El Mundo sparks debate: Spanish youth and the lure of dictatorship

El Mundo sparks debate: Spanish youth and the lure of dictatorship

An article by El Mundo arguing that young people are starting to prefer a "good" dictatorship over current democracy has lit the fuse. The piece, read as a trial balloon from the establishment, was met with a mix of mockery and fatigue: some see it as the prelude to a regime change, while others recall that the amnesty law was already the first warning sign. The discussion quickly turns to the usual question: is this a democracy or a farce?

The article nobody believes

The newspaper's thesis is that young people, disappointed with the system, are beginning to look favorably upon an authoritarian regime. The majority reaction is distrust: they say it is an establishment pamphlet launching a trial balloon using youth as an excuse. "Let's see what they're plotting," summarizes the general sentiment. The suspicion is not new: the media outlet has been pointed out for decades as a mouthpiece for questionable interests.

What is striking is that almost no one defends the article. Neither those who declare themselves left-wing nor those who reject the post-1978 system. The piece works as an uncomfortable mirror: everyone sees themselves reflected in the criticism, but no one accepts the diagnosis.

Is this a democracy?

The question runs through the debate from top to bottom. One side argues that what exists since the Transition is not a real democracy: without separation of powers, with poorly distributed power and a Constitution born flawed. "We do not have Democracy," they conclude. Others go further and claim we already live in a dictatorship, only disguised as elections every four years.

The argument rests on the lack of political accountability: it doesn't matter who you vote for, because parties do whatever they please once in power. Referendums are anecdotal and important decisions are made at supranational levels. From that perspective, formal democracy is little more than a ritual.

Dictatorship as the lesser evil

Some openly defend that a dictatorship would be preferable. The reasoning is simple: a dictator does not govern thinking about the next elections, so he can take unpopular but necessary decisions. "At least in a dictatorship you might get someone sensible," they argue. Democracy, on the other hand, is seen as a machine for buying votes with public money.

Against this, the most repeated objection is historical: the main atrocities of totalitarian regimes are committed against their own supporters. Those who long for a dictator usually imagine themselves safe from his reprisals, and experience proves otherwise. "I will only agree with a dictatorship if I am the dictator," someone jokes.

Real examples: Singapore, El Salvador and Franco

When asked for examples of functioning dictatorships, three names appear: Singapore, the Gulf oil monarchies and China. The case of Singapore is cited as the best-functioning country visited by anyone. The oil monarchies are mentioned as analogous. And China, as a separate case due to its size and economic model.

El Salvador enters the conversation via another route: security. It is argued that rights and voting are useless if you cannot go out on the street because you will be killed. Until someone arrives, applies tough measures and is named perpetual dictator if necessary. It is the example that divides opinion most: for some it is proof that liberal democracy fails; for others, confirmation that authoritarianism always ends up the same.

The approaching future

The most repeated hypothesis is not the return of a Franco, but the consolidation of a supranational technocratic regime. It is maintained that the EU already functions as a government of regional overseers, with Sánchez as an example, and that democratic fiction is maintained only out of formality. The coming dictatorship would not be that of the leader, but of the unelected manager.

Another current points to a dictatorship of the proletariat, with an ironic wink included: "Where do I sign?" And a third, more pessimistic, believes fascism will return by popular demand: if those in power impose fascism, ordinary women will become fascists; if they impose pogre, they will become pogre. The conclusion is that people adapt to the power in charge.

---

The debate gets stuck at one point: no one knows what regime would replace this one, nor who would impose it, nor with what support. The suspicion that the article is a trial balloon remains undeniied. And meanwhile, the fundamental question —is this a democracy or a farce— remains unanswered.