Sánchez's constitutional plan to avoid calling an election in Spain
Article 116 of the Spanish Constitution allows an election to be blocked under a state of emergency. We examine whether Sánchez could replicate Zelensky's move.
English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published
The constitutional loophole that would allow Sánchez to avoid calling an election
The comparison between Pedro Sánchez and Volodímir Zelensky is no longer an offhand remark but a theoretical exercise with a legal basis. A recurring argument in political circles suggests that Spain's prime minister could dodge an election by declaring a state of emergency under Article 116 of the Constitution. The Ukrainian precedent, where martial law has suspended elections, fuels the hypothesis.
What Article 116 says about elections
The core argument is correct on its face: Article 116 prevents the dissolution of the Cortes (the Spanish parliament) while a state of emergency or siege is in force. And without dissolution, no election can be called. That is the mechanism Zelensky has used, though with a crucial difference: Ukraine is at war with a foreign invasion and its martial law has its own constitutional rank. In Spain, declaring a state of emergency requires express authorisation from Congress and objective grounds such as a serious disturbance of public order.
The political cost of the move
Those who assume Sánchez would attempt something like this point out that his priority is staying in Moncloa (the prime minister's residence) and that he would not hesitate to force the institutional machinery. On the other side, it is noted that such a manoeuvre would require the support of his investiture partners, and Junts has no incentive to prop up a scenario that would amount to a forced extension of the Government. Moreover, international backlash and Brussels' reaction would be immediate. Most analyses agree that, as of today, there is no real cause to justify a state of emergency, but the mere fact that it is being speculated about reveals the erosion of institutional safeguards.
The underlying question remains: if the loophole exists and those in power are fighting for survival, is the absence of objective grounds enough to rule it out? Recent history suggests nothing should be ruled impossible, though crossing that line would trigger a political earthquake whose aftershocks no one can calculate.
The comparison between Pedro Sánchez and Volodímir Zelensky is no longer an offhand remark but a theoretical exercise with a legal basis. A recurring argument in political circles suggests that Spain's prime minister could dodge an election by declaring a state of emergency under Article 116 of the Constitution. The Ukrainian precedent, where martial law has suspended elections, fuels the hypothesis.
What Article 116 says about elections
The core argument is correct on its face: Article 116 prevents the dissolution of the Cortes (the Spanish parliament) while a state of emergency or siege is in force. And without dissolution, no election can be called. That is the mechanism Zelensky has used, though with a crucial difference: Ukraine is at war with a foreign invasion and its martial law has its own constitutional rank. In Spain, declaring a state of emergency requires express authorisation from Congress and objective grounds such as a serious disturbance of public order.
The political cost of the move
Those who assume Sánchez would attempt something like this point out that his priority is staying in Moncloa (the prime minister's residence) and that he would not hesitate to force the institutional machinery. On the other side, it is noted that such a manoeuvre would require the support of his investiture partners, and Junts has no incentive to prop up a scenario that would amount to a forced extension of the Government. Moreover, international backlash and Brussels' reaction would be immediate. Most analyses agree that, as of today, there is no real cause to justify a state of emergency, but the mere fact that it is being speculated about reveals the erosion of institutional safeguards.
The underlying question remains: if the loophole exists and those in power are fighting for survival, is the absence of objective grounds enough to rule it out? Recent history suggests nothing should be ruled impossible, though crossing that line would trigger a political earthquake whose aftershocks no one can calculate.
Also available in: Deutsch
Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (29 replies).
More summaries
-
The female vote and the grey 15% keeping Sánchez in power in Spain
A bloc of ERC, Junts, PNV and Bildu guarantees Spain's PSOE 20-25 seats. Is that enough to keep Sánchez at Moncloa? A closer look at the grey 15%.
-
Spain's Junts demands Sánchez's resignation and proposes Congress vote
Junts demands the resignation of Pedro Sánchez and proposes that Congress choose another prime minister. Critical reactions point out that the move avoids elections and…
-
Quechua tents and Soros accusation in a protest camp
Quechua tents at a protest camp and an unproven accusation of links to Soros are at the centre of the debate
-
Aldama to present new evidence on PSOE illegal funding, citing Delcy Rodríguez's lawsuit
Spanish businessman Víctor de Aldama plans to submit new evidence on the PSOE's illegal funding following Delcy Rodríguez's defamation claim. Here are the key points.
-
Which parties can run in Spain's 26N election, and why NN and DN aren't Nazis
NN is not running in Spain's general election while Democracia Nacional gathers signatures for 26N. The debate over whether they are Nazis clashes with their actual programme and the law.
-
Warning: harassment claims against forum and social media accounts, reported
A user claims to have reported dozens of accounts to Incibe, the 016 hotline and the courts for harassment. The original text mixes insults and accusations with no evidence provided.