The latest plenary sessions of the Congress of Deputies and the start of the new political season invite a well-informed reflection on the legislative behavior of the representatives of the public.When, at the end of July, people are asked whether politics in Congress tilts more toward agreement between rivals or toward conflict —measured on a scale from zero to ten— the average stands at 7.14; in other words, it is perceived as more inclined toward conflict than toward consensus. Six out of ten Spaniards place politics in Congress above that average and about one third (34%) perceive that there is a maximum level of conflict by rating it ten. This has been a common perception for several years. In short, politics in Congress is frequently seen as an arena where political rivals are not primarily guided by building agreements but by conflict between political groups.
“The public perceives Congress as conflictive due to the theatricality carried out in the legislative chambers”
We suspect that this perception rests on a wide range of behaviors that are easily visible in any plenary session of the Congress, but also in the regional chambers: shouts, disrespect, accusations, rowdy exchanges, insults, etc. The latest plenaries of the Congress faithfully reflect this situation, and it is likely that there will be no changes.
There are some data from what we have seen so far in this Legislature that can help gauge this situation. We focus on the laws approved, which symbolize the most significant political act of a chamber of representatives with respect to the impact on the citizenry. According to the Congress website, in the current legislature twenty-three laws have been approved. In one third of the cases (eight laws, 35%) these laws have received no negative votes. In other words, no parliamentary group has opposed the passage of the law. They are laws aimed at specific groups —people with ALS and with permanent disability, firefighters and forest rangers, organ donors—, defense, or alignment with European regulations. In the rest of the laws approved with opposition (fifteen), the PP voted in favor in half (seven laws) while Vox opposed in almost all (twelve laws).
For the record: the majority of the approved laws were initiated by the Government (seventeen, 74%), not by the legislature. Of these laws, 60% are passed without negative votes and only in a third (35%) did the Partido Popular vote against. We will not delve into the reasons for this situation, but the factors explaining the level of agreement in legislatures can be found here.
These data point to the possibility that our representatives either strive to reach positions that incorporate other groups or converge on some of their proposals. This can be visualized better with the inclusion index. This index takes the value zero when only the parties backing the Government vote in favor of the proposed law (to understand, PSOE and Sumar) and the value one when no one votes against. In this Legislature so far, this index stands at 0.69, slightly above the previous Legislature (0.68) and the tenth (the first of the Rajoy government with 0.58), which is the lowest inclusion index in democracy, as shown in the chart.
“Although the parliament is perceived as a conflict zone, the approval of laws generates the same or greater consensus than in more recent periods”
This may seem paradoxical. How is it possible that the conflict perceived in parliaments coexists with a level of agreement in approving laws similar to that in legislatures that are less conflictual? There are two explanations for this. One concerns the legislative production. The degree of agreement may be similar to other periods, but fewer laws are produced —the twenty-three laws approved so far in this Legislature contrast with the one hundred and fifty laws that could be approved in a typical Legislature—. In other words, the degree of agreement may be the same on the issues that are finally agreed upon, but the truth is that the parties come to agreements on fewer matters. The other explanation is a bit more technical. A minority government must rely on other parties —by necessity of parliamentary arithmetic— to pass laws. Thus, all laws approved in this Legislature, by definition, incorporate some degree of agreement, typically with groups that do not form part of the Government, although they are part of what has come to be called the investiture bloc. And this explains why some agreement (intra-block) can coexist with another degree of polarization (inter-block).
This leads us to a moderately optimistic conclusion: despite what may be perceived, there are still issues where there is cross-cutting consensus in Spanish politics. It is not a trivial matter for the functioning of democracy. The less positive conclusion is that, even in situations with a certain level of agreement among different parties, it can be difficult to avoid legislative paralysis, especially while polarization between blocs remains high.
The level of inclusion we have seen so far in this Legislature is, with some caveats, similar to that of the last Legislature when Aznar governed and the first when Zapatero did, though far from what happened in the first six Legislatures. As has been noted on occasion, as we move away from the foundational moment of democracy (the Transition), it seems harder for their lordships to build satisfactory accords. Except, and this nuance is important, in certain matters generally oriented toward specific vulnerable groups (children, the elderly, women, victims of terrorism, etc.), those related to alignment with European regulation, or those related to defense, justice, or international relations.
“Despite the polarization context, a majority of Spaniards believes it is beneficial to reach agreements with rival politicians”
Let us return for a moment to the referenced survey. The public has been asked to indicate their degree of agreement on a scale from zero (none) to ten (much) with the following statement: “In politics it is desirable to reach agreements with rival politicians, even if ideologically distant.” The average Spaniard sits at almost six (5.8), though 55% of respondents clearly position themselves above that average and 31% fall in the 8–10 range (the 15% are in the corresponding 0–2 disagreement positions). This preference of the public toward the dimension of agreement in managing politics should not escape the notice of political leaders. In fact, this was the dominant stance among the representatives of the previous legislature,as has been shown in some publication. In the citizenry today and with provisional data, the declared voters of PSOE (65%) and Sumar (65%) more often align with the agreement pole than those of the PP (57%) and Vox (43%).
After carrying out numerous studies on Spanish representatives and paying attention to how visible politics unfolds today, one question remains intriguing: is there any possibility that the way invisible politics is managed, where political agreements are forged, could somewhat contagiate the visible politics?
