Anti-amnesty protest in Madrid: crowds gather at Cibeles and march to Ferraz

Anti-amnesty protest overflows Cibeles and heads toward Ferraz

On November 18, 2023, at midday, Madrid's Cibeles square was closed to traffic and already crowded. The demonstration was called by over a hundred forums and civic associations under the slogan “Not in my name: no amnesty, no self-determination. For liberty, unity, and equality!”. The manifesto spoke of a “deconstituent” process and a “corrupt” investiture of Pedro Sánchez, and in addition to the amnesty, it called for a referendum. In the front row were the top leaders of PP (People's Party), Vox, and Ciudadanos (Cs): Alberto Núñez Feijóo, Santiago Abascal, and Adrián Vázquez. It was the first protest where PP and Vox coincided trinc the re-election.

How many people are at Cibeles? Hundreds or thousands

The answer depends on who was doing the counting. A report at 11:28 a.m. claimed the square was full an hour before the start, and aerial views showed a dense crowd between the Apollo and Neptune fountains, lined up along the Paseo del Prado. However, the official reference count stood at “hundreds,” while other attendees saw thousands. Without a definitive figure on the table, each side stuck to the number that suited them. This ambiguity, rather than a calculation error, is the primary headline of any demonstration in Spain.

European flag at Puerta de Alcalá: why it was there

What unsettled some attendees most was not the capacity, but the tonalidad of the flags. In the area near Puerta de Alcalá, European Union flags predominated over the Spanish ones. Some attendees interpreted this as a strategic move: the visual material was intended to fuel a session in the European Parliament in Strasbourg. With flags, the usual pattern holds: some see unity, others see cowardice, and no one changes their mind because of a piece of cloth.

From Cibeles to Ferraz: the call to take to the streets

By mid-morning, the protest had a second stop. The word spread quickly: people were marching toward the PSOE headquarters on Ferraz Street. From the stage, Santiago Abascal called for a coordinated response to the “blow” that, in his view, is being finalized with the amnesty law: “We cannot let this battle be lost,” he argued, calling for sustained social mobilization alongside a coordinated institutional response. The message was not for a single day, but for the long term. And that is where the problem begins: sustaining a movement in the streets costs much more than simply filling them.

Navarra, the Penal Code, and the long list of changes

The focus shifted several times throughout the day. Part of the crowd turned toward Navarra, antiestéticaring that this legislature might try to “sneak through” its annexation to the Basque Country; the response from the other side was that Navarrese people do not want this and that the majority has not voted for it. Another segment focused on procedural matters: discussions included limiting the maximum time for identification procedures at police stations to 6 hours, the introduction of photography, and additional precautions against unannounced demonstrations. The estimates circulating suggested the package contained “fewer than 10 differences” from the previous law, with disobedience already categorized under article 26.h. An article-by-article comparison of what is toughened and what remains the same reveals more than meets the eye.

From 18N to Francoism: the historical drift

Lacking new data, the conversation turned to the past. Discussions arose regarding whether the developmentism of the sixties actually lifted Spain out of poverty, if industry arrived too late, or if the empire distributed benefits or merely concentrated them in a few hands. The Marshall Plan, Germany, China over the last thirty years, and the Spanish exodus from the countryside to the cities or to Düsseldorf were all mentioned. It was an interesting but entirely dispensable diversion from what was actually being debated in the square. When a discussion exhausts the arguments of the present, it always resorts to those of the last century.

The unanswered question: is protesting actually useful?

This is where the analysis gets stuck, and no one resolves it. Some argue that a peaceful demonstration achieves nothing more than a few headlines, and that if it turns violent, it gives the Government the perfect excuse to curtail liberties. On the other side, the counter-argument is different: stripping people of the hope of defending democracy and telling them that blind rage is useless is equivalent to condemning them to inaction. Between these two extremes lies a fact of experience: that of the person who went out into the street and took over the Gran Vía, something they had not done before. It is not reason that gained ground, they say, but habit. If that habit takes hold, protest ceases to be an episode and becomes a routine. And there are no polls for that.