March
1991 the defence minister Narcís Serra, former Mayor of
Barcelona designed what has been described as an ‘imaginative
and sweeping restructuring of the military’ (Juan
José Linz, Alfred C. Stepan p.10) The most significant of these
reforms was to reduce the size of bloated officer class and to
make promotion much more dependent on ability rather than age. A
second change has been to make the army professional. 1984
legislation allowed the 200,000 conscripts called up every year
to avoid military service by applying to be conscientious
objectors. Such large numbers succeeded in doing this that the
the Aznar government did away with national service altogether.
By 2001 there were no conscripts left in the Spanish army. A
final feature of the reform was to give the army a new
international role. By 1992 Spain provided more UN peace keeping
officers than any other country in the world. And by the time
Spanish socialist Javier
Solana
became Secretary General of NATO, early Spanish antipathy to
NATO seemed a distant memory. Increased Spanish involvement in
NATO under the government of Aznar also led to closer ties to
the USA with significant implications.
Javier Solana
b.1942
In many ways
Javier Solana is the embodiment of Spain’s Transición.
As a member of the illegal socialist opposition in the
1960s he was secretly smuggled in to meetings with King
Juan Carlos on the back of a motorbike. He was a senior
PSOE cabinet member for 13 years before becoming NATO
Secretary General in 1995. From 1999 to 2009 he was
Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union.
Economy and society in transition
The Unlike the
democratic transition undertaken in countries of the former
Eastern Bloc, Spain was not subjected to free-market shock
treatment associated with the Washington Consensus.As
political scientist Omar G. Encarnación points out ‘Rather than
relying on shock and exclusion, it was anchored in direct
negotiation and pacts with societal actors, including the
national unions.’ (p.40) When after 1984 there were a series of
significant privatisations of state industries it helped that it
was undertaken by a socialist government that cushioned the blow
with increased spending on welfare, unemployment benefits and
education which increased in real terms by 57% between 1982 and
1989. The biggest problem throughout the Transición has
been unemployment, which was consistently above the EU average.
Unemployment by the mid 1990s reached a European record of 24%
of the active population. But between 1986 and 1991, the Spanish
economy grew quicker than any other country in the European
Community. By 1992 Spain had become 40% richer than it had been
in real GDP terms than it had been in 1980. One of the
significant consequences of increased wealth was an ability of
the Spanish to maintain their status as Europe’s number one
owner-occupiers. By 1999, 86% of Spaniards lived in houses that
they owned compared to only 69% in Britain. Owning property
gives people a significant stake in society and less likely to
support calls for radical or revolutionary change. As John
Hooper observes, ‘if the growing prevalence of home-ownership
was one reason why Franco was able to die peacefully in his bed,
then it was also a key to the relatively peaceful transition
that ensued’. (Hooper pp.322-3)
If the prevalence
of homeownership marked a significant continuity with the past,
the changing status of women in post-Franco Spain stands out at
the most significant social transformation. As we have seen the legal status of women in Franco’s Spain was
such that they faced serious discrimination on a daily basis.
The post Franco governments were able to reverse most of the
legal impediments to sexual equality: Discriminatory laws on
adultery were revoked in 1978 and those on domestic finance in
1981. Contraception was legalised in 1978 and a limited law that
legalized abortion was passed in 1985. In 1982 the PSOE
government set up the institute for women (Instituto de la
Mujer) to promote women’s rights. In 1988 the last bastions
of male exclusiveness fell when the first women began training
to be Guardia Civil and the High Court in Madrid ruled that
exclusion of women from the armed forces violated the
constitution. The rate that women entered the workplace in the
1980s was unprecedented, in 1981 less than one quarter of the
workforce were women by 1991 it was a third. At the start of the
21st century Spain had a higher percentage of female
parliamentary representatives than Germany, Britain or France.
And yet, although laws have changed, but domestic attitudes have
largely remained rooted in the past. Women have entered the
workforce but have also continued to bear the burden of child
care and domestic chores. A survey conducted in 2004 found that
Spanish men do less than 10% of daily domestic tasks which
results in Spanish women being the hardest working in Europe.
(Tremlett p.233) The consequence of this has resulted in the
most profound change in Spanish society since the death of
Franco: women now have fewer children in Spain than anywhere
else in the world.
The arts and
media in transition
The arts
and media under Franco had suffered because of the simple fact
that most artists and intellectuals had been in the side of the
Republic during the Civil war. Some like Lorca were killed, many
other fled into exile. Intellectuals were distrusted during
Franco’s time and arts that were encouraged reflected Franco’s
conservative tastes. With democracy comes artistic and
intellectual freedom. In the 1980s the new freedom were best
exemplified by La Movida Madrileña, an, ‘anything goes’
cultural movement which rejected traditional Francoist mores in
favour of an experimental party culture fuelled by alcohol and
recreational drug taking. The fact that Spaniards are today
Europe’s biggest consumers of Cocaine is partly to be explained
in terms of the reaction to Francoist conservatism.
A move
productive legacy of the spirit of La Movida Madrileña
thoughis to be found in the brilliantly idiosyncratic
work of Spain’s film maker Pedro Almodóvar.Almodóvar
has been described by Steven Marsh, lecturer in film studies as
‘the cultural symbol
par excellence
of the restoration of democracy in Spain’. (http://archive.sensesofcinema.com/contents/directors/06/almodovar.html)
Indeed, cinema has probably been the most successful
international cultural symbol of the ‘new Spain’, with Spanish
films winning more Oscars than any other non-English speaking
country in the 20 years after 1982.
Probably only architecture
can compete with film as a cultural symbol. Spain has been
described by Richard Rogers as ‘Europe’s architectural hothouse’
(Tremlett 401). Most of the world’s top architects have
important buildings in Spain, the most iconic of them being the
Guggenheim museum in Bilbao, described by Philip Johnson
as ‘the greatest building of our time’. (quoted in New York
Times September 23, 2007)
The most
significant aspect of the cultural transition has been the
liberalisation of the media from the constraints imposed by an
authoritarian regime. Newspapers had already enjoyed a degree of
freedom at the end of the Franco regime and although newspaper
sales were relatively low in Spain (in 2000 only 36% of the
population read a daily newspaper compared to 62% in Europe as a
whole) the influence of newspapers was disproportionate.
Newspapers have been particularly significant in helping to
uncover corruption and government abuses. The most notable
example of this was Pedro J. Ramírez’s El Mundo which led
the investigation into the ‘dirty war’ conducted by the PSOE
government of the 1980s against ETA. As journalist John Hooper
concludes, the uncovering and reporting of of the GAL scandal
‘undoubtedly contributed to the PSOE’s removal from power’ (The
new Spaniards p.356). In contrast, television in Spain has not
enjoyed the same reputation. This is important because the
Spanish watch more television than any other nation in Europe.
The state broadcaster TVE was consistently accused of favouring
the government of the day. One survey found that during the 1989
election campaign, 103 minutes was spend on coverage of the
governing PSOE compared to just four minutes for the opposition
Partido Popular. The advent of independent television
since 1989 has improved the situation, but the Zapatero
government’s manifesto commitment in 2004 to de-governmentalise
TVE suggested there is still much to be done.
GAL Scandal
Grupos Anti-terroristas
de Liberación(GAL) organisation
responsible for the 24 murders in the south-west of
France in the mid 1980s. Most of those murdered had
links to ETA. Two police officers were convicted for
their role in GAL murders and their investigation led to
accusations that senior government figures had
authorized the killings.
Further Political Transition
The consolidation of the Spain as a liberal
democracy has required the state to willingly relinquish a
significant degree of sovereignty: internally to the regions and
externally to Europe. Franco’s state had been one of the most
centralised in Europe. By 1982, the system of self-government
for the regions, Estadode lasAutonomías,
was giving rise to fears that the Spanish state break up under
these centrifugal forces. In 2001 report by Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Spain’s regional
governments were responsible for a higher percentage of public
expenditure than the German Länder
and even Switzerland’s cantons. The process of decentralisation
continues in Spain and may yet lead to the break-up of Spain,
but as if often pointed out were it not for the Estadode lasAutonomías
a violent declaration of independence would probably have
resulted. As Hooper argues, ‘the moment at which Spain was
really in danger of going the way of the former Yugoslavia was
before, and not after, it embarked on its experiment with
decentralization.’ (Hooper New Spaniards
279) It is hard to believe that the declining support for ETA in
the 1990s would have been achieved were it not for the granting
of significant regional powers to the Basque country. During the
three key years of Spain’s Transición there were 240 deaths
attributable to ETA compared to 19 in the last three years of
the 20th century. (Ludger Mees Nationalism,
violence and democracy: the Basque clash of identities
Palgrave Macmillan.2003 p.35) In contrast to devolution, the
integration of Spain into Europe has been a relatively
unproblematic. The prize of European integration, which could
not even be considered whist Franco was alive, became after 1975
a Holy Grail which helped keep Spain’s Transición on track.
‘The
fact that the EEC was solidly democratic and set up a stable
pattern of rewards and disincentives for would-be members was
helpful to Spain’s transition and consolidation’. (Juan José
Linz, Alfred C. Stepan p.113) After lengthy negotiations, Spain
was finally accepted into the EEC in 1986. The economic boom
which followed was significantly supported by the various
‘cohesion funds’ which redistributed wealth from the richer to
the poorer nations. In 1996 the determination of the Aznar
government to meet the Maastricht criteria for entry in to the
Euro enabled the government to push through reforms that brought
the Spanish labour market in line with the rest of Europe.
The success
of Spain’s Transición can be measured by the extent to
which Spain resembled any other major Western European country
at the end of the 20th century. The challenges facing
Spain in the year 2000 were largely the same: globalisation, an
aging population, childhood obesity, environmental damage. The
challenges that were particularly Spanish were to be understood
in terms of its unique post-war history. The continuing threat
of the break-up of the Spanish state and ETA violence is one of
them. Race relations are another. The isolation of Spain during
the Franco years kept Spain a relatively homogenous
white-Catholic state. Yet Spanish birth rates which are the
lowest in Europe (another post-Franco legacy) mean that the
Spanish economy is now heavily dependent on high rates of
non-European immigration. Between 1999 and 2002 the number of
non EU citizens living legally in Spain tripled. Nearly a
quarter of all Europe’s immigration is to Spain. How will the
Spanish state cope with such rapid change? A final example of
challenge is not simply to be explained in terms of the past, it
is in fact history itself. As we have seen, Spain’s
Transición depended on el pacto de olvido, an
agreement to forget about the Franco years and the Civil War in
particular. The fact that the Spanish school history curriculum
only covered events up to 1936 was an example of that. But since
the late 1990s things have begin to change. Books and
documentaries about the Franco years had become very popular,
archives were opened up and most significantly ‘historical
memory’ groups were been formed demanding the right to exhume
the bodies of those executed and disposed of without proper
burial. In October 2007 the controversial historical memory law
(Ley de Memoria Histórica) was passed by the Spanish
Parliament which amongst other things provides state funds for
identifying and digging up the
mass graves of
the Franco era. It
has been argued that until the process of exhumation is
complete; neither will the process of
Transición. (See
Spain and the lingering legacy of Franco, Guardian March
2011)
Summary
Activity – Six key dates of La Transición
Date
Event
Significance?
4th
July 1976
Adolfo
Suárez appointed prime minister
18th
November 1976
9th
April 1977
15th
June 1977
23rd
February 1981
October 28th
1982
Copy and complete
the table above and then rank the six events into order
of significance. Which was the most significant event in
La Transición? Which is the least? Explain the
reasons behind your ranking.
The dates 1st
January 1986 (Spain’s entry into the EEC) or 3rd
March 1996 (victory of the conservative Partido
Popular) have also been identified as important
dates in the process of Spanish democratisation, why?
Which were the
most important non-economic factors that contributed to
the La Transición? Explain your choice.
Some historians
and political commentators have suggested that Spain’s
transition from the Franco years is still not yet
complete. What arguments can you identify for and
against this assertion?