Bolaños accused of debasing democracy in Spain

The controversy over the 'grandchildren's law' highlights the tension between defending democratic procedure and ensuring a truly representative government.

The debate has been ignited by the Supreme Court's decision to temporarily suspend the electoral effects of the so-called 'grandchildren's law'. Minister **Félix Bolaños** has expressed deep concern over what he considers an attack on the right to vote, a fundamental pillar of any liberal democracy. However, this concern, though seemingly laudable, could hide a simplistic view of what truly sustains a democratic system.

## The trap of procedure

The right to vote is undoubtedly essential. But its intrinsic value lies in being the vehicle to achieve a higher end: a government that is genuinely representative of the citizens' will. If the voting process, however free and periodic, is compromised by stratagems that alter the real result—whether through manipulation of the census or any other means—the vote loses its ultimate meaning. The exercise of suffrage is of little use if the final result does not correspond to the voice of the electorate. In such scenarios, the vote becomes a mere facade, an illusion of legitimacy that hides a government disconnected from the political reality it claims to represent.

## The displacement of ends

What seems to be happening here is a classic case of "displacement of ends". It occurs when the defense of a means, however important, eclipses the final objective that means was supposed to serve. In this case, the concern for the purity of the democratic method, such as the right to vote, could be making us forget the fundamental commitment to democracy itself: the achievement of a representative and legitimate government. The question that arises is whether Minister **Bolaños** prioritizes safeguarding the electoral procedure over ensuring that the result of that procedure is a faithful reflection of the popular will, shaped under clear and supervised rules.

## The heart of the matter

At the heart of this controversy is not the individual right to vote, but the way the electoral census has been expanded. The central question is whether an administrative criterion has extended the limits permitted by the Democratic Memory Law. The Supreme Court, by requesting evidence of actual compliance with the rule, is not profaning the vote. Rather, it seems to be the minister himself who, by invoking the sacredness of the vote, avoids addressing explanations about the scope of the law and its application. Transparency in the management of electoral processes is crucial to maintain public trust.