Aznar: the legacy that still divides Spain

Aznar: the legacy that still splits Spain

The paradox of José María Aznar is that he draws criticism from both the left and parts of the right. His time in office (1996-2004) is revisited with fury by those who accuse him of opening the doors to mass immigration, privatizing the savings banks and signing Spain's entry into the euro without favorable conditions for the country. But there are also those who defend him: he abolished compulsory military service, struck deals with nationalist parties and, according to some, "we failed to appreciate him." The former prime minister has returned to the headlines with a blunt message against Pedro Sánchez's current government: "We need to wake up and throw PS out on his arse."

The policies that defined an era

During his eight years in government, Aznar pushed through measures that still spark debate today. He abolished military service, a milestone for young people at the time. He made pacts with Catalan and Basque nationalist parties to govern, a strategy some see as pragmatism and others as capitulation. But the most contentious issue was immigration: under his watch, the arrival of foreigners increased notably, something that, according to his critics, "screwed up the lives of Spanish workers." He also privatized the savings banks, which were later acquired by large banks, and backed Spain's entry into the euro without demanding conditions that would protect the domestic economy.

The shadows of his tenure

There is no shortage of dark episodes his detractors recall: the Yak-42 accident, the Prestige disaster, participation in the Iraq war based on alleged weapons of mass destruction that never appeared. For many, Aznar represents the neoliberal model that favored business elites. Yet others argue that the left criticizes in public what it approves of in private, and that his government's overall record was positive.

The awkward return

With his recent public intervention, Aznar has stirred the hornet's nest once again. Is he really the right person to call for Sánchez's head? The debate remains open, and the positions irreconcilable. What is clear is that Aznar's legacy leaves no room for shades of gray: he is either seen as the modernizer Spain needed or as the man responsible for its current ills. Will that debate ever be settled?