Feijóo’s Absence in the Debate Decided Spain’s June 23 Vote

The Debate Feijóo Skipped

An empty chair spoke louder than words. During the June 23 campaign, the People’s Party (PP) candidate chose not to appear on the four-way debate stage, turning his absence into a symbol of a campaign many thought they had won. Officially attributed to lower back pain, the decision was widely seen as a calculated move: better not to risk anything when polls looked favorable. The problem is that polls don’t vote.

The result was a political map without clear majorities. The PP and Vox, who seemed poised to secure the 176 seats required, fell short. The Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party (PSOE) held firm, and a campaign warning against far-right influence worked flawlessly. Pedro Sánchez, who many had written off just a week earlier, was reappointed with the support of a diverse coalition. The dice were cast, but not as the PP had hoped.

Why Feijóo Skipped the Four-Way Debate

The official version cited a muscle strain from rising from a chair. The public version suggested stage fright and a desire to protect poll-guaranteed gains. With the opposition weakened, appearing on stage was an unnecessary risk. Staying away, however, was a quiet surrender. The People’s Party candidate left the space open for Santiago Abascal, who positioned himself as the government’s critic and captured the vote of the hard-right.

This absence had measurable consequences for the political narrative. As the PP retreated, the PSOE and its allies hammered home the message that a right-wing vote could open the door to the far-right in the Council of Ministers. This campaign, which might have seemed exaggerated a few years ago, resonated with an effectiveness even socialists hadn’t predicted. The result: mobilization of the left’s strategic voters and demobilization of moderates who saw no reason to change.

The Frankenstein Pact and the Far-Right Block

With the numbers on the table, there were two options: a concentration government of PP and PSOE, which no one in Spain seemed willing to sign, or a left-wing pact with separatist and regional nationalist parties. The latter won. This so-called Frankenstein pact had been practiced before, and this time it was repeated with less hesitation. The alternative, a combined far-right majority, was ruled out by arithmetic and decorum.

Some argue that everything was predetermined from the top: that elections are a charade to entertain the masses, and that those in power have everything under control. This theory circulates persistently in forums, supported by the feeling that no result truly changes the course of events. Others, more moderate, believe the system simply exhausted its combinations and that repeated elections were the most likely scenario.

Abstention, the Silent Weapon

The antiestéticar campaign against the far-right didn’t just mobilize left-wing voters. It also convinced a segment of the electorate that voting was participating in an unrelated spectacle. The message to avoid polling stations en masse, to not buy tickets for the show, found echoes among sectors feeling alienated from the system. This differential abstention, stronger among moderate right-wing voters than among organized leftists, was the factor no poll captured.

The PP’s internal debate was also affected. The destruction of the party, according to some voices, is almost more relevant to the country’s survival than that of the PSOE. As long as the right remains captive to a leadership that doesn’t read the board correctly, the political cycle will continue to revolve around the same names. The question isn’t who won on June 23, but who learned something from it.

---

In the end, Feijóo’s back pain went down in history as the most expensive excuse in recent Spanish democracy. It wasn’t the only factor, but it was the most visible. A candidate who doesn’t show up to a four-way debate is saying something: that he doesn’t need to convince. And in politics, the one who doesn’t need to convince usually ends up needing to explain why he lost.