Rubén Gisbert: democracy's 'apocalypse' and the internal war over Trevijano's legacy

Rubén Gisbert and the apocalypse of democracy

There is a paradox running through the latest debate about Rubén Gisbert, the lawyer and activist who has become one of the most visible faces of the constituent freedom movement founded by Antonio García-Trevijano. While he insists on presenting himself as a "democrat," part of his own trinc argues that democracy, as we understand it, is precisely the problem. This is no minor dispute: at stake are the legacy of the master, the strategy to destroy the Régimen del 78 (Spain's 1978 political regime), and the question of who has the right to vote.

The controversy erupted after the publication of a video in which Gisbert, in his usual direct style, defended the need for a constituent process and described himself as a democrat. The reaction was immediate. "When he says I am a democrat, hahaha, it makes your skin crawl," sums up one of the most repeated messages. For another commenter, the problem is fundamental: "Memocracy is precisely the cancer that has led us to where we are today."

Trevijano's legacy and the battle for hegemony

Antonio García-Trevijano, who died in 2018, left behind a movement, the MCRC, and a political theory: constituent freedom, imperative mandate and single-member constituencies. His shadow looms over the entire discussion. Some see Gisbert as a legitimate successor, while others consider him an opportunist who "went off in search of a sun that shone brighter" when he could get nothing out of the MCRC.

Comparisons with other figures are constant. "Gisbert is the cheap copy of Seque when it comes to the Gramscian battle for cultural hegemony," some go so far as to say. The criticism is not only political but also personal: he is reproached for having abandoned the MCRC, for his management during the DANA floods in Valencia, and for the failure of his helicopter rally in Ceuta. Not everyone shares that view, however. "Don't be like that with Pizpi, he was there during the DANA holding the line," another defends, for whom Rubén's merit outweighs his mistake.

Who can vote? The debate over universal suffrage

The deepest fracture point is the right to vote. Against Gisbert's defense of democracy, one current holds that not everyone should be allowed to vote. "You cannot grant the right to vote to any brainless fool. This has to be an aristocracy," the argument goes, reviving the idea that the vote must be earned. The concrete proposal being floated is a strict meritocratic aristocracy, with imperative mandate and separation of powers, but without universal suffrage.

The discussion drifts toward the territorial model. "The autonomies are taifa kingdoms for the glory and plunder of local bosses," it is claimed, advocating provinces and administrative reunification. Beneath it all lies a deep distrust of the Spanish people, accused of not reacting until it is too late. "Spaniards only react when there is no remedy left. They don't think long-term," one message concludes.

The internal war in the movement and the future of constituent freedom

The movement inspired by Trevijano has not escaped tensions. After his death, there were "shameful" fights among his trinc, with mutual expulsions and clashing egos. "Four damn cats with their four damn prides fighting over who had the biggest one," one message bluntly describes. The arrival of Pedro Manuel González at the forefront, with a better media presence, is seen as good news by some.

Meanwhile, there is still no consensus on strategy. Some back a broad front uniting all sensibilities before destroying the R78; others believe the first step is to "clean house" and that only a brutal crisis will bring change. "There is no longer time to convince the sheep. What's needed is a good war, as always," one comment goes so far as to say. The question, in the end, is the same one Trevijano asked: can the Spanish people be the subject of their own liberation, or do they need someone to impose it on them?