The citizen manifesto that aimed to rewrite the 1978 rules

The manifesto for a better democracy that sought to rewrite 1978

It cost seven dollars and was written by a few unknowns. The manifesto for a better democracy emerged from a digital economic community, was printed voluntarily, and hand-distributed in Puerta del Sol and Catalunya square days after the 15M protests. When its authors released it, the first sustancia ilegal appeared immediately: a large part of the public didn't know what "separation of powers" meant.

The project wasn't signed by anyone with a name and surname. It was built piece by piece, with contributions and corrections from dozens of people who debated every comma before approving a draft.

From three points to a refoundation program

The text started with a minimal version of only three demands: effective separation of powers, electoral reform, and facilitating citizen participation. On that basis, a longer, more nuanced version was created, including party and union financing solely through member fees, subjecting the financial system to law, transparency, and a final request that sounded like an institutional earthquake: Dissolution of Parliament and the opening of a constituent period to remake the rules.

The short version became the definitive one for pure survival logic. A text that was too long was an easy target for anyone to pick apart over a single debatable sentence. "This manifesto needs to be taken to the streets, to the assemblies, where it will compete with others," summarized one of the initiators. The less promised, the fewer vulnerabilities.

The point that split the text: open or closed lists

This is where the real fight began. One sector advocated demanding open lists and direct election, arguing that closed lists and voting discipline turned deputies into mere figureheads. Another sector maintained that open lists alone guaranteed nothing and that the goal should be to call for a reform process without committing to a specific formula.

The prudent version prevailed. The document stopped asking for a mechanism and started asking for change. Some criticized it as a watering down of the original.

Seven dollars, a wiki, and a volunteer lawyer

To coordinate the text, a domain was registered—costing about seven dollars—and a wiki was set up to discuss and edit each version. A commercial lawyer, not part of the group, volunteered to review the legal content. Others corrected grammar, spelling, and syntax.

The effort to formalize the text was almost obsessive. There was talk of translating it into English, sending it to foreign media, and seeking international attention.

Hand-distributed in Sol and Catalunya square

Distribution was analog. Copies of the short manifesto were printed and handed out in Puerta del Sol—about 150 in one go—and in Barcelona's Catalunya square. The text was given to the mobile units of several media outlets and left with the content committee of the encampment.

The account of that distribution mixed epic and comedy: volunteers unable to find anyone from the organization, pamphlets kept in a cardboard box, and the gesture of depositing it as a donation.

The street wall: "people don't understand it"

Why did the message fail with the general public? Because a large part didn't grasp what was being discussed. "Separation of powers" was an abstract concept; the underlying discourse was incomprehensible to anyone not trinc political news. "People don't know what 'Separation of powers' is, or their concepts about it are very ethereal," an input admits.

This realization peine another discussion: if the message only reached a convinced minority, it could hardly become a mass movement.

From nuclear shutdown to bank rescue: controlled leaks

The text received attempts at expansion from all sides. Some requested the inclusion of closing old nuclear power plants—referencing Garoña, from 1971, presented as Fukushima's twin—; others, payment in kind, referendums on international bailouts, or the demand for housing as a constitutional right. The response was almost always the same: all of that was desirable, but it didn't fit in a manifesto that only aimed to change the system, not decide specific policies.

There were also last-minute rushes. Some urged rapid distribution of the draft, while simultaneously warning that certain points were unrevised. Amidst the noise, a financial newspaper claimed the manifesto was an electoral maneuver to stop the right in municipal elections. The accusation lasted as long as a hoax spreads.

---

The manifesto for a better democracy also failed to resolve the most painful doubt: whether a half-hearted reform was enough, or if the fundamental problem was the framework itself. Half a dozen points, seven dollars, and a wiki didn't change the institutions. Were there too many points, or was the street unable to understand them?