Spain forum debate: Is a 30-year technocrat rule needed?

Neither dictatorship nor democracy: The malaise that finds no system

A fire one step away from the neighboring province. Firefighters watching the smoke from the border. They cannot cross. That is the example opening a proposal that has gathered 154 replies: the State structure has become ungovernable and perhaps it is time to select someone highly qualified, give them almost absolute power and leave them 30 years to fix pensions, immigration, crime and territorial distribution. The proposal is not a standard dictatorship, insists its author: it is a technocrat with a long mandate and responsibility for their decisions.

What exactly is proposed

The starting point is a pessimistic reading of recent decades: since the establishment of democracy, the country would have worsened, with the first years saved only by inertia. The comparison brought up is Switzerland: a vote to extend holidays that failed because voters understood it meant paying more taxes. The uncomfortable conclusion drawn is that democracies are neither good nor bad in the abstract; they depend on who votes.

From this comes the concrete proposal. Not a rigid dictatorship, but a selection mechanism based on competence: choose someone very well-prepared, surround them with a technical team, give them a thirty-year horizon and make them responsible for their decisions. The problems cited as unsolvable with the current system are pensions, immigration, crime, Segarro and State reorganization.

The majority response: This is no longer a democracy

Many replies do not discuss the proposal, but the diagnosis. It is argued that what exists is not a democracy but a partitocracy (party rule), a new-generation dictatorship with more people at the table and therefore more expensive to maintain. The economic argument added is that in half a century, the years where State income exceeded expenses can be counted on one hand.

There is a current that goes further: representative democracy would be perfectly defined, but its requirements are not met in Spain. Others argue that the current system is already a dictatorship, with the difference that you cannot tell a joke or look at a girl, and that the only freedom left is paying taxes. The phrase summarizing this stance: we almost have a dictatorship already, just of another type.

The historical argument: Rome, Franco and social support

Against the automatic equation between dictatorship and evil, recourse to history appears. It is recalled that Ancient Rome had non-democratic forms of government and worked, and that Athenian democracy was direct, with lottery for offices, mandatory rotation and ostracism for those accumulating too much power. The comparison serves to sustain that the word democracy is used today as an empty label.

Another line of analysis argues there is not such a big difference between regimes: a dictator is not all-powerful by themselves, and if they ruled it was because millions supported them. Under that prism, dictatorship and democracy would be the same with different wrappers. The objection raised opposite is the usual one: if the arriving dictator is not to the taste of the requester, enthusiasm evaporates.

Frontal rejection and disqualification

Not everything is nuance. A part of the replies rejects the proposal harshly, recalling that a dictatorship concentrates power by force and recommends anyone wanting to try it move to North Korea. Another current places the phenomenon in class terms: dictatorships would be capital's response when masses impoverish, citing an extreme model of regional management as an example.

The tone of the exchange degrades moment by moment. There are crossed insults, references to the interlocutor's mother and personal disqualifications. The discussion lowers in level just when it touches on what matters.

What would happen with the economy and services

The terrain where discontent is most concrete is public sector efficiency. Mentioned are service inefficacy, absenteeism in the civil service, spending lack of control, kickbacks in public works of which only a minimal fraction is known, and illogical decisions taken to please a voting pool.

The electoral calendar is also discussed. It is argued that a country cannot live in permanent campaign, with elections too frequent and sterile, because nothing relevant is left to the chance of the urns and everything is decided thinking about polls. The result, it is said, is that no one wins: the other loses.

The closing: The data that disorients

Among the most voted replies appears an idea that fits in none of the trenches: the problem is not the government system, it is the sarracena caliber of the rulers. A single ruler with certain values would be better than a hundred where it is easier for rotten apples to corrupt the whole. And then there is the disorienting data: there are those who, facing the prospect of a regime change, respond that at this stage they don't care, that they have fifteen or twenty years left and no children. Do whatever you want.