This summer has featured two standout escenarios in Spanish politics: the curricula issue surrounding some of our representatives and the management of the wildfires. In both cases, the two major parties have raised the decibels of political bickering, feeding polarization and public disaffection. And the start of the political season is no different. It may seem that strategists do not care, but I fear that the public handling of politics is gradually driving away broad swathes of the population. It is a potentially grave matter for the functioning of democracy, since the future of our society, the youth, rests on people who are increasingly losing faith in democracy.
“A majority of citizens would value politics more if more agreements for managing the common good were reached”
In the fourth survey we conduct with parliamentarians and citizens, a team of scholars asked the public to place themselves on a zero-to-ten scale to express their level of agreement with the following sentence: “I would have a more positive view of politics if there were more agreement among rival parliamentarians”. While 17% place themselves on the disagreement end (0-4), more than half (54%) find themselves on the agreement end (7-10). PP voters in the last elections are in this camp in 57% of cases, while the PSOE voters are 62%. In the Sumar-Podemos space they are 61%, but in Vox they are 45%. In other words, a majority of declared voters for the two major parties, as for the rest of the population, would improve their view of politics if a genuine effort were made to reach agreements for the management of the common good.
Moreover, the data presented in The theatricalization of politics in Spain show that the level of legislative agreement in the democratic period is high: only between 10% (Congress) and 15% (regional chambers) of laws are adopted with negative votes. Representatives from rival parties agree to pass laws more often than the habitual political din would suggest. It is true that the previous and the current legislatures show lower alignment than other periods, as this is laid out here. Let us not be mistaken: democracy always involves conflict, but also agreement among rivals.
The theatricalization of politics in Spain thus indicates that the level of cross-party agreement exists and can be more frequent than it may appear when the rhetoric of confrontation dominates. The balance between conflict and consensus is shaped by the spirit of the times. And the present moment seems governed by an increasing, emotionally charged polarization.
The polarization has the virtue of binding a party’s own base, but the drawback of pushing others away. Try this thought experiment: compare the size of a party’s militant base and its broader pool of potential voters. In most cases, the latter will be larger than the former. Polarization hardens followers, yet can push the median voter—those with intermediate ideological positions—out of the game. The consequence can be devastating. Polarization installs or reinforces the friend-enemy logic in political dynamics, pulverizes concern for the common good and erodes democracy, strengthening distrust in institutions and driving away from institutions the less politicized citizenry: you do not win for democracy, you lose it.
“The logic of conflict, installed in Spanish politics and in other countries, makes it very difficult to reach agreements: the enemy must be defeated”
In this scenario, it seems unlikely that the parties—especially the largest ones—will reach any kind of agreement. The war-like logic embedded in Spanish politics and elsewhere makes pacts difficult, since the enemy must be annihilated, defeated, not legitimized or constantly delegitimized. Yet democracies are precisely founded on weaving compromises among rivals, agreements that entail mutual concessions, not capitulations. That is why, Richard Hofstadter defined democracies as a “harmonious balance of mutual frustrations”.
True, as noted, democracy also entails conflict, disagreement, rivalry. Societies are plural, and the individuals and the groups that represent them hold different and often opposing positions, interests, and values. But the equilibrium between conflict and agreement is what enables democracies to function in a sustained way and make us feel participants—no longer as mere spectators—in their institutions. And this balance, though unstable, can only be sustained by recognizing that there is a common good to preserve, legitimate representatives to act—even if we dislike them—defending positions that, while different, can converge in some aspects to foster broad, inclusive, enduring agreements that promote the general welfare. This has traditionally been the point of convergence in Spanish politics, even if it is not always visible or appears exhausted. And this is what seems to be expected by a substantial portion of the citizenry to have a more positive view of politics, especially among the voters of PP, PSOE and Sumar-Podemos.
Given the prevailing tension, I fear that any agreement, as is the case with laws passed without opposition in Congress, must be concrete and look to the future without seeking electoral gain. Given its economic and social importance, its potential impact on future generations, and its nature as a common good to be preserved, what if the party representatives commit to attempting to reach some genuine agreement to protect our environment from forest fires? There are clearly different interests, visions, and proposals. Why not make a sincere effort to try? Hint: speak directly, without mediating intermediaries. Our future is burning.
