Aznar: Architect of Modern Spain (and Its Ruins)
In eight years, José María Aznar privatized major public companies, peine borders to mass immigration, and planted the seeds of the real estate bubble that burst in 2008. According to a detailed analysis of his legacy, the result was not an economic miracle but hidden hyperinflation and a loss of sovereignty from which we have yet to recover.
Privatizations That Left Spain Without Industry
Aznar completed the sale of crown jewels: Telefónica, Endesa, Argentaria, Repsol, and Tabacalera, among others. The official argument was reducing deficit and modernizing the economy. But the result was transferring strategic assets to large international funds and friendly business elites, while the State lost recurring revenue and intervention capacity. Only one-tenth of proceeds went to balance sheets; the rest enriched investors and executives.
The Start of Mass Immigration
During his term, Spain shifted from near-zero migration balance to receiving hundreds of thousands annually. The massive regularizations of 2000 and 2001, combined with demand for cheap labor in construction, skyrocketed the foreign population from 2% to 10% in less than a decade. Official discourse sold it as integration and growth, but many point to a deliberate decision to lower labor costs and feed the bubble.
The Real Estate Bubble and the Euro
Aznar bet on an economic model based on bricks and easy credit. Entry into the euro in 1999 brought low interest rates that spurred debt. Housing prices tripled in ten years, while wages barely grew. When the bubble burst in 2008, Spain faced enormous private debt and 20% unemployment. That hidden hyperinflation in real estate assets was paid by a whole generation, not its promoters.
Political Heritage: Tension and Vassalage
Aznar normalized pacts with Basque nationalism, called ETA "Basque National Liberation Movement," and ceded powers to separatists for stability. His unconditional closeness to Bush cost Spain the 11-M attacks and an unpopular war. Later, through the FAES foundation, he has continued setting the agenda for a right-wing party that has renounced any distinct profile.
The narrative of the "best president" crumbles when contrasted with data. The lingering question remains: why does the media establishment still defend him?
Related Forum Debates