Spanish terror victims split over 'Vote Txapote' slogan

Spanish terror victims divided by the «Que te vote Txapote» slogan

The controversy erupted when a terrorism victims association requested that the slogan «Que te vote Txapote» not be used during the electoral campaign. COVITE’s refusal to allow this catchphrase has caused a visible fracture in the community: more than a hundred family members of victims, including Marimar Blanco, sister of Miguel Ángel Blanco, murdered by Txapote, have come out to support its use. Far from being resolved, the discussion has turned into a struggle over who legitimately represents the victims and what interests lie behind each statement.

What is the «Que te vote Txapote» slogan and why is it used?

The slogan, which became a viral meme during the campaign, summarizes criticism of the Government for its pacts with Bildu, a party that in the past included convicted terrorists on its lists. Those who defend it argue that it is a cry of contempt towards the president and those who whitewash ETA’s heirs, not an attack on the victims. “It is a phrase of incalculable propaganda value that does more for the cause of condemning terrorism than a thousand demonstrations,” argues one participant, urging victims to act with “gut feeling” because the main damage falls on the Government itself.

The defense of the slogan relies on the idea that it does not glorify the terrorist, but mentions him to despise him. “It denotes contempt for someone, precisely because it mentions someone considered despicable,” the debate reasons. Under this prism, the discomfort of some victims is interpreted as a tolerable side effect compared to the political return it generates.

The division among the victims themselves

The fracture is not only between associations and voters; it cuts through the families. In response to COVITE’s statement, more than a hundred family members signed a manifesto supporting the slogan. Marimar Blanco, sister of Miguel Ángel Blanco, murdered by Txapote, appears among the signatories. This division dismantles the idea of a homogeneous group and raises an uncomfortable question: who speaks on behalf of the victims?

Some argue that the leadership of the associations acts out of political and economic interests, not based on the feelings of their base. “The high-ranking officials of the association, who are sold to politicians, claim to speak on behalf of all victims,” it is stated. Others defend that the rejection of the slogan is genuine: “I do find it credible that family members who suffered greatly find it annoying, and painful, to hear the name of the person who hurt them so much in life, sung by people like those at a bullfighting arena, drunk, with no intention other than having fun.”

The origin of political control over the associations

One of the most repeated hypotheses places the origin of the conflict in Zapatero’s era. According to this narrative, the government then maneuvered to control the association and ensure its support for the so-called “peace process,” removing leaders who refused to “forgive” ETA members and installing allies. “The loyalists never abandoned control of the association,” it is concluded. This reading fuels the suspicion that the current statement responds to political obedience rather than real discomfort.

The thesis of political control is reinforced by accusations of dependence on subsidies. “They exist so that a few can live very well off subsidies,” it is even said. For this current, the problem is not the slogan itself, but whom it targets: “They are not bothered by the slogan; they are bothered that it is directed at Sánchez.”

The argument of those who reject the slogan

On the other side, the defense of respect for victims mixes with criticism of the partisan use of their pain. “In the end, for you this is like a football match; the winner is the one who was right,” it is reproached to those who cheer the slogan. The underlying accusation is that victims are instrumentalized when convenient and despised when they are obstacles: “You certainly jerked off with COVITE when you extracted political profitability and talked about victims all day long; now that they don’t bring votes anymore, let them go to hell.”

The rejection of the slogan also rests on the idea that it trivializes terrorism. “Laughing at what terrorism victims think is indeed [trivialization],” it is affirmed, referring to apology. The discussion then shifts towards the respect owed to those who suffered violence, regardless of the political use made of their testimony.

The political and electoral background

The slogan has become a campaign weapon. Its defenders consider it a viral success that has harmed the Government, while its detractors see it as evidence of the degradation of public debate. “The popular clamor QUE TE VOTE TXAPOTE has done them a lot of harm; they didn’t see it coming and don’t know how to combat it; it’s viral,” it is celebrated from one side. From the other, warnings arise that the benefit may turn against them: “If you lose, you look perversos in addition to being a loser.”

The discussion intertwines with the electoral calendar and post-election pacts. The mention of Bildu, convicted terrorists on its lists, and negotiations with the Government serves as the axis of the entire confrontation. At the close of the debate, the question of whether the slogan benefits or harms electorally remains unanswered, and the division among the victims shows no sign of reconciliation.