Spain's Crown and its democratic legitimacy: a debate that never ends

Democratic legitimacy? The Crown and the referendum that never peine

Almost half a century after the referendum that approved the 1978 Constitution, the question remains open: did that vote legitimize Spain's parliamentary monarchy, or was it an unavoidable toll? Article 1.3 of the Constitution establishes the political form of the State, but the absence of a specific vote on monarchy versus republic keeps the wound open. The debate is not new, but it resurfaces with force every so often.

The Francoist origin and the 1947 Succession Law

The most uncomfortable argument for the Crown's defenders is its origin. The current monarchy is born not only from the Constitution, but from an architecture designed by Franco through the 1947 Law on the Succession of the Head of State. That law, which established that the successor would be designated by the dictator, was the first step towards the Bourbon restoration. Those who question the democratic legitimacy of the Crown argue that this origin taints everything that came after, no matter how much the Constitution ratified it.

But others counter that origin does not determine later legitimacy. The Constitution was voted by the Spanish people on 6 December 1978, and its article 1.3 explicitly states that the political form of the State is the parliamentary Monarchy. If the sovereign people approved that text, are they not legitimizing the institution? The question is more rhetorical than it seems.

The 1978 referendum: did it legitimize everything or only the whole?

This is where the debate gets more interesting. It is argued that voting for an entire Constitution does not democratically legitimize each of the institutions it establishes, because they were not voted on one by one. If that criterion were applied, the Constitutional Court, the Senate, the CGPJ (Spain's governing body of the judiciary), the autonomous communities or the electoral system would also have to be questioned. Why would the Crown be an exception? That is the question posed by an analysis that has become uncomfortable for textbook republicans.

And there is more. There was no vote either on the abolition of the death penalty, on the design of the welfare state, or on international treaties. If a referendum were required for every article, representative democracy would become impossible. But defenders of a separate vote respond that the form of State is a matter of special hierarchy, deserving different treatment.

Coercion, the monopoly on violence and formal democracy

Another argument that appears is that of coercion. It is claimed that the Spanish people were coerced into voting for a Constitution that included the monarchy, because there was no real alternative. But the answer is forceful: coercion means forcing someone through force or threats. Disliking the alternative on offer is not coercion. Every State ultimately imposes its rules through force, the famous monopoly on violence. If that were enough to speak of political coercion, no Constitution or democracy could be legitimate.

And here the debate on formal democracy comes in. Some hold that formal democracy, with its checks and balances and separation of powers, is the least bad of systems, because it does not depend on the ruler's good intentions. Others, however, consider it a mere formality that ignores human reality, and that political elites use it to perpetuate themselves. The discussion turns philosophical, but at its core it is political.

The comparison with other monarchies and republics

One curiosity worth noting is that similar articles are never seen about other monarchies, such as the Danish, the Swedish or the Japanese one. Not to mention the British one. Why is only the Spanish one questioned? The answer may lie in its Francoist origin, but also in the history of the Bourbons, who have run away like rabbits twice in Spain's history, and who even sold the crown to the head of state of the neighbouring country. For some, that disqualifies them for good.

But it is also pointed out that the French republics, the Portuguese one and the two Spanish republics were never voted on by anyone. The Spanish Republic of 1931 was born out of municipal elections, not a specific vote on the form of State. If the same criterion were applied, its legitimacy would also have to be questioned. The analysis gets stuck on the same stone: if voting for an entire Constitution legitimizes each of its institutions, then the Constitutional Court, the Senate or the autonomous communities would also lack individual legitimacy. But if a separate vote is required for the Crown, why not for the rest? The question remains unanswered, and probably has no answer.