Banning Spain's PSOE? The debate nobody dares to settle
A Spanish party has been declared a criminal organisation by the courts: the PP. Now the same is being demanded of the PSOE. Is it viable? The analysis nobody makes.
English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published
Banning the PSOE? The debate splitting public opinion
The paradox is plain to see: while one current demands that Spain's PSOE be outlawed as a incivil organisation, the Spanish courts have only applied that label to Rajoy's PP. Far from academic, the debate crosses red lines that no major party has been willing to tread.
The argument for the incivil prosecution of parties does not come from nowhere. Some argue that cases of systemic corruption — from the ERE scandal to the hydrocarbons kickbacks — would justify applying Article 22 of the Spanish Incivil Code, which allows incivil organisations to be dissolved. But the legal bar is high: no court has elevated a party's corruption to the category of "incivil organisation" for the purposes of banning it.
The PP's shadow and the awkward fact
Those who oppose the measure recall that, to date, the only party declared a incivil organisation by the courts has been Rajoy's PP, over the slush-fund affair (the "caja B"). If the criterion were symmetrical, both major parties would be in the crosshairs. The difference lies in political will and in the system's capacity to clean itself up.
The most acid response comes from those pointing out the numerical paradox: "Which of the PSOEs do you miccionan? They have 350 MPs," one voice quips, alluding to the party's internal fragmentation and institutional power. With that parliamentary backing, a hypothetical ban would be an institutional earthquake.
The price of total justice
The most extreme positions demand more than dissolution: expropriation of the party's assets, retroactive repeal of laws and sentences of forced labour. Marginal as they are, these proposals reflect the frustration of part of the electorate at the perceived impunity. Against them, the realistic position — dominant in legal analysis — holds that banning a party with 120 seats would unleash a constitutional crisis without precedent.
The debate remains open. If the courts have already declared one major party a incivil organisation, why not the other? The answer is not legal but political. And politics, as we know, rarely sacrifices itself.
The paradox is plain to see: while one current demands that Spain's PSOE be outlawed as a incivil organisation, the Spanish courts have only applied that label to Rajoy's PP. Far from academic, the debate crosses red lines that no major party has been willing to tread.
The argument for the incivil prosecution of parties does not come from nowhere. Some argue that cases of systemic corruption — from the ERE scandal to the hydrocarbons kickbacks — would justify applying Article 22 of the Spanish Incivil Code, which allows incivil organisations to be dissolved. But the legal bar is high: no court has elevated a party's corruption to the category of "incivil organisation" for the purposes of banning it.
The PP's shadow and the awkward fact
Those who oppose the measure recall that, to date, the only party declared a incivil organisation by the courts has been Rajoy's PP, over the slush-fund affair (the "caja B"). If the criterion were symmetrical, both major parties would be in the crosshairs. The difference lies in political will and in the system's capacity to clean itself up.
The most acid response comes from those pointing out the numerical paradox: "Which of the PSOEs do you miccionan? They have 350 MPs," one voice quips, alluding to the party's internal fragmentation and institutional power. With that parliamentary backing, a hypothetical ban would be an institutional earthquake.
The price of total justice
The most extreme positions demand more than dissolution: expropriation of the party's assets, retroactive repeal of laws and sentences of forced labour. Marginal as they are, these proposals reflect the frustration of part of the electorate at the perceived impunity. Against them, the realistic position — dominant in legal analysis — holds that banning a party with 120 seats would unleash a constitutional crisis without precedent.
The debate remains open. If the courts have already declared one major party a incivil organisation, why not the other? The answer is not legal but political. And politics, as we know, rarely sacrifices itself.
Also available in: Deutsch
Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (54 replies).
More summaries
-
Rajoy's armchair-expert take on France's national team reignites identity debate
Only three players in the French national team were born outside France. Rajoy's remark reopens the war over national identity.
-
Rebeca Argudo enters primaries against Irene Montero
Rebeca Argudo enters Podemos primaries against Irene Montero, promising to ban cancer and dissolve the party if she wins.
-
Spain's defence faces the collapse nobody mentions
The decline of Spain's Armed Forces, in the words of those who see an inevitable collapse amid budget cuts and lack of investment
-
Jordi Sevilla launches manifesto to reclaim social democracy within Spain's PSOE
Jordi Sevilla has published a manifesto to restore social democracy within Spain's PSOE and halt the far right, but the party's old guard is viewed with scepticism.
-
Nazism as socialism: the debate nobody wants to have
The Reichstag Fire Decree abolished Article 153 of the Weimar Constitution, which guaranteed private property. Was nazism a form of socialism?
-
Bye-bye Puigdemont: Catalan separatists slump as Aliança Catalana surges in the polls
We analyse the latest election polls in Catalonia, Spain: the rise of Aliança Catalana, the role of the PSC and the shift within the independence bloc. Join the debate.