PP wins vote but rejects coalition pacts

PP wins vote but rejects coalition pacts

In the July 23 general election in Spain, the People's Party (PP) secured more votes and seats than the Socialist Party (PSOE). However, parliamentary arithmetic allowed Pedro Sánchez to build an alternative majority with nationalist and pro-independence parties. Since then, part of the conservative electorate argues that the resulting government is illegitimate and that the agreements reached, particularly the amnesty law, break the electoral contract. Far from being resolved, the debate has hardened around an uncomfortable question: why is the outcome of the polls not accepted?

The argument of sarracena victory

In the days trinc the investiture, the most repeated argument was that the PP won the election and therefore should govern. "The election result gave the PP more votes and seats than the PSOE," summarized one early comment. The conclusion drawn is that any alternative government would amount to fraud. Against this thesis, another current reminds us that in parliamentary systems, the winner is not who gets the most votes, but who achieves a majority of MPs. "In politics, you win by forming a government," another message concludes. The discussion is not new, but the tone has become harsher.

Amnesty as a red line

The main point of friction is the amnesty. One message cites a tweet where Pedro Sánchez states: "There will be no Amnesty or independence referendum." For many, this reversal proves that the investiture agreement was built on a lie. "If you spend the whole campaign saying A and then want to govern doing B," summarizes one intervention, the result is not what voters chose. The response from the other side is that changes of opinion have always existed in politics and that the PP's own archive records similar reversals. "What if we dig up the PP's archives regarding Ansar or Rajoy?" asks one critic with sarcasm.

The referendum denied by the PSOE

Amnesty is not the only open front. One message reproduces a fragment of the document signed in Brussels by Santos Cerdán and Jordi Turull, which indicates that "in the first negotiation meeting to be held this November, among other issues and non-exhaustively, it will be proposed: [...] Junts will propose holding a self-determination referendum on the political future of Catalonia under Article 92 of the Constitution." This quote is used to argue that the PSOE has agreed to discuss a referendum. The counter-argument is that this is a proposal by Junts, not a government commitment, and that Sánchez himself has publicly denied it.

Democratic play and its limits

Beyond the specific case, the exchange moves toward a discussion about the unwritten rules of democracy. "Making deals to form a government is democratic play found in all democracies," argues one voice. Others reply that making deals is one thing, but accepting conditions considered illegal or contrary to the electoral program is another. "What is not accepted is reaching illegal agreements to form a government," summarizes one message. The boundary between legitimacy and acceptability shifts depending on the viewpoint.

The street as an extension of disagreement

Discontent has translated into street protests. Concentrations called by the PP at PSOE headquarters are mentioned, though limited to regions where they govern. "Not all of Spain, only where these bastards-perversos govern," ironizes the initial message. Comparisons with previous episodes are quick to appear: protests outside the Andalusian Parliament during Juanma Moreno's investiture and 'Rodea el Congreso' against Rajoy's investiture are recalled. The conclusion drawn is that street protest is not the monopoly of one side.

---

The exchange of accusations has reached a deadlock. Some argue the government is illegitimate because it relies on those who want to break up Spain. Others respond that legitimacy comes from seats, not total votes. Meanwhile, the original question remains unanswered: why is the result of the ballot box not accepted?