Alvise Pérez calls Franco enemy, brands Vox homophobic

Alvise breaks with Franco and Vox simultaneously

Alvise Pérez has added another stone to the path separating him from the traditional right. The MEP for Se Acabó la Fiesta stated that Francisco Franco, were he alive, would be his enemy, adding that Francoism was not democratic. Read through an electoral lens, this remark is more about positioning than settling scores with the past. A single tweet was enough to steer the conversation toward an uncomfortable question: what remains of anti-establishment rhetoric when the rebel starts issuing democracy cards?

This gesture is not isolated. In the same move, Alvise labeled Vox as homophobic, nuanced his stance on the LGBT movement, called Puigdemont far-right, and rejected the socialism attributed to the previous regime. Four shifts in just a few weeks. For much of the analysis, the pattern is that of a party born fishing in all waters of discontent, now needing a broader and less awkward electorate.

The shift no one expected so soon

The sequence has dates and logic. Se Acabó la Fiesta launched as a transversal formation, without a left-right axis, capable of gathering protest votes from any background. That narrative requires maintaining some ambiguity. However, ambiguity does not withstand contact with the European Parliament, where every vote is recorded and every statement becomes a headline.

Some argue the turn was inevitable and only awaited a calendar. The dominant thesis in the conversation is that Alvise began moderating earlier than predicted, and that this process will not stop: first anti-Francoism, then the LGBT flag, later defending what PP and PSOE defend. The underlying accusation is having deceived voters who supported him precisely for the opposite.

Counter-arguments suggest that a party without a closed ideological structure cannot betray principles it never fixed. Those without doctrine cannot be inconsistent. And there lies, perhaps, the real problem.

Is Alvise a refurbished Ciudadanos?

The comparison with Ciudadanos appears repeatedly and is not gratuitous. The parallel rests on a known trajectory: new party, regeneration discourse, rapid growth, entry into institutions, pogre moderation, and final dissolution into the center-right space. UPyD and Ciudadanos are the two cited precedents.

According to another analytical current, the difference is that Vox does not play in that league. Vox is described as a classic ultra-conservative party—economically liberal, socially conservative—integrated into the system with no anti-establishment vocation. Se Acabó la Fiesta, conversely, fishes in diffuse discontent, connects with a depoliticized and weary youth, and needs no doctrinal coherence because its raw material is anger.

This diagnosis explains why the two parties look so different inside but similar outside. It also explains why media, under this reading, insist on grouping them together.

Anti-Francoism as the litmus test

The statement on Franco functioned as an improvised ideological test. For part of the electorate, rejecting Francoism is a minimum condition for democratic respectability. For others, it confirms Alvise is a lukewarm figure bending to the dominant narrative.

The most repeated argument in this second group is that Francoism cannot be evaluated as a block. They list the creation of Social Security, pensions, public healthcare, protected housing, paid vacations, and extra bonuses as achievements of the period. The conclusion drawn is that Franco was more socialist than today’s PSOE, and rejecting him means rejecting those gains.

The reasoning has an elementary flaw: it confuses the administrative work of an authoritarian regime with its political nature. A system without free elections, press freedom, or association rights does not become democratic by building hospitals. The discussion, however, is not about history. It is about whom each phrase addresses.

The investigation looming over the party

While the ideological debate heats up, a judicial front remains open. National Court judge José Luis Calama agreed to investigate a complaint against the MEP for possible illegal party financing, alleging receipt of €100,000 for his electoral campaign.

The magistrate acknowledges Alvise has immunity before the Supreme Court due to his status as a Member of the European Parliament, but clarifies in the ruling that admitting a complaint does not constitute formal indictment. He also offers voluntary testimony. The case is in its initial phase with no resolution on the merits.

This detail matters because it conditions everything else. A party presenting itself as the scourge of the elite, yet investigated for opaque funding, loses part of its narrative. And it loses it just as it begins to need another.

What is at stake in the next general election

Electoral calculation orders everything else. The most widespread hypothesis is that Alvise will bite into disillusioned Socialist votes, those who cannot stand Sánchez but do not see themselves voting for PP. This electorate demands no doctrinal coherence; it demands that the vote hurts whoever it should hurt.

The problem is that this same electorate feels cheated when the discourse softens. Moderation raises the ceiling while eroding the base simultaneously. It is the classic trap for new parties in Spain, which have already left two political corpses by the roadside.

With these elements, reasonable expectations point to consolidation of the center-right space and pogre absorption of Se Acabó la Fiesta. But I would not bet too heavily. Spanish politics has spent a decade defying reasonable forecasts, and this case has all the ingredients to continue doing so.