What if Jiménez Losantos is right about Franco's ministers?

Jiménez Losantos's claim that Franco's ministers were better prepared than Sánchez's has sparked a fierce controversy. The debate raises the question of whether the academic credentials of Franco-era cabinets outshone those of today's.

The claim by **Federico Jiménez Losantos** that Franco's ministers were better prepared than those of Sánchez's government has unleashed a storm on social media. The 75-year-old journalist called the current ministers "illiterates" and argued that during the Franco era "meritocracy was fundamental." The controversy is no small matter: it goes straight to the heart of how Spain views its recent past and how the quality of a political class is judged.

## The credentials of Franco-era cabinets

The examples cited to support the thesis are specific. **Manuel Fraga** was a professor of Political Law at 25. **Licinio de la Fuente**, son of modest farmers from Toledo, worked his way up on scholarships and became a state attorney. The well-known López ministers of the development era were either three-time extraordinary award winners or the best in their class. **Cruz Martínez Esteruelas** was a scholar, author of twelve books, and a state attorney. **Fernando Suárez**, who died two years ago, won the extraordinary end-of-degree award in Law. **Lora-Tamayo** was a renowned scientist and professor.

Not all ministers of the Franco regime fit that profile. The author himself acknowledges that Franco had the occasional dim-witted or corrupt minister. But the average level of preparation of his cabinets, he argues, clearly surpasses that of today's. The comparison is posed as an uncomfortable question: would figures like **Ione Belarra**, **Irene Montero** or **Iceta** have been ministers under Franco? The answer given is no: mediocre figures without credentials, or an ignoramus with no education, would not have passed the filter of those cabinets.

## Meritocracy as a selection criterion

The substance of the debate is not so much Francoism as the criteria for selecting political elites. The thesis defended is that in that era academic careers and track records mattered more than ideological affinity. Today, that sounds like provocation. But the underlying question is legitimate: does a political system select its ministers for loyalty, for quota, or for ability?

The criticism of the current ministers rests on the lack of credentials of some of them. **Ione Belarra** and **Irene Montero** are cited as examples of mediocrities without a relevant track record, and **Iceta** as an ignoramus with no education. These are harsh labels, and the author himself admits there are exceptions in Sánchez's government. But the general idea conveyed is that the average level of preparation has fallen.

## The past should not be viewed through blinkers

The article closes with a warning about how recent history is examined. It criticizes the fact that today we are hostages of censorious, false Memory laws that force us to look at the past with blinkers and even trample academic freedom. The proposal is to look at the past with serenity, with data and a scientific effort to seek the truth, without putting the ideological template before the facts.

That is the most debatable point, and the most necessary one. The Civil War and Francoism are mined territory where every fact is read as taking a side. But a minister's quality does not depend on the ideology of the regime that appointed him. A professor of Political Law at 25 is an objective fact. A minister with no education is another objective fact. The comparison between the two is uncomfortable, but that does not make it false.

In the end, the controversy is not really about Franco. It is about whether today's political class is up to the task. And about whether you can say so out loud without being crucified on social media.