Political tension as a strategy: who really benefits from the chaos?

Could a political party actually benefit from sowing social chaos to stay in power?

A line of analysis holds that Spain's PSOE is better served by a climate of tension and confrontation. The argument rests on accusations of manipulation of the electoral roll and on laws that, according to their critics, divide citizens, such as the so-called 'Grandchildren Law' or the Democratic Memory Law. Historical parallels are even invoked: the preparation for an armed revolution in 1934 and the more than 300 deaths in the five months after the 1936 elections. The narrative suggests that if the attempt to alter the electoral roll fails, things could drift into open conflict.

The shadow of history and the present

Those who defend this thesis recall that in 1934, faced with the threat from the right, the Socialist Party was already preparing for an insurrection. Now, the 'Memory Law' and the naturalization of descendants of exiles (the 'Grandchildren Law', signed by Sofía Puente) are seen as tools to create division. Added to this is the recent amnesty for Puigdemont from Europe, which some interpret as an endorsement of tension. The hidden calculation would be that a fractured country needs a savior, and that role would fall to the party in power.

Data and skepticism

Not everyone shares the alarm. Some recall that the last time fire was played with, «it backfired on them». The irony leaves room for doubt: the narrative of permanent conspiracy may also be an alibi for those who want to justify their own hard-line policies. The truth is that, for now, evidence of deliberate scheming remains elusive, but the background noise persists.

Perhaps the next time someone talks about 'coexistence', we should ask who really benefits from the noise.