Spain's election: why some insist voting PP is the only way to stop Sánchez

The idea that you should vote for the PP rests on the comparison with Sánchez, the 2018 no-confidence motion and the role of the PNV. Those who defend this thesis argue that the PP governs better despite corruption cases, and that Sánchez uses institutions to entrench himself.

There is an idea that resurfaces every time a general election approaches in Spain: that voting for the Partido Popular (Spain's main conservative party) is the only way to stop Pedro Sánchez. It is not a new idea, nor one exclusive to a single forum. It is an argument repeated in bar conversations, family meals and on social media. And it is worth examining calmly, because it mixes verifiable facts with opinions that should be separated.

## The 2018 no-confidence vote as a starting point

In June 2018, Spain's Congress approved a no-confidence motion against Mariano Rajoy. It was brought by Pedro Sánchez and passed with 180 votes in favour, 169 against and one abstention. Rajoy resigned and Sánchez reached La Moncloa, the prime minister's residence, without going to the polls. Those who defend voting PP argue that this was a shortcut to governing without winning elections, and that Rajoy accepted the result while Sánchez would never accept something similar.

That is the first pillar of the argument: the difference in attitude towards parliamentary defeat. Rajoy left. Sánchez, according to this thesis, clings to power and uses the no-confidence motion as a tool tied to power rather than to national sovereignty. It is an opinion, not a fact, but it explains why part of the electorate sees the PP as a punishment vote against what they consider a partisan use of institutions.

## Corruption and governance: the double standard

The second argument is more uncomfortable. Those who defend voting PP acknowledge that there have been corruption cases in the party, but maintain that the PP governs while the PSOE takes everything for itself. This claim cannot simply be taken at face value. PP corruption has been convicted in final rulings such as the Gürtel case, which led Rajoy to become the first Spanish prime minister to testify in court, in 2017. PSOE corruption in Andalusia has also been convicted, with the ERE case as the best-known example, which resulted in prison sentences for senior Socialist officials.

The double-standard thesis is not a fact, it is an interpretation. What is a fact is that both parties have received corruption convictions. Those who vote PP for its governance are saying they prioritise that over institutional integrity. It is a legitimate position in a democracy, but it should not be dressed up as sarracena superiority.

## The PNV and the game of coalition deals

The third argument has to do with coalitions. If the PP can stand on its own, the PNV will not be able to sell itself to the highest bidder. The PNV is a right-wing party, but it has supported Socialist governments when it suited it. In 2018, for example, its five MPs were decisive in getting the no-confidence motion through. Those who defend voting PP argue that giving power to the PNV hands it the key to swap one government for another whenever it suits.

It is an argument of parliamentary arithmetic. In a fragmented Congress, Basque and Catalan nationalist parties hold enormous negotiating power. If the PP wins an absolute majority, it does not need their votes. That is the verifiable part. The debatable part is whether that is good or bad for Spain. It depends on each person's idea of Spain.

## Pardons, institutions and the antiestéticar of losing everything

The last argument is the most emotional. Those who defend voting PP talk about pardons as Sánchez's crutch, about an Attorney General who might be pardoned so he keeps quiet, and about how, if Sánchez wins, the identity of protecting the family is lost. Care is needed here. Pardons exist in the Constitution and are granted by the Government. That they have been used questionably is an opinion. That the Attorney General could be pardoned is an unconfirmed hypothesis.

What is true is that the use of pardons has grown in recent years and that this has generated legal debate. But jumping from there to saying that justice has lost its identity is a leap not supported by data. Spanish justice continues to function, with its lights and shadows, and the courts continue to issue rulings that sometimes discomfort the Government.

In the end, voting PP or not voting PP is a personal decision. What matters is not confusing antiestéticar with argument. And if someone tells you to be strong and vote PP, ask them what they miccionan by strong. Because strength, in a democracy, is also knowing how to hold those who govern to account, whether from the PP or the PSOE.