SPAIN'S TRANSFORMATION from a rigid, authoritarian, highly centralized regime into a pluralistic, liberal parliamentary democracy with considerable regional autonomy stands as one of the more remarkable political developments of the twentieth century. That this was accomplished without civil war or revolutionary upheaval and in the midst of unfavorable economic circumstances is all the more extraordinary. Despite decades of living under a repressive dictatorship, most Spanish citizens adapted readily to the new democratic system, and they turned out in large numbers for referenda and elections.
The institutions established under the new democratic regime were based on the principles of modernization and decentralization. The 1978 Constitution, which enjoyed massive popular support, established Spain as a democratic state ruled by law. Spain's form of government is that of a parliamentary monarchy, with political power centered in the bicameral Cortes (Spanish Parliament).
One of the most striking features of Spain's new governmental system is the devolution of power and responsibility to the regions. Regional differences had been the source of longstanding tensions between the center and the periphery in Spain. The 1978 Constitution addresses these conflicts by providing for an unprecedented degree of regional autonomy, although not all Spaniards have been satisfied with the pace of the devolution process. At the same time, the relationships between the more powerful autonomous regions and the central government remain complicated by the deliberately ambiguous terms of the Constitution.
The dismantling of the dictatorship of Francisco Franco y Bahamonde (dictator of Spain, 1939-75) and the establishment of democratic political institutions did not immediately permeate all levels of society. Reactionary elements within the army remained opposed to democracy, and rumors of coup plots were a persistent feature of the early years of democratic rule, although they subsequently subsided as the government stabilized. The civil service also resisted transformation, remaining almost as inefficient and cumbersome as it was under Franco.
Although Spanish citizens had minimal experience with political involvement prior to the advent of participatory democracy, they took to it enthusiastically, and, after a shaky beginning, a viable party system developed. The stability of this party system was evidenced by the declining support for extremist parties and by the peaceful transfer of power from a conservative coalition to the Socialist Workers' Party in the 1982 elections. In the late 1980s, the major challenge to the governing Spanish Socialist Workers' Party (Partido Socialista Obrero Espanol-- PSOE) came from within its own ranks, as labor leaders complained that Prime Minister Felipe Gonzalez Marquez had forsaken his socialist roots in favor of market-oriented policies.
Spain continued to seek an independent role in the international arena, while maintaining a European focus through membership in the European Community (EC) and, through association, on its own terms, with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Other major foreign policy goals continued to be the re-establishment of Spanish sovereignty in Gibraltar, the retention of the North African enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla, and an influential role for Spain in Latin America. In 1987 Spain expressed a latent anti-Americanism, prevalent in the country since the 1898 Spanish-American War, when the government delayed renewal of the long-standing agreement for United States use of military bases in Spain in exchange for military and economic assistance.
One difficult problem facing the government in the 1980s was the ongoing menace of Basque terrorism, as militant separatists continued to perpetrate assassinations and bombings in spite of vigorous antiterrorist measures. A more far-reaching challenge lay in the economic realm. Workers were becoming increasingly dissatisfied with their diminished earnings and with the government's failure to deal with the unemployment problem.
The political changes since 1975 have been dramatic and profound. Spain has benefited from the shrewd leadership of its king and its prime ministers, who successfully presided over the transition to democracy and its consolidation. Nevertheless, Spanish leadership confronted the challenge of sustaining social stability in the face of economic and regional pressures.
<"72.htm">CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM
<"81.htm">POLITICS
<"86.htm">FOREIGN RELATIONS
The 1978 Constitution dismantled the political system of the Franco regime and established Spain as a democratic state ruled by law. The writing of the Constitution was a long and arduous task, involving extensive negotiations and compromise. Spain has a history of failed constitutions, and the framers of the 1978 Constitution endeavored to devise a document that would be acceptable to all the major political forces.
In July 1977, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs was formed, made up of thirty-six deputies from the newly elected Cortes. These deputies in turn appointed a seven-member subcommittee that included members of the major national parties and one representative, a Catalan, of the regional parties. This group was to produce a draft constitution, which it completed in December and presented to the full committee. Vigorous debate ensued, and by the time the draft was returned to the subcommittee for final revision in January 1978, individual Cortes deputies and party caucuses had proposed more than 1,000 amendments.
As the seven subcommittee members attempted to address the issues raised by these amendments, consensus began to break down over provisions concerning the Roman Catholic Church, education, labor lockouts, and the regional issue. The PSOE delegate withdrew from the subcommittee in protest on two occasions, and it required delicate diplomatic maneuvering on the part of Prime Minister Adolfo Suarez Gonzalez to surmount the stalemate in the constituent process. Compromise agreements were reached by the end of May, when the text went back to the full committee. By June 20, this committee had completed revisions of the draft document, which was presented for debate in the Congress of Deputies (lower chamber of the Cortes) in July, a year after the formation of the constitutional committee.
The text was passed with negligible opposition, although deputies of the Basque Nationalist Party (Partido Nacionalista Vasco--PNV) abstained because of what they termed the inadequate provisions for regional autonomy. The draft constitution then went to the Senate (upper chamber of the Cortes), where it again received more than 1,000 amendments and was revised by another constitutional committee. At the end of September, the full Senate discussed the text and approved it. Because there were differences between the version passed by the Senate and the one approved by the Congress of Deputies, another committee, including both senators and deputies, was required to resolve the discrepancies. This group also added the stipulation that the prime minister must either call for new elections or seek a vote of confidence within thirty days of the promulgation of the new constitution.
On October 31, 1978, both chambers overwhelmingly approved the text of the new Constitution, which was presented to the people in a referendum on December 6, 1978. Of the 67.7 percent of eligible voters who went to the polls, 87.8 percent accepted the new Constitution, which was signed by the king on December 27.
The Constitution that the Spaniards ratified in 1978 is long and complicated. In their efforts to avoid dogmatism and to gain widespread support, the framers had produced a document that was hailed as a triumph for consensus politics, but at the same time the new Constitution included ambiguous language and contradictory provisions, which gave rise to problems of interpretation in subsequent months and years.
<"73.htm">The 1978 Constitution
<"74.htm">Electoral System
<"75.htm">The Cortes
<"76.htm">King, Prime Minister, and Council of Ministers
<"77.htm">The Judiciary
<"78.htm">Regional Government
<"79.htm">Local Government
<"80.htm">Civil Service
The Constitution proclaims Spain to be a social and democratic state governed by law and declares liberty, justice, equality, and political pluralism to be the country's foremost values. National sovereignty resides in the people, from whom all powers of the state emanate. The new Constitution defines Spain as a parliamentary monarchy, with the king as head of state and symbol of its unity and permanence. It establishes a bicameral legislature, the Cortes, and an independent judicial system.
The Constitution delineates the role of political parties and requires that they adhere to democratic structures and procedures. It provides for universal suffrage at the age of eighteen and abolishes the death penalty, except under military law in time of war.
The longest section of the Constitution sets forth the basic civil, political, and socioeconomic rights of citizens, all of whom are equal before the law, regardless of birth, race, sex, or religion. They are protected against unlawful arrests, searches, seizures, and other invasions of privacy. If accused of a crime, they are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and they have the right to a legally appointed judge, a solicitor, and a public trial without delay. The Constitution guarantees the freedoms of religion, assembly, and association, and it stipulates that citizens may make individual or collective petitions in writing to the government.
Individual liberties are further strengthened by constitutional provisions recognizing the right to organize trade unions, to join them or to refrain from joining them, and to strike. The Constitution links the right to work with the duty to work, and it calls for sufficient remuneration to meet individual and family needs, without discrimination as to sex. It also guarantees adequate pensions for the elderly, protection of the handicapped, and decent housing, and it ascribes to the state a fundamental role with regard to the organization and protection of health care and welfare.
The Constitution declares that the rights and the liberties described therein are binding on all public authorities. A provision exists (Article 55) for the suspension of these rights and liberties, but this can be used only under strictly regulated circumstances.
The Constitution includes significant provisions pertaining to the armed forces and to the Roman Catholic Church, two institutions that have played dominant roles in Spain's political history. The framers of the new document sought to reduce the influence of these historically powerful institutions, and, at the same time, tried not to alienate them to the point that they might become sources of opposition. The role of each of these traditional institutions is clearly defined and is strictly limited in the new Constitution. While assigning to the army the role of safeguarding the sovereignty and independence of Spain and of defending its territorial integrity and constitutional order, the Constitution emphasizes that ultimate responsibility for Spain's defense rests with its popularly elected government, not with the armed forces.
The role of the Roman Catholic Church also is reduced in the 1978 Constitution, which denies Catholicism the status of state religion. The provisions of the new Constitution with regard to the church are, however, not as stridently secular as those of the 1931 constitution, which so antagonized the conservative elements of Spanish society. The 1978 document guarantees complete religious freedom and declares that there will be no state religion, but it also affirms that public authorities are to take into account the religious beliefs of Spanish society and that they are to maintain cooperative relations with the Roman Catholic Church and with other religions.
Religion was also a factor in the formulation of constitutional provisions concerning education. There was considerable controversy over the issue of providing private schools with public funds, because in Spain most private schools are run by the church or by the religious orders. The Constitution guarantees freedom of education and calls for the government to provide some financial assistance to private schools. It further stipulates that children in state schools may receive religious teaching, if their parents so desire. At the same time, the Constitution gives the government the authority to inspect and to license the schools, thus granting it some control over the institutions it subsidizes. Conflicts over this issue of state control led to the passage in 1984 of the Organic Law on the Right to Education (Ley Organica del Derecho a la Educacion-- LODE), which established three categories of schools and set forth conditions to be met by private institutions receiving financial aid from the government.
Along with constitutional provisions pertaining to education and to the church, those dealing with regional issues were sources of bitter controversy. Historical tensions between the center and the periphery in Spain made it difficult for the framers of the Constitution to reach agreement on matters of regional autonomy. The compromise that they eventually reached was unsatisfactory to extremist elements on both sides of the issue, and the terrorist movement that grew out of this controversy continues to be the major threat to Spain's stability.
The new Constitution seeks to recognize, and to respond to, deep-seated cultural differences among the existing nationalities by allowing for substantial regional autonomy, in contrast to the stifling centralism imposed by Franco. Although it affirms the indissoluble unity of the nation, it also grants a greater degree of autonomy to Spain's nationalities and regions, which are allowed to use their own languages and flags without interference.
The electoral system--with the exception of the Senate, which uses a majority system--is set forth in the electoral law of 1977, updated in 1985, which is based on the d'Hondt system of proportional representation. A party must obtain a minimum of 3 percent of the vote in order to qualify for parliamentary representation. Each province is to have a minimum of two seats in the Congress of Deputies, plus one additional seat for every 144,500 inhabitants or fraction over 70,000 inhabitants. Each province is allotted four seats in the Senate, regardless of population.
This system tends to overrepresent the more traditional, rural, and thinly populated parts of Spain and to favor the larger parties, which also benefit from the system of postelectoral subsidies. Under this arrangement, the state allocates funds to the party of each elected candidate. Parties are also given smaller sums for each vote received by their candidates, provided that at least one candidate is elected. One of the effects of this system is that parties able to demonstrate probable electoral success are able to obtain loans to finance their campaigns based on their expected subsidies.
The electoral law guarantees universal, free, and direct suffrage and stipulates that voting shall be by secret ballot. It permits postal balloting for those away from their areas of registration. Voting is done by party list. Only the names of an individual party and its leader appear on ballots, with the exception of those of the Senate, for which a multiparty list is used, and voters choose any three candidates. Elections are held every four years, although an early dissolution of the Cortes will mean early elections for this body. Elections in the autonomous communities--except those in the "historic regions" of Galicia, Catalonia (Spanish, Cataluna; Catalan, Catalunya), the Basque Country (Spanish, Pais Vasco; Basque, Euskadi), and Andalusia (Spanish, Andalucia), which received their autonomy earlier than the other thirteen communities--are held simultaneously.
The Cortes is the most powerful governmental institution of the state. It is made up of a lower house, the Congress of Deputies, and an upper chamber, the Senate. The Congress of Deputies, the stronger of the two bodies, may consist of between 300 and 400 members--although electoral laws have set the norm at 350 deputies--elected by proportional representation every four years, unless parliament is dissolved earlier by the head of state. The Senate is composed of 208 directly elected members and 49 regional representatives, also chosen every four years.
The preponderance of legislative authority lies with the Congress of Deputies. Either house may initiate legislation, but the lower house can override a Senate veto by a vote of a simple majority of its members. Thus, if a political party has a solid majority in the Congress of Deputies, a Senate veto has little effect. The predominance of the lower house is also evidenced by the fact that the president of the Congress presides when the two chambers are meeting jointly.
The Congress of Deputies also has the power to ratify or to reject decree laws adopted by the government, and its authorization is required for a declaration of a state of exception and for the extension of a state of alarm. It is also the body that is responsible, if necessary, for accusing the prime minister or his ministers of treason or of crimes against the state. The prime minister must receive a vote of investiture from the Congress of Deputies before being formally sworn into office by the king. A prime minister may request a vote of confidence from the Congress of Deputies at any time. If he fails to achieve this, both houses of parliament are dissolved, and new elections are called. Furthermore, the Congress of Deputies has potentially significant power over the executive because it may vote the prime minister out of office by adopting a motion of censure by absolute majority.
The primary function of the Senate is territorial representation. Its only exclusive power concerns the autonomous communities. If a community fails to fulfill its legal and its constitutional obligations, or acts contrary to the general interests of Spain, the government, with the approval of an overall majority of the Senate, may adopt measures to enforce the community's compliance with its obligations.
Although each chamber of the Cortes carries out certain duties separately, many important functions are exercised by both houses, in which case they meet as the General Cortes (Cortes Generales). In this capacity, they elaborate laws proposed by the government, by the Congress of Deputies, by the Senate, by any autonomous community, or through popular initiative. They also approve, and they may amend, state budgets proposed by the executive. They furthermore may direct interpellations and questions to the government and to individual ministers.
Each chamber of the Cortes meets in separate premises in Madrid, and each holds two regular annual sessions--from September to December and from February to June. They may meet in extraordinary session to attend to a specific matter at the request of the government, or at the request of the absolute majority of the members of either chamber.
All Spaniards "having full use of their political rights" may be candidates for election to the Cortes, except for the following: members of the Constitutional Court, high-ranking civil servants, practicing judges and public prosecutors, the ombudsman, professional military personnel, members of the police and security forces who are in active service, and members of electoral commissions. Members of the Cortes may not be members of both chambers at the same time, nor may members of the Congress of Deputies have a seat in both the Congress and a regional assembly. Senators are not barred from occupying a seat in a regional assembly. Members of the Cortes are required to disclose their income and their assets following election. They are expected to attend plenary sessions of the chamber and of the committees on which they serve. Senators who consistently fail to attend such meetings are liable to incur a financial penalty.
Along with these obligations, parliamentarians enjoy certain rights and privileges. They may not be prosecuted for verbal opinions expressed in the exercise of their duties. While in office, they may be arrested only if caught in the actual act of committing a crime. Even in this case, they cannot be charged or prosecuted without prior consent of the Cortes. They are guaranteed a fixed salary and social security payments, along with allowances for extra expenses incurred in the line of duty. Members of the Cortes exercise their functions independently, and they are not obliged to follow the dictates of their parties' leaderships in casting their votes.
By defining the state as a parliamentary monarchy, the Constitution makes it clear that the king is not sovereign and that sovereignty resides with the people as expressed in their democratically elected parliament. The king is a hereditary and constitutional monarch, who serves as head of state.
The decision to retain the monarchy, which had been restored under the Franco regime, represents a historically significant compromise. As the Constitution was being formulated, parties of the left were strongly opposed to a monarchy, which they saw as a Francoist legacy; they favored establishing a republican form of government. At the same time, reactionary elements wanted to preserve the monarchy in order to use it as a means to perpetuate Francoism. In between these two extremes were the reformers, who thought that the monarchy could serve as an element of stabilization during the transition to democracy.
A compromise eventually was reached whereby the left-wing parties accepted the institution of a parliamentary monarchy as reflecting the will of the majority. Constitutional provisions dealing with the king's role were worded in such a way as to make clear the neutral and apolitical nature of his duties. The success of this arrangement has been largely attributable to King Juan Carlos de Borbon's willingness to relinquish the powers that Franco had conferred upon him and to rule as a constitutional monarch within a democratic system of government.
The crown is hereditary, and the king's eldest son is first in the line of succession. (In the case of Juan Carlos, there is only one son, Prince Felipe, and there are two daughters.) Whereas Franco's fundamental laws forbade a female monarch, the 1978 Constitution allows a female to inherit the throne, but only if there are no males of the same generation. If all hereditary lines entitled to the crown by law become extinct, the succession to the throne is to be determined by the General Cortes.
The king sanctions and promulgates laws that have been worked out by the other branches of government. He formally convenes and dissolves the Cortes and calls for elections and for referenda. He appoints the prime minister after consultation with the Cortes and names the other ministers, upon the recommendation of the prime minister. He also signs decrees made in the Council of Ministers and ratifies civil and military appointments.
Although the king does not have the power to direct foreign affairs, he has a vital role as the chief representative of Spain in international relations. The potential significance of this role has been demonstrated during the reign of Juan Carlos, whose many trips abroad and contacts with foreign leaders have enabled the Spanish government to establish important political and commercial ties with other nations. The king also has the duty to indicate the state's consent to international treaties and, with the prior authorization of the Cortes, to declare war and peace.
The Constitution confers upon the king the title of supreme commander of the armed forces, although he has no actual authority over them. Nevertheless, Juan Carlos has maintained close relations with the military, and he has used his considerable influence with them to counteract potential threats to the stability of the democratic regime.
The influence of the king depends largely upon the individual who holds the title, because he is granted no independent executive powers by the Constitution. Every one of his acts must be countersigned by the prime minister or by one of his ministers. In spite of these restrictions, the monarchy under Juan Carlos has achieved a significant degree of moral authority, largely because of his courageous and steadfast adherence to democratic procedures.
If the king has the symbolic role of representing the state, the prime minister has the more powerful role of chief of government. As the leader of the dominant political party in the Cortes, he bears the responsibility and the accountability for his own actions and for those of the government. He directs the preparation, promotion, and execution of the government's program and coordinates the functions of the various ministries. The prime minister nominates candidates for the king to appoint as his ministers. He also has the right to name candidates for civil service positions and to select the civil governors in each province as well as the government delegates to the autonomous communities. A reform law approved late in 1983 placed the armed forces under the control of the prime minister, although the king remained supreme commander.
The prime minister may ask for a vote of confidence from the Congress of Deputies with regard to his program or policies. He may propose the dissolution of the Congress of Deputies, the Senate, or the Cortes, unless a motion of censure is under consideration. The position of his government in the event of such a motion of censure is strengthened significantly by the requirement that such a motion must contain the name of a candidate to succeed the prime minister if the motion is approved. This provision makes it more difficult to overthrow the government, because minority parties may find it more difficult to agree upon a candidate than to concur in their opposition to the incumbent.
When the prime minister is appointed following elections, he must present his program to the Congress of Deputies and receive a vote of investiture by absolute majority before he can be sworn in by the king. If he cannot obtain a vote of confidence for investiture, a new vote is taken forty-eight hours later, requiring only a simple majority. If this procedure fails, the king is to propose other candidates until one gains a vote of confidence. Should no candidate succeed within two months of the first vote, the king dissolves the Cortes and calls for new elections.
The prime minister remains in office until such time as he and his government lose the support of the Congress of Deputies in a vote of confidence, or the Congress of Deputies approves a motion of censure. A prime minister also must resign if he and his party are defeated in the general elections, in which case he remains in office until the new prime minister has been sworn in. When a prime minister leaves office for whatever reason, even if it is his own choice, his cabinet must resign with him. They nonetheless retain their functions in a caretaker capacity until a new government has been installed.
A deputy prime minister assumes the functions of the head of government if the prime minister dies, or if he is ill or out of the country. The deputy also plays a coordinating role, working closely with the prime minister, senior ministers, and high- ranking party members. The deputy prime minister may assume other functions, at the discretion of the prime minister.
The prime minister, the deputy prime minister, and the other ministers together comprise the Council of Ministers, which functions as a cabinet, and which is the highest executive institution of the state. The Council of Ministers has both policy-making and administrative functions, and it is responsible for the implementation of government policy. In addition to overseeing the administration of the various ministries, it controls military affairs and is responsible for national security and defense. In the exercise of all of its functions, it is ultimately accountable to the Cortes.
Cabinet ministers are each charged with the responsibility of administering their individual departments. Although they may exercise a great deal of discretion and autonomy within their ministries, they are ultimately responsible to the prime minister. They present to the Council of Ministers draft laws that have been prepared within their departments, and they establish rules to implement government policy. They have the power to issue ministerial orders without the approval of the Council of Ministers and to sign state contracts in matters concerning their ministries. They also may resolve administrative conflicts within their departments. Ministers are responsible to the Council of Ministers as well as to the prime minister for their actions, and they can be called to explain their policies before one or both houses of the Cortes, or before one of the parliamentary committees.
The Constitution declares that government ministers may not hold any additional public posts not related to their governmental office, and it also prohibits them from engaging in professional or commercial activity. This provision is aimed at avoiding the corruption that prevailed in the Franco era, when senior government ministers frequently occupied important positions in the business community and sometimes held more than one post within the public administration.
Various advisory bodies serve the administration. The most important of these is the Council of State, which the Constitution refers to as the highest consultative organ of the government. It has no executive functions or powers and performs in a purely advisory capacity. The Council of Ministers appoints its president, who is usually an experienced jurist. The other members--approximately twenty-three in number--are eminent representatives of the autonomous regions, the armed forces, civil service, and the legal and academic communities. Permanent members are appointed by government decree for an indefinite period, whereas members termed elected are those who are also appointed by decree but who are chosen from among citizens who have held various specific jobs; the elected members serve on the council for a period of four years.
The Constitution declares that justice emanates from the people and that it is administered in the name of the king by independent judges and magistrates, who are irremovable and who are responsible and subject only to the rule of law. The judicial system is headed by the Supreme Court, which is the country's highest tribunal except for constitutional questions. The supreme governing and administrative body is the General Council of the Judiciary. Its primary functions are to appoint judges and to maintain ethical standards within the legal profession. The 1978 Constitution provides that twelve of this council's twenty members are to be selected for five-year terms by judges, lawyers, and magistrates, with the remaining eight to be chosen by the Cortes. A judicial reform law that entered into force in July 1985 called for all twenty members to be chosen by the Cortes; ten by the Congress of Deputies and ten by the Senate. The General Council of the Judiciary elects the president of the Supreme Court, who also serves on this council. In addition, there are territorial courts, regional courts, provincial courts, courts of the first instance, and municipal courts.
Constitutional questions are to be resolved by a special Constitutional Court, outlined in the 1978 Constitution and in the Organic Law on the Constitutional Court that was signed into law in October 1979. This court consists of twelve judges who serve for nine-year terms. Four of these are nominated by the Congress of Deputies, four by the Senate, two by the executive branch of the government, and two by the General Council of the Judiciary. They are chosen from among jurists of recognized standing with at least fifteen years' experience. Once appointed, they are prohibited by the Constitution from engaging in other forms of political, administrative, professional, or commercial activity. The Organic Law on the Constitutional Court contains provisions whereby the court can expel its own members, a circumstance which appears to contradict the constitutional declaration that magistrates are irremovable.
The Constitutional Court is authorized to rule on the constitutionality of laws, acts, or regulations set forth by the national or the regional parliaments. It also may rule on the constitutionality of international treaties before they are ratified, if requested to do so by the government, the Congress of Deputies, or the Senate. The Constitution further declares that individual citizens may appeal to the Constitutional Court for protection against governmental acts that violate their civil rights. Only individuals directly affected can make this appeal, called an amparo, and they can do this only after exhausting other judicial appeals.
In addition, this court has the power to preview the constitutionality of texts delineating statutes of autonomy and to settle conflicts of jurisdiction between the central and the autonomous community governments, or between the governments of two or more autonomous communities. Because many of the constitutional provisions pertaining to autonomy questions are ambiguous and sometimes contradictory, this court could play a critical role in Spain's political and social development.
The Constitution prohibits special courts and limits the jurisdiction of military courts to members of the armed services, except during a state of siege. It provides for a public prosecutor as well as for a public defender, to protect both the rule of law and the rights of citizens. A significant innovation is the provision allowing for trial by jury in criminal cases.
A major problem that continued to plague the legal system in the 1980s was a severe shortage of funds, which made it impossible to keep up with an increasingly heavy case load. This resulted in inordinate delays, which led to corrupt practices such as the bribing of court administrators by lawyers attempting to expedite their clients' cases.
The framers of the 1978 Constitution had to deal with many controversial issues arising from the advent of democracy to a nation that had been under dictatorial control for decades. Among these, the most divisive was the historically sensitive question of regional autonomy. The Spanish state is unusual in the extent and the depth of its regional differences, and the society includes ethnic groups--notably the Basques, Catalans, and Galicians--that are each culturally and linguistically distinct from the rest of the country. The strength of regional feeling is such that, in many areas, Spaniards identify more closely with their region than they do with the nation.
Long-standing tensions between the center and the periphery were repressed, but not extinguished, by Franco's rigid centralism. After his death, there was considerable popular and official support for some degree of decentralization; a key feature of the democratic reforms was the devolution of increased power and responsibility to the regions. This applied not only to those regions that historically had enjoyed a degree of autonomy- -Galicia, the Basque region, and Catalonia--but to the rest of Spain as well.
This transformation from a unitary state into a more decentralized structure was not accomplished without bitter conflict. Reactionary elements objected to any reference to regional autonomy in the Constitution as a threat to national unity, while, at the other extreme, militant Basques demanded the right of self-determination for the regions. After prolonged and acrimonious debate, a compromise was agreed upon by all the major parties except the Basque nationalists. Discontent in this region has been a major disruptive element in the post-Franco years.
The Constitution proclaims the indissoluble unity of the nation, but it recognizes and guarantees the right to autonomy of the nationalities and the regions of which the state is composed. Adjoining provinces with common historical, cultural, and economic characteristics, as well as the Balearic Islands (Spanish, Islas Baleares) and the Canary Islands (Spanish, Canarias), are granted the right to form autonomous communities. These communities are, however, expressly prohibited from forming federations. Castilian Spanish is declared to be the official language of Spain, but other languages are recognized as co- official in their respective autonomous communities. In addition, flags and emblems of these communities may be displayed alongside the Spanish flag on their public buildings and on public occasions.
The Constitution provides two procedures for achieving regional autonomy. The rapid procedure was for those regions that had sought autonomy in the 1930s. After approval by the Constitutional Committee of the Congress of Deputies, the proposal for autonomy was voted on in a regional referendum. The "historic nationalities" of Galicia, the Basque Country, and Catalonia acquired regional autonomy in this way. The slow procedure required initiative on the part of municipal and provincial governments as well as final approval by the Cortes, for a degree of regional autonomy less than that enjoyed by the "historic nationalities." A compromise procedure was devised for Andalusia because, although it had not sought regional autonomy earlier, there was widespread support for such autonomy among its inhabitants. Although the communities employing the rapid procedure gained a greater degree of autonomy than the other communities for the time being, ultimately--although probably not until sometimes in the 1990s--all were to have an equal degree of autonomy.
Following the attempted coup of February 1981, those who had urged a more cautious approach to regional autonomy prevailed, and the process was brought under stricter control by the controversial Organic Law on the Harmonization of the Autonomy Process (Ley Organica de Armonizacion del Proceso Autonomico-- LOAPA), approved in July 1981. Among the law's stipulations was that--with the exception of Andalusia, which was already nearing autonomous status--the remaining regions would have to proceed according to the more protracted and complicated method.
The regional reorganization of Spain into autonomous communities was completed in May 1983, when elections were held in the thirteen new autonomous communities, although the actual process of transferring powers was far from complete. The state consists of seventeen autonomous communities, each of which includes one or more previously existing provinces. These communities vary widely in size, in population, and in economic development; moreover, the political weight of an autonomous community is not necessarily related to its land area or population.
Each regional entity is governed by its own statute of autonomy. It has its own capital and a political structure based on a unicameral Legislative Assembly, elected by universal suffrage. This assembly chooses from among its members a president who is the highest representative of the community. Executive and administrative powers are exercised by the Council of Government, headed by the president and responsible to the assembly. There are also regional supreme courts, which are somewhat less autonomous than the legislative and the executive organs because they are subject to the ultimate authority of the Supreme Court in Madrid.
The division of powers between the autonomous regions and the central government is outlined in Article 148 and Article 149 of the Constitution. The language used to differentiate between the authority of the central government and that of the regions is, however, imprecise and ambiguous, resulting in varying, and sometimes contradictory, interpretations. Further confusion arises from the constitutional provision enabling the autonomous communities to extend their powers gradually, although it does not indicate specifically what these new powers are to be.
The areas enumerated as belonging under the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government include international affairs; defense; justice; criminal, commercial, and labor legislation; merchant shipping; civil aviation; foreign trade and tariffs; economic planning; finances; and public safety. Whereas the central government clearly is granted exclusive jurisdiction in these and in other matters, the provision that sets forth the rights of the autonomous communities is stated in less precise language. It declares that these communities may assume authority--a more equivocal mandate--over certain areas. These include the organization of their own institutions of self- government, municipal boundaries, town planning, housing, public works, forestry, environmental protection, cultural affairs and organizations, <"69.htm">tourism, sports and leisure events, social welfare, health and hygiene, and noncommercial ports and airports. In addition, the state may delegate to the communities part of its authority in areas reserved to its jurisdiction. Therefore, although the regions have very limited primary authority, the Constitution permits the extension of this authority by subsequent delegation.
The Constitution recognizes the right of the autonomous communities to have financial autonomy "for the development and enforcement of their authority." These communities receive revenue directly and indirectly from central government sources as well as from their own local taxes and special levies. They also may borrow money. The Constitution declares that the financial autonomy of the communities must be exercised in coordination with the policies of the central government, which is ultimately responsible for taxation and for guaranteeing equal opportunities for all citizens.
The mechanism for this arrangement was established by the 1980 Organic Law on the Financing of the Autonomous Communities, which provides for a Council for Fiscal and Financial Policy, to be composed of the finance ministers from the autonomous communities, the state finance minister, and the minister for public administration. This council is to function in a consultative capacity in order to coordinate policies concerning public investment and debt, cost of services, and the distribution of resources to the regions.
The state's ultimate responsibility for financial matters enables it to exercise a significant degree of control over the activities of the autonomous communities. A further element of control is the presence in each region of a central government delegate, appointed by the Council of Ministers at the recommendation of the prime minister, who monitors the activities of the regional government. Moreover, the state may challenge any measures adopted by the autonomous communities.
The Constitutional Court makes the final decision in any question pertaining to the constitutionality of regional legislation. In 1983 this court made a ruling that had the effect of increasing the powers of the autonomous communities. It invalidated portions of the controversial LOAPA and declared that this law did not harmonize the autonomy process. Significant provisions that were struck down included those stipulating that the state's legal norms should have automatic precedence over those of the autonomous regions and that regional civil servants should be seconded from Madrid rather than recruited locally.
The Constitution permits the government to intervene if an autonomous community fails to carry out its constitutional obligations or acts against the general interests of the nation. In such a case, the state is to ask the president of the autonomous community to correct the matter; if he or she fails to do so, the government, with majority approval from the Senate, may adopt measures necessary to enforce the community's compliance. As of mid-1988, this provision had never been invoked, and it remained unclear what such measures might entail.
In spite of these limitations on the jurisdiction of the communities, regions have enjoyed an unprecedented degree of autonomy since the death of Franco. Because rigid centralism was so closely identified with Francoism, Spaniards have come to associate democracy with greater regional independence. Although difficulties in the devolution process remain to be resolved, the development of such an extensive system of regional autonomy, by what had been one of the world's most centralized nations, is an indication of its peoples' commitment to democracy.
Institutions of local government have undergone marked transformations since the Franco era, when they functioned primarily as instruments of the central government. The overhauling of administration at the local level had to wait, however, until a degree of political reform had been achieved at the national level. The first fully democratic local elections following Franco's demise were held in 1979, and limited reforms were introduced at the local level in 1981, but it was not until 1985 that the fundamental reorganization and democratization of local administration was completed with the passage of the Basic Law on Local Government (Ley Reguladora de las Bases de Regimen Local--LRBRL).
This law outlines the basic institutions at the municipal and the provincial levels, establishes guidelines for the sharing of responsibilities among the different tiers of administration, and lists the services that local authorities are to provide. The responsibilities of municipalities vary in proportion to the size of their populations. Municipal governments share responsibility with the regional government in matters of health and education. Both the central and the regional governments may delegate additional powers to municipalities. Because of the degree of authority that has been devolved to the autonomous communities from the central government, local institutions are politically dependent on these communities; however, they remain to a large extent financially dependent on Madrid.
Government at the municipal level is administered by a Municipal Council, the members of which are directly elected by universal suffrage and according to proportional representation. The number of council members is determined by the population of the municipality; a minimum of five is required by law. There is no limit to the number of times councillors may be re-elected. If they die, resign, or are dismissed, they are replaced by the next person on the electoral list of their political party; therefore, there are no by-elections.
The council is elected every four years, and it cannot be dissolved. The law requires it to meet in full session at least every three months; extraordinary sessions can be called by either the mayor or one-fourth of the council membership. The council does not formulate major laws, but drafts regulations related to legislation from the Cortes or the regional parliament. It oversees the budget, and it may raise taxes to supplement grants from the central and the regional governments.
Each Municipal Council is headed by a mayor, who is elected following local elections, from among the council members, and who, in most instances, serves as the leader of the majority party in the council. In addition to being chairman of the council, directing municipal administration, heading the municipal police force, and exercising extensive powers of appointment, the mayor plays a major public relations role and enjoys a great deal of prestige.
Municipalities of more than 5,000 inhabitants have a Municipal Commission to assist the mayor in the exercise of his duties. Municipal administration in such towns is divided into departments and districts, the leaders of which are ultimately responsible to the mayor.
Government at the provincial level has retained an element of its Francoist function as an outpost of the state. The Constitution defines the provinces as territorial divisions "designed to carry out the activities of the central government." The civil governor, who is the highest executive of the state administration at the provincial level, is appointed by the prime minister on the recommendation of the minister of interior. Thus, the governors are usually political appointees, as was the case during the Franco regime, although they have less power than they did formerly. They continue to be responsible for the state police and the security forces that operate at the provincial level. In addition to ensuring the implementation of state policies in the provinces, they function as a liaison between local authorities and the central government.
Provincial government is administered by a Provincial Council, which consists of deputies elected by the municipal councillors from among themselves. They remain on the Provincial Council for four years and may be re-elected for as many terms as they remain municipal councillors. As is the case with the municipal councils, the Provincial Council does not have the power to draft major laws, but it may establish regulations based on legislation from the Cortes or the regional parliament.
Each Provincial Council is headed by a president, who is elected by all the members of the full council. Although the civil governor is the highest representative of the central government in the province, the president of the Provincial Council has the responsibility for the government and administration of the province. The office of president of the Provincial Council was established during the Franco years, but it was largely overshadowed by that of the civil governor. Since the advent of democracy to Spain, the council president has acquired more prestige, and the role of the governor has been reduced.
Provincial government is administered differently in the Basque provinces, the single-province autonomous communities, the Balearic Islands, and the Canary Islands. The Basque provinces have more extensive privileges because of their status as "historic territories," which makes their provincial councils more powerful than those of other provinces. The autonomous communities that are made up of a single province assume all provincial powers and responsibilities, thereby obviating the need for provincial institutions. Because of the geographical separation that exists within the island chains, government and administration have been entrusted to island councils, which enjoy greater powers than their provincial counterparts. The small North African enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla have a special status: they are organized as municipalities of the provinces of Cadiz and Malaga, respectively. In both towns, civil authority is vested in an official, called the delegado del gobierno, who is directly responsible to the Ministry of Interior in Madrid. In 1986 the enclaves received municipal autonomy under the provisions of Spain's devolution of authority to regions, but, unlike Spain's other regional assemblies, they were not granted legislative powers. In March 1986, a large crowd of demonstrators in Ceuta protested this denial of full autonomy.
Part of the Francoist legacy to Spain was a highly inefficient and cumbersome civil service apparatus. Attempts to reform and to streamline the system of public administration have been hampered by the bureaucracy's traditional resistance to change.
Under Franco, the civil service system was dominated by cuerpos, professional associations of engineers, lawyers, economists, etc., within the civil service, which also performed functions similar to those of trade unions and fraternal organizations. Admission to a cuerpo was on the basis of a competitive examination that was judged by the current members. The cuerpo served as a channel for civil servants to make their demands to the appropriate minister. In addition, the cuerpos were able to exercise considerable influence over hiring and firing of persons for key administrative positions, thereby enabling them to protect their own economic interests. Loyalty to the cuerpo came to take precedence over administrative interests, and rivalry among these bodies added to the inefficiency of the system by hampering coordination among departments.
This bloated bureaucracy extended to the provincial level, where it became increasingly difficult to control. As civil servants increased in number, administrative efficiency declined and corruption flourished. Because of the low salaries traditionally paid to civil servants, the practice of holding more than one job was common. This in turn resulted in fewer hours devoted to administrative functions and a further reduction in efficiency.
In spite of intermittent efforts to reorganize this unwieldy structure, the civil service did not undergo significant change in the immediate post-Franco years. The cuerpos retained their influence, and the bureaucracy proliferated. In 1981 the number of civil servants had reached 1.2 million. Moreover, multiple job-holding had not been eliminated, despite constitutional restrictions against this practice.
When the PSOE came to power in 1982, its leaders took steps to reduce the number of civil servants and to require that they put in a full workday. The government introduced more stringent legislation against multiple job-holding, and it also endeavored to reduce ministerial rivalry. A departmental reorganization was carried out in July 1986, at which time the coordination and the overall control of the civil service became the responsibility of the Ministry of Public Administration.
Nevertheless, the bureaucratic behemoth had not suffered a mortal blow, and most of the abuses were not effectively eliminated. An indication of the resistance to change that prevailed in the civil service was the continued existence of very slow service and therefore of gestorias administrativas, i.e., private firms, the employees of which filled out forms and stood in line for customers, who considered the time saved well worth the price charged. Meaningful reform of the civil service remained on the government's wish list in the late 1980s.
The politicians who had played key roles in Spain's transition to democracy found that consolidating and administering this democracy was more difficult and less exhilarating than bringing it into being. Suarez, who had been pivotal in the reform process, found his leadership undermined by internal factionalism within his party coalition, the Union of the Democratic Center (Union de Centro Democratico--UCD), as well as by his ineffectiveness in dealing with the country's growing economic difficulties and regional tensions.
The Socialists had not been part of the government during the transition process, although they participated through pacts and agreements, and thus they did not share responsibility for the inevitable mistakes made in the early period. When they came to power in 1982, however, they too were faced with the age-old problem of center-periphery tension. In dealing with the regional issue as well as with the economic crisis, the Socialists found it necessary to moderate their ideological principles. Although compromise was essential, it resulted in the contradiction of earlier pronouncements and in the alienation of some elements of the political elites. Nevertheless, such pragmatism and moderation remained crucial to consolidating the rule of democracy in Spain.
<"82.htm">Political Developments, 1982-88
<"83.htm">Political Parties
<"84.htm">Political Interest Groups
Following its triumph at the polls in October 1982, the PSOE, under the leadership of Felipe Gonzalez, formed the first majority one-party government since the Civil War. The increase in voter participation, which rose from less than 68 percent in 1979 to 80 percent in 1982, seemed a significant indication of citizen affirmation of the democratic process. Municipal and regional elections, held in May 1983, confirmed the popularity of the Socialist government, which obtained 43 percent of the vote.
A significant factor in the Socialist victory in 1982 was the popular perception that profound economic and social reforms were long overdue. Previous governments had not been able to deal effectively with these issues, in part because of the need to focus on political and constitutional questions. Whereas most Spaniards had been willing to defer their hopes for economic improvement and for liberalized social policies in the interest of stabilizing the fledgling democracy, they became increasingly impatient for the reform process to reach their daily lives.
The economic reform policies implemented under the government of the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party (Partido Socialista Obrero Espanol--PSOE) government were pragmatic rather than ideological. Although stressing the need for reform, the government did not call for traditional socialist measures, such as the nationalization of industry, a significant redistribution of income, or massive state intervention in the economy. Instead, it pursued a program of economic austerity in order to lower inflation and raise productivity.
As part of an attempt to achieve greater efficiency in the industrial sector as well as in the civil service, the government eliminated many jobs. This had the short-term effect of adding to the nation's unemployment problem, and it met with strong opposition from the trade unions, although it gained support for the PSOE from the commercial and the financial sectors. The government's economic policies resulted in a moderate reduction in inflation and an increase in the rate of economic growth, but unemployment worsened, and strike activity increased 30 percent in 1984. In June 1985, there were massive protests against the proposed reforms in the social security system and the reductions in pension benefits. Nevertheless, the idea of streamlining the economy was viewed by most Spaniards as a positive step toward economic recovery, in spite of the fact that its costs were borne largely by the working class.
Although the Socialists' moderate approach to economic issues entailed a relatively slow rate of change, significant progress was achieved in other important areas, most notably that of military reorganization. In October 1983, Minister of Defense Narcis Serra i Serra announced plans for large-scale reductions in the size of the military, which was to be reoriented, toward national defense rather than internal security. Legislation passed in early 1984 placed the armed forces under the direct control of the prime minister and the civilian minister of defense. Increased subordination of the military to the civilian government was made more palatable to the military hierarchy by a major increase in military spending to modernize the army's equipment and weaponry.
The Socialist government also brought about significant reforms in the educational system. Education and Science Minister Jose Maria Maravall Herrero introduced legislation, passed in the spring of 1984, providing for increased state control over private schools that received government subsidies. The law also gave parents a greater role in the appointment of teachers and in establishing the curricula at these schools. This had a major impact on society, because in the late 1980s approximately one-third of students attended such schools, which usually had a religious affiliation. The Roman Catholic Church joined forces with the right-wing Popular Alliance (Alianza Popular--AP) to mobilize a large antigovernment rally, protesting the new educational policies, in November 1984.
A difficult problem facing the Socialist government was the continuing menace of Basque terrorism. Although democratization had brought an unprecedented degree of autonomy to the country's communities, there was increasing frustration in the Basque and the Catalan regions with the protracted process of transferring powers to the regional governments. The PSOE's concurrence with the implementation of the controversial LOAPA, passed by the UCD government in 1981, led the Basques and the Catalans to consider the Socialists as proponents of centralization. Terrorist activity by the militant Basque Fatherland and Freedom (Euskadi Ta Askatasuna--ETA), the Basque separatist organization founded in 1959 by a splinter group of the Basque Nationalist Party (Partido Nacionalista Vasco--PNV), continued unabated in Spain in the year following the election that brought the PSOE to power. This increased violence, in itself a destabilizing factor, also threatened Spain's hold on democracy by tempting right-wing forces to contemplate a coup in order to restore order.
In an effort to control terrorist activity and to calm the military, the Socialist government introduced strong antiterrorist legislation, which received widespread popular support. Nevertheless, the violence continued. Moreover, the central government received a setback in its antiterrorist campaign in 1984, when the Supreme Court overruled a decision by the Ministry of Interior to ban the political party Popular Unity (Herri Batasuna--HB), with which the ETA Military Front (ETA Militar--ETA-M) was associated, from representation in either the regional or the national parliament.
Prospects for a lessening of tension between the Basque Country and the Socialist government appeared to brighten when a legislative pact was signed in January 1985 between the president of the Basque Country and the Basque affiliate of the PSOE. This agreement included provisions to expedite the transfer of powers to the autonomous institutions and called for a joint offensive against terrorism. In spite of vigorous antiterrorist measures taken by the central government, however, bombings and assassinations continued.
While dealing with such demanding domestic concerns as terrorism and the need for economic and social reform, the Socialist government was also taking steps to develop a more active international role for Spain. The country had experienced ostracism under Franco because of the highly undemocratic nature of his regime. After taking office in 1982, the Socialists made vigorous efforts to gain entry into the European Community (EC). The government hoped that membership in the EC would bring not only economic advantages but also international recognition of the country's successful transition to democracy.
The question of Spain's entry into the EC met with repeated delays in 1983 and in 1984, largely because of the opposition of France. After protracted negotiations, a Treaty of Accession was signed in the summer of 1985, and Spain formally joined the EC on January 1, 1986.
Although the PSOE government had pursued the goal of EC membership with single-minded zeal, it was ambivalent with regard to participation in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The Socialists had long advocated neutralism as part of their ideology; moreover, latent anti-Americanism was widespread in the population.
The Socialists had opposed Spain's decision to join NATO in May 1982, and part of their election platform in October of that year was the promise of a referendum on the question of remaining in the alliance. After coming to power, they soon changed their minds and concluded that some form of membership in NATO was in Spain's interest. This left Gonzalez with the ticklish task of campaigning for a favorable vote on an issue he had previously attacked.
In order to gain approval for his new pro-NATO position, Gonzalez attached conditions to membership. Spain would be part of NATO in a political sense but without military integration; furthermore, nuclear weapons were to be banned in Spain. In an effort to appease the left wing of his party, the prime minister promised that the number of United States troops in Spain, whose presence reminded many Spaniards of previous United States ties with the Franco regime, would be reduced. The promised referendum was held on March 12, 1986, and in spite of public opinion polls indicating strong anti-NATO sentiment, the people voted to continue membership in the alliance.
Gonzalez moved to consolidate the gains his government had made through EC membership and the successful NATO referendum by calling for national parliamentary elections in June 1986, four months ahead of schedule. The PSOE benefited from the fragmentation of both its right-wing opposition and the communists, and it retained an absolute majority in the general elections, winning 184 of the 350 seats in the Congress of Deputies--18 fewer than it had obtained in the 1982 elections, but still enough to retain control.
The official opposition was embodied in the conservative Popular Coalition (Coalicion Popular--CP), which included Manuel Fraga Iribarne's AP, the Popular Democratic Party (Partido Democrata Popular--PDP), and the Liberal Party (Partido Liberal-- PL). The CP failed in its attempt to attract the moderate vote by moving to the center. Fraga's abrasive personality and Francoist past contributed to the defeat of the coalition, which began to disintegrate soon after the election. Several leftist groups and communist splinter parties formed an electoral coalition, the United Left (Izquierda Unida--IU), to participate in the election, which obtained slightly better results than the left did in 1982.
The surprise feature of the 1986 elections was the resurgence of the center vote, indicated by the tripling of the ballots cast for the Democratic and Social Center (Centro Democratico y Social--CDS). Its leader, Suarez, continued to be a popular figure on the Spanish political scene. Given the disarray at both ends of the political spectrum, the CDS had a chance to develop into the major opposition party.
In spite of the PSOE's electoral victory in June 1986, dissatisfaction with the policies and the actions of the Socialist government had been mounting, and it increased even more as the year drew to a close. The early months of 1987 saw the strongest outbreak of social unrest in Spain since the 1930s. Demonstrations by university and secondary school students were followed by increasingly violent labor strikes. Doctors and teachers joined railroad workers and farm laborers in protesting the low wages and the high unemployment that had come in the wake of the government's economic austerity policies. Contributing to the growing unrest was an escalation in Basque terrorism and popular revulsion over a bomb that caused the deaths of many innocent civilians. Polls indicated a decline in confidence in Gonzalez, whose immense popularity had heretofore been unaffected by such vicissitudes.
Elections held in June 1987 at the municipal and the regional levels, as well as those for the European Parliament, confirmed the declining support for the Socialist government. Although the PSOE remained the largest single party, it obtained only 37 percent of the municipal vote, down from 43 percent in 1983. The June elections resulted in a further erosion of the AP, which was under the new leadership of Antonio Hernandez Mancha. The CDS emerged, strengthened, as the fulcrum of the center, although it was not yet in a position to present a challenge to Socialist dominance.
Dissatisfaction with the PSOE government was also evidenced within the Socialist party itself. In October 1987, Nicolas Redondo, leader of the Socialist-controlled General Union of Workers (Union General de Trabajadores--UGT), resigned his seat in parliament in protest against the government's 1988 budget. He criticized the government for favoring employers' interests over those of the working class.
Most businessmen approved of the market-oriented economic policies of Gonzalez, which had succeeded in reducing the annual inflation rate, from 15 percent in 1982 to below 5 percent in 1987, and in raising annual economic growth rate to 4.5 percent. The price paid for these accomplishments, however, was an unemployment rate of 21 percent, the highest in Europe, and an increasingly alienated labor force. The UGT joined with its communist counterpart, the Workers' Commissions (Comisiones Obreras--CCOO), in staging joint protests in October and in November 1987 and a general strike in December 1988.
At the Socialist party congress held in January 1988, Redondo and other left-wing socialists accused Gonzalez of betraying the workers and of forsaking the socialist cause. They urged a relaxation of anti-inflation measures in order to allow for an increase in wages and in pensions. They also called for greater investment in public works and for a concerted effort to deal with the unemployment problem.
In contrast to the growing dissatisfaction with the government's economic policies, there was widespread approval when Gonzalez decided to demand a reduction of the United States military presence in Spain, in keeping with the pledge he had made at the time of the NATO referendum. In December 1987, the government notified the United States that it would have to remove its seventy-two F-16 fighter bombers from Spain by mid- 1991. The two countries reached agreement in principle in January 1988 on a new, more limited base agreement to last eight years.
Spanish popular opinion also responded favorably to indications that there might be hope for an end to the terrorist violence that had claimed more than 750 lives in a 20-year period. In November 1987, the major political parties signed an antiterrorist pact in which they pledged to work peacefully for the resolution of conflicts in the Basque Country, they condemned all forms of violence, and they called on the ETA to lay down its arms and to work through democratic channels. In February 1988, the government accepted an ETA proposal for a sixty-day truce and for the opening of formal peace negotiations. A major factor in bringing the ETA to hold talks was French cooperation, beginning in mid-1986, in hunting down the movement's leaders and in extraditing those who had sought asylum in France. The negotiators faced formidable obstacles, most notably the conflict between Basque demands for self-determination and constitutional provisions for the armed forces to uphold Spain's territorial integrity. Nevertheless, by mid-1988 prospects for an end to violence were brighter than they had been in many years.
After five and one-half years in office, the PSOE could take credit for significant accomplishments, in spite of rumblings on the left. Observers generally conceded that the austerity measures carried out by the government, while far removed from socialist concepts, were necessary in order to revive the economy, and they hoped that a healthier economy would ultimately resolve the unemployment problem. More in line with socialist policies were the government's measures to lessen the Roman Catholic Church's control of Spain's schools, to ease censorship laws, and to legalize divorce. The PSOE's foreign policy initiatives, gaining EC membership and reducing dependence on the United States, also received popular approval. The democratic process appeared to have taken root.
Prior to the arrival of participatory democracy in Spain in the late 1970s, Spanish citizens had scant experience with political involvement. Suffrage was extremely limited, electoral mechanisms were controlled and corrupt, and political parties were elitist. Under the Francoist regime, Spanish society was depoliticized; the only political formation officially sanctioned was the National Movement. Remnants of the socialist and the communist parties functioned underground, and they were subject to severely repressive measures.
After forty years without parliamentary elections, political parties were revived, and they proliferated in the months following Franco's death. Leftist parties that had been exiled or had functioned clandestinely, such as the communists and the Socialists, had existing organizations and ideological traditions to form the bases of renewed political activity. The center and the right, however, had no such structures in place, and they lacked experience in political involvement. The coalition party that was victorious in the first elections of the new democratic regime in June 1977, the center-right UCD, failed to develop a coherent political vision. Its brief period of success was due largely to the charisma of its leader, Suarez, and the party ultimately succumbed to its internal conflicts.
With the victory of the PSOE in 1982, Spain's political system moved from a moderate right-left division to a predominance of the center-left. Support for the PSOE had become less class-based and more widespread as Spain underwent economic transformation and as the party became less dogmatic. In general, the tendency of Spain's party politics has been toward the center, and support for extremist parties has declined markedly, which bodes well for the country's future stability.
The Spanish Socialist Workers' Party (Partido Socialista Obrero Espanol--PSOE) is the oldest political party in Spain. Founded by Pablo Iglesias in 1879 as a Marxist proletarian party, it evolved alongside the trade union UGT, which was the basis of its support. The goal of both organizations was to obtain a voice for the working class in the political arena. As the party began to win parliamentary seats in the 1920s and the early 1930s, its membership began to broaden to include intellectuals, writers, and teachers. The PSOE's first experience as a governing party was during the turbulent Second Republic, but its time of leadership was short-lived. The party experienced severe repression under Franco, and its leaders went into exile, primarily in France.
In the early years of the Franco dictatorship, the PSOE within Spain was almost obliterated. In succeeding years, the party's leadership in exile gradually lost touch with what was evolving inside the country. In the mid-1950s, socialist groups began to organize within Spain; and, in the 1960s a small group of activists, led by two young labor lawyers from Seville (Spanish Sevilla), Alfonso Guerra and Felipe Gonzalez, revived the PSOE and began to agitate for changes within the party.
The leaders in exile had fought in the Civil War, and they had strong feelings against compromising the ideological purity of their cause by collaborating with other forces opposing Franco. Conversely, the younger activists, with no personal memories of the Civil War, were willing to work with other antiFranco groups to the left as well as to the right of the PSOE. These young socialists, who had been strongly influenced by Social Democrats in the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany), also favored a more moderate ideology than the rigid Marxism of the old guard. By 1972 the struggle for power between these two groups had been won by the younger generation, and Gonzalez was elected secretary general of the PSOE at its Twelfth Congress in 1974.
During the transition to democracy, the PSOE essentially cooperated with the reform plans set forth by Suarez, as did the other major leftist groups. When the country's first free elections since the Civil War were held in June 1977, the PSOE became Spain's leading opposition party. While growing in popularity, however, the party was beset from within by profound ideological tensions. Although the Socialists had gained support by presenting an image of moderation to the electorate, this stance was vehemently attacked by the more radical members of the party, who criticized Gonzalez and his supporters for placing more emphasis on gaining votes than they did on advancing the interests of the workers.
This rift came to a head at the party's Twenty-Eighth Congress in May 1979. When Gonzalez failed in his effort to remove the term Marxist from the party's constitution, he resigned. Gonzalez was successful in his gamble that most PSOE members considered his leadership invaluable, and at an extraordinary congress held in September 1979, he was re-elected on his own terms. The party no longer defined itself as Marxist, and policies of moderation and pragmatism prevailed, thereby enabling the PSOE to appeal to a wider spectrum of society. This broader electoral base was a key factor in the Socialists' victory in 1982, when they increased their popular vote from 5.5 million in 1979 to 10 million.
Nevertheless, Gonzalez continued to emphasize economic modernization rather than traditional socialist policies, which resulted in increasingly vociferous opposition from his historical base of support, the labor unions. A poll taken at the end of 1987 revealed a steady, albeit not dramatic, decrease in popular support for the Socialists. Even so, in mid-1988 the PSOE, as governing party, had no serious rival.
The Communist Party of Spain (Partido Comunista de Espana-- PCE) had its beginnings in Spain during the revolutionary upsurge that followed World War I and the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. The Spanish communists did not become so strong a force as their counterparts in other European countries, however, largely because of the existence in Spain of strong socialist and anarchist movements that already occupied the left end of the political spectrum. PCE membership, never very large in the party's early years of activity, declined dramatically under the repression carried out by the dictatorship of Miguel Primo de Rivera in the 1920s. Communist influence on the left increased when the PCE ceased attacking the Socialists and other leftist organizations and shifted toward a popular front strategy in 1934.
During the Civil War, the leftist forces were again divided. The communists were intent on finishing the war against the fascist forces before beginning their social and political revolution, whereas other leftist organizations were not willing to postpone the restructuring of Spanish society. The communists were brutal in their suppression of competing leftist organizations, which led to the party's ostracism by the other anti-Franco forces in the post-Civil War period.
In the mid-1950s, the PCE began vigorous efforts to break out of its isolation and adapted policies designed to bring together a broad coalition of parties, under PCE leadership, to oppose the Franco dictatorship. Ironically, it was the Franco regime itself, by focusing its attacks on the PCE, that enabled the party to become a rallying point for dissident students and workers. The party built a political base around the trade union movement known as the CCOO, and by the end of the Franco era the PCE, under the leadership of Santiago Carrillo, was the most effective political organization in Spain.
The PCE failed to take the initiative as this authoritarian regime drew to a close, however, and expectations of a hegemonic role for the PCE on the Spanish left were not realized. Although PCE membership multiplied following the party's legalization in 1977, the PCE received only 9 percent of the popular vote in the elections held that year; dominance on the left went to the rival PSOE. After the PCE's share of the vote fell to 3.8 percent in the 1982 elections, internal tensions within the party reached crisis proportions, and Carrillo's leadership began to be questioned.
As had been the case for the PSOE, the PCE found that the burden of dogmatic Marxism reduced its appeal for the electorate. Carrillo had succeeded in eliminating the word "Leninism" from the PCE statutes at a party congress in 1978, over substantial opposition. He continued to be criticized by the pro-Soviet militants within the party, who urged him to take a more revolutionary approach. At the same time, a more Europeanoriented group, known as the renovators, agitated for modernization and for more internal debate within the party.
In addition to ideologically based dissension, there was also general dissatisfaction with Carrillo's increasingly inflexible leadership. His repeated purges of those members who opposed him further decimated and demoralized the party. Following the PCE's decisive defeat in the October 1982 elections, Carrillo resigned as secretary general of the party; he was replaced by Gerardo Iglesias.
In succeeding months, splinter groups broke away from the PCE, further depleting its support to form pro-Soviet or MarxistLeninist parties. Among these were the pro-Soviet Communist Party of the Peoples of Spain (Partido Comunista de los Pueblos de Espana--PCPE) and the Communist Party of Spain--Marxist-Leninist (Partido Comunista de Espana--Marxista-Leninista--PCEml). Within the PCE, Carrillo strongly opposed Iglesias's policies. He was particularly critical of the latter's proposal to form a coalition of all progressive forces that were to the left of the PSOE. This conflict led to Carrillo's expulsion from the central committee of the party, in April 1985. He subsequently organized and led the Committee for Communist Unity (Mesa para Unidad de los Comunistas--MUC), which in December 1986 formed a new proSoviet party named the Spanish Workers' Party-Communist Unity (Partido de los Trabajadores de Espana-Unidad Comunista--PTE-UC). By the end of 1987, there were indications of efforts on the part of the PCE, PCPE, and the PTE-UC to unify the three communist parties in time for the next general elections. The PCE and the PCPE, together with several other small leftist parties, formed an electoral coalition, the IU, to contest the national elections in 1986 as well as the regional and municipal elections in 1987.
The PCE convened its Twelfth Party Congress in February 1988 amid mounting agitation for a major revitalization of the party, which was plagued by financial problems and by a lack of unity. Although Iglesias had initiated the policy of a united left and had ended the decimating party purges, critics felt that stronger measures as well as more effective leadership were necessary to mobilize the left and to improve the PCE's showing at the polls. At the party congress, Julio Anguita was chosen to succeed Iglesias. Party members reaffirmed their commitment to workers' interests, and they adopted policies aimed at attracting environmentalists and pacifists to their ranks.
The Popular Alliance (Alianza Popular--AP) was a conservative right-wing party founded in 1976 by former Franco ministers under the leadership of Fraga, who had helped to prepare the way for reform during the Franco era and who had expected to play a key role in post-Franco governments. He underestimated the popular desire for change and distaste for Francoism, and he advocated an extremely gradual transition to democracy. Although Fraga had originally intended to convey a reformist image, his party was perceived by the electorate as both reactionary and authoritarian. Fraga's own outbursts of temper and the close ties of many of the AP candidates to the previous regime contributed to this perception. When elections were held in June 1977, the AP garnered only 8.3 percent of the vote.
In the months following the 1977 elections, dissension erupted within the AP over constitutional issues that arose as the draft document was being formulated. The more reactionary members voted against the draft constitution, and they advocated a shift to the right. Fraga, however, wanted to move the AP toward the political center in order to form a larger centerright party. Most of the disenchanted reactionaries left the AP, and Fraga and the remaining AP members joined other more moderately conservative party leaders to form the Democratic Coalition (Coalicion Democratica--CD). It was hoped that this new coalition would capture the support of those who had voted for the UCD in 1977, but who had become disenchanted with the Suarez government. When elections were held in March 1979, however, the CD received only 6.1 percent of the vote. Deeply disappointed, Fraga resigned as head of his party.
By the time of the AP's Third Party Congress in December 1979, party leaders were reassessing their involvement in the CD. Many felt that the creation of the coalition had merely confused the voters, and they sought to emphasize the AP's independent identity. Fraga resumed control of the party, and the political resolutions adopted by the party congress reaffirmed the conservative orientation of the AP.
In the early 1980s, Fraga succeeded in rallying the various components of the right around his leadership. He was aided in his efforts to revive the AP by the increasing disintegration of the UCD. In the general elections held in October 1982, the AP gained votes both from previous UCD supporters and from the far right, and it became the major opposition party, securing 25.4 percent of the popular vote. Whereas the AP's parliamentary representation had dropped to 9 seats in 1979, the party allied itself with the small right-wing PDP and won 106 seats in 1982. The increased strength of the AP was further evidenced in the municipal and regional elections held in May 1983, when the party drew 26 percent of the vote. A significant portion of the electorate appeared to support the AP's emphasis on law and order as well as its probusiness policies.
Subsequent political developments belied the party's aspirations to continue increasing its base of support. Prior to the June 1986 elections, the AP once again joined forces with the PDP, and along with the PL, formed the CP, in another attempt to expand its constituency to include the center of the political spectrum. The coalition called for stronger measures against terrorism, for more privatization, and for a reduction in spending and in taxes. The CP failed to increase its share of the vote in the 1986 elections, however, and it soon began to disintegrate.
When regional elections in late 1986 resulted in further losses for the coalition, Fraga resigned as AP president, although he retained his parliamentary seat. At the party congress in February 1987, Hernandez was chosen to head the AP, declaring that under his leadership the AP would become a "modern right-wing European party." But Hernandez lacked political experience at the national level, and the party continued to decline. When support for the AP plummeted in the municipal and regional elections held in June 1987, there was increased likelihood that it would be overtaken as major opposition party by Suarez's CDS.
The Democratic and Social Center (Centro Democratico y Social--CDS) was organized shortly before the October 1982 elections by Suarez, who had been the principal architect of the transition to a democratic system after the death of Franco. After he resigned as both prime minister of Spain and president of the UCD in January 1981, Suarez continued to struggle for control of the party machine. When he failed in his bid to regain party leadership in July 1982, he abandoned the party he had created and formed the CDS. The new centrist party fared poorly in the October general elections, gaining only two parliamentary seats.
By 1986 the party's fortunes had improved dramatically under the leadership of the former prime minister. In the June elections, the CDS more than tripled its share of the vote, which was 9.2 percent in 1986, compared with 2.9 percent in 1982, indicating that many who had previously voted for the UCD had transferred their support to the CDS. In the electoral campaign, Suarez had focused on his own experience as head of the government; he had criticized the PSOE for not fulfilling its 1982 election promises, had advocated a more independent foreign policy, and had called for economic measures that would improve the lot of the poor. This strategy enabled him to draw some votes from those who had become disillusioned with the PSOE.
In the municipal and the regional elections held in June 1987, the largest gains were made by the CDS. A poll taken at the end of 1987 revealed even stronger support for the party, and it gave Suarez a popularity rating equal to that of Gonzalez. Suarez's call for less dependence on the United States appealed to the latent anti-Americanism in the populace, and his advocacy of a greater role for the state in providing social services and in ensuring a more equitable distribution of income struck a responsive chord among the workers, who were growing increasingly impatient with Gonzalez's conservative economic policies. Nevertheless, it remained to be seen how far Suarez's populist rhetoric would take him in his quest to challenge the PSOE.
Smaller parties emerged during the 1970s and the 1980s, and they frequently became part of various coalitions. The PDP had been a component of the UCD, but it re-established its separate identity in 1982, joining with the AP for the October 1982 electoral campaign and forming part of the CP during the June 1986 elections. The PL, founded in 1977, also allied with the CP in 1986. The centrist Democratic Reformist Party (Partido Reformista Democratico--PRD), established in 1984, stressed decentralization and greater independence for local party leaders. A new radical right-wing party also emerged in 1984, the Spanish Integration Committees (Juntas Espanolas de Integracion). Founded by former Franco ministers, the party presented an updated version of the Falangism of the Franco regime. Another extreme right-wing party, the National Front (Frente Nacional-- FN), was formed in October 1986. On the left, the radical Progressive Federation (Federacion Progresista--FP) called for greater decentralization and for a neutralist foreign policy.
Special interest groups also established political organizations. The Spanish Green Party (Partido Verde Espanol-- PVE) convened its first party congress in February 1985. The group focused on wide-ranging environmentalist concerns, and it opposed NATO membership for Spain. There was also a Feminist Party (Partido Feminista--PF) that focused primarily on education.
Spain's system of political parties was complicated by the existence of regional parties that were active both at the regional level, and, when they had seats in the Cortes, at the national level. In most autonomous communities, politics was dominated by regional affiliates of one of the two national parties, the PSOE and the AP, with the PSOE controlling the greater number of regions. In some of the autonomous communities, however, these regional offshoots had to form coalitions with truly local parties if they wished to govern. Only the Basque Country and Catalonia had regional parties that were strong enough to set the political agenda; the most important were the PNV and the Catalan electoral coalition; Convergence and Union (Convergència i Unio--CiU). These two moderately right-wing parties routinely won seats in the Cortes, and the CiU did well enough in regional elections to govern Catalonia, if it chose, without the aid of coalition partners. It was also the only regional party that had a decisive role in politics on the national level. This foremost exponent of Catalan nationalism occasionally supplied important parliamentary support to the UCD in the late 1970s. By far the second most important party in Catalonia was the regional offshoot of the PSOE, the Socialists' Party of Catalonia (Partit dels Socialistes de Catalunya--PSC).
The Catalan party system in general was characterized by pragmatism and by moderation. By contrast, the Basque national parties were beset by polarization, fragmentation, and political violence. In 1986 a group of PNV dissidents, unhappy with both the party's economic conservatism and its willingness to cooperate with the PSOE's stern antiterrorist measures, split from the party to form the more radical organization named Basque Solidarity (Eusko Alkartasuna--EA). In addition, there were two more extreme Basque nationalist groups, the Basque Left (Euskadiko Ezkerra--EE) and the HB. The more radical of these was the HB, which included Marxist-Leninist revolutionary and ultranationalist groups and which was closely linked to the ETAM . The party emphasized social revolution and armed struggle for Basque independence. The EE party was believed to be tied to the less violent ETA Political-Military Front (ETA Politico-Militar-- ETA-PM). These nationalist parties almost invariably won seats in the Cortes.
The revitalized pluralism that accompanied liberalization in Spain after Franco gave rise to new forms of popular participation in the country's political process. At the same time, it redefined the existing political forces, such as the army and the Roman Catholic Church. Article 9 of the 1978 Constitution calls on public authorities to facilitate the participation of all citizens in the political, the economic, the cultural, and the social life of the country. After forty years of depoliticization, Spanish citizens began to play an increasingly active role in the nation's development, through involvement in the various interest groups that were established or reactivated along with the political parties.
The labor movement, which had been a major component of support for the Republican forces in the Civil War, was brutally suppressed after the Nationalists came to power. Vertical syndicates replaced trade unions, and strikes were outlawed. Nevertheless, mounting strike activity in the 1960s and the 1970s, which persisted in spite of severe reprisals, testified to the strength of the labor movement, which was a key factor in propelling Spain toward a democratic form of government.
The political changes that swept through Spain in the wake of liberalization were not accompanied by commensurate changes in social and economic conditions. One of the reasons for this was the labor movement's reluctance to voice strong criticisms of the governing UCD for fear of provoking a military coup. Because of the army's apparent ambivalence toward the nascent democratic system, the parties on the left and the labor movement, which normally would have been expected to agitate for a significant restructuring of the economy and of society, adopted an attitude of cooperation and consensus with the government. Although this stance contributed to the success of the transition process, it nevertheless had the effect of postponing necessary societal reforms. The consequences of this delay were a salient factor in the labor unrest that reached crisis proportions in the late 1980s.
Decree laws in March and in April 1977 legalized trade unions and introduced the rights to strike and to engage in collective bargaining. The 1978 Constitution delineates the rights of unions to defend their interests. It grants to all citizens, except members of the armed forces and the judiciary, the right to join a union. It also guarantees them the right not to join one. The first major labor legislation enacted under the 1978 Constitution, the Workers' Statute that came into force in 1980, further elaborated the rights of workers. It included guarantees pertaining to a minimum wage and to social security, and it stipulated that labor relations were to be worked out between unions and management, with no direct government involvement. The statute outlined the format for collective bargaining, recognizing the right of the elected representatives of the workers to negotiate on their behalf.
The basic freedoms and rights of unions were given more detailed treatment in the Organic Law on Trade Union Freedom, which went into effect in August 1985. This law spelled out the negotiating role to which larger unions were entitled, and it prohibited any form of discrimination on the part of employers. An earlier government labor statute called for syndical elections to be held every two years, and these provided an indication of the national strength of the labor unions.
The two principal unions were the UGT and the CCOO. The UGT, which was founded in 1888 and which had a long tradition of close ties with the PSOE, was a composite of autonomous local unions, each of which consisted of workers engaged in the same type of activity, who were organized on a provincial or regional basis. The UGT favored the idea of increased power at the local level, and allowed local unions to call work stoppages independently. In the 1982 union elections, the UGT gained a greater share of the vote than the CCOO, which had dominated previous syndical elections.
The CCOO has a shorter history than the UGT, having developed out of locally organized groups of workers that functioned both legally and clandestinely during the Franco dictatorship. Reforms enacted in the late 1950s allowed for the election of factory committees that rapidly evolved into permanent bodies representing the interests of the workers. Although the founding members of this new labor movement were independent socialists and leftist Roman Catholics as well as communists, it was the PCE that emerged as the dominant force within the movement; the majority of leadership positions were held by PCE members.
As these workers' organizations, called commissions, grew in strength and began to proliferate, the Francoist authorities cracked down, outlawing them in 1967. This did not stop their activities. By the time of Franco's death, the CCOO was the dominant force in the labor movement. It subsequently declined in strength, in part because of the PCE's decreased electoral support and the concomitant ascendancy of the PSOE.
Like the UGT, the CCOO was organized into federations of workers, based on the type of work they performed. These groups were in turn linked together as confederations in territorial congresses. A national congress met every other year. The structure of the CCOO was more centralized than that of the UGT; decisions made at the top were expected to be carried out throughout the lower echelons of the union.
The CCOO claimed to be politically independent, but the union had strong historical links with the PCE, and its important leaders were also prominent communists. Communist ideology prevailed, although the union began assuming a tactical distance from the PCE in the 1980s, as the party became weakened by internal divisions and lost support at the polls.
The UGT made no effort to de-emphasize its links with the PSOE. Both union and party frequently reiterated their common aspirations, although there were disagreements between them as well as within their respective organizations. The political ties of both the UGT and the CCOO were salient factors in the rivalry that existed between the two unions.
In addition to these two major unions, other labor organizations remained active and influential in Spain in the late 1980s. The Workers' Syndical Union (Union Sindical Obrera-- USO) was among those that developed in opposition to the Franco regime. Many of its founding members had been involved in the Catholic workers' organizations, and they were strongly anticommunist. At the same time, they sought to replace capitalism with control of production by the workers. Militant in its early days, the USO had evolved into the most politically conservative of the major federations by the 1980s.
A more radical trade union, the anarcho-syndicalist National Confederation of Labor (Confederacion Nacional del Trabajo--CNT), was the second oldest labor organization in Spain; it had been a major political force during the Second Republic. Failing to reestablish its working-class base after the Franco period, it found its principal support among white-collar workers. It boycotted syndical elections as elements of bourgeois democracy and preferred direct action strategies.
Two smaller unions that developed as splinter groups from the CCOO were the extreme left Confederation of United Workers' Unions (Confederacion de Sindicatos Unitarios de Trabajadores-- CSUT) and the United Syndicate (Sindicato Unitario--SU). Both were linked to Maoist political parties; their aim was to present a distinctly radical alternative to the moderation of the major federations. Although they gained some support in the 1978 union elections, their influence has steadily declined.
In addition, there were regional unions, two of which gained sufficient support to qualify for a formal place in negotiating procedures. These were the Basque Workers' Solidarity (Eusko Langilleen Alkartasuna-Solidaridad de Trabajadores Vascos--ELASTV ), which was closely linked to the PNV, and the National Galician Workers' Union (Intersindical Nacional de Trabajadores Gallegos--INTG).
Although trade unions were highly visible and influential in the political process, they all, with the exception of the ELASTV , suffered from small memberships. While studies indicated that less than 20 percent of the wage-earning population was affiliated with a union, even fewer of these workers maintained their dues payments, leaving the trade unions in a financially weak position.
Nevertheless, labor unions continued to maintain a high profile in the political arena. Throughout 1987 and 1988, periodic strikes plagued the PSOE government and disrupted the day-to-day functioning of the country. These strikes had the backing of the UGT. Discontent within the labor movement was dramatized when the UGT leader, Redondo, formerly close to Gonzalez, resigned his seat in parliament in protest against government policies. He gave voice to the widespread feeling that the PSOE's economic policies were benefiting business at the expense of the working class. In October 1987, the UGT and the CCOO agreed to stage joint demonstrations against the government's pay and pension policies, and in December 1988 they staged a general strike.
Throughout the Franco years, a relatively small financial elite of businessmen and bankers exercised a considerable amount of power through personal influence and connections rather than through support from organized interest groups. Moreover, the interests of the business community were generally compatible with those of the Franco dictatorship: both wanted stability and economic prosperity. In the later years of the regime, business leaders, influenced by their contacts with Western Europe, came to favor more economically liberal policies; many of these leaders became vigorous proponents of economic and political modernization.
Many members of the financial elite under Franco continued to hold positions of authority after his death. Constitutional and statutory provisions enacted under the new democratic regime provided more formalized structures to represent their interests and those of the wider business community. In the early days of democratic government, a large number of employers' organizations came into being. Some of these were based on regions; a larger number were organized according to the type of business activity involved. In 1977 these diverse organizations were brought together in the Spanish Confederation of Employers' Organizations (Confederacion Espanola de Organizaciones Empresariales--CEOE). This group subsequently became one of the strongest supporters of the AP. A separate confederation, the Spanish Confederation of Small and Medium-Sized Firms (Confederacion Espanola de Pequenas y Medianas Empresas--CEPYME), was incorporated into the CEOE in 1980. It maintained a special status within the larger confederation, and when agreements were reached with the government and the unions, the CEPYME was a separate signatory.
The CEOE was a highly consolidated organization, representing almost all of Spain's companies, other than those that were owned or controlled by the government. Two other national associations endeavored, with little success, to become the representatives of smaller-scale businesses: the General Confederation of Small and Medium-Sized Firms of Spain (Confederacion General de las Pequenas y Medianas Empresas del Estado Espanol--COPYME) and the Union of Small and Medium-Sized Firms (Union de la Pequena y Mediana Empresa--UNIPYME).
In addition to employers' organizations, chambers of commerce endeavored to further the economic interests of their members by providing a variety of services to the firms and the individuals they represented. They had an international role as well, and they assisted in export promotion and trade missions.
The greatest degree of political influence within Spain's business community was exercised by the country's large private banks. During the Franco regime, the banking sector provided crucial financial support for Franco, and he in turn enacted measures that were to its benefit. For example, he prohibited the founding of new banks from 1936 to 1962, thereby further concentrating the power of the larger banks. These banks controlled large sectors of industry, directly and indirectly, and they collaborated with government institutions in directing Spain's economic expansion.
The traditionally powerful position of the banks was eroded somewhat during the economic recession of the 1970s and by increased government intervention in banking under the democratic regime. The inability of the leaders of the largest banks to transcend their mutual rivalries also attenuated the influence of this potentially formidable interest group. Nevertheless, they remained the single largest grouping of economic and financial interests in Spain, with close links to the government. Banks gained additional leverage by providing financial assistance to the frequently short-funded political parties.
Church and state have been closely linked in Spain for centuries. With the reinstitution of the Inquisition in Spain in the fifteenth century, the state employed draconian measures to enforce religious unity in an effort to ensure political unity. Strong measures to separate church and state were enacted under the short-lived Second Republic, but they were nullified by the victorious Nationalists. In the early years of the Franco regime, church and state had a close and mutually beneficial association. The loyalty of the Roman Catholic Church to the Francoist state lent legitimacy to the dictatorship, which in turn restored and enhanced the church's traditional privileges.
After the Second Vatican Council in 1965 set forth the church's stand on human rights, the church in Spain moved from a position of unswerving support for Franco's rule to one of guarded criticism. During the final years of the dictatorship, the church withdrew its support from the regime and became one of its harshest critics. This evolution in the church's position divided Spanish Catholics. Within the institution, right-wing sentiment, opposed to any form of democratic change, was typified by the Brotherhood of Spanish Priests, the members of which published vitriolic attacks on church reformers. Opposition took a more violent form in such groups as the rightist Catholic terrorist organization known as the Warriors of Christ the King, which assaulted progressive priests and their churches.
Whereas this reactionary faction was vociferous in its resistance to any change within the church, other Spanish Catholics were frustrated at the slow pace of reform in the church and in society, and they became involved in various leftist organizations. In between these extreme positions, a small, but influential, group of Catholics--who had been involved in lay Catholic organizations such as Catholic Action--favored liberalization in both the church and the regime, but they did not enter the opposition forces. They formed a study group called Tacito, which urged a gradual transition to a democratic monarchy. The group's members published articles advocating a Christian democratic Spain.
The church continued to be in opposition to the Franco regime throughout the dictatorship's final years. The Joint Assembly of Bishops and Priests held in 1971 marked a significant phase in the distancing of the church from the Spanish state. This group affirmed the progressive spirit of the Second Vatican Council and adopted a resolution asking the pardon of the Spanish people for the hierarchy's partisanship in the Civil War.
At the Episcopal Conference convened in 1973, the bishops demanded the separation of church and state, and they called for a revision of the 1953 Concordat. Subsequent negotiations for such a revision broke down because Franco refused to relinquish the power to veto Vatican appointments. Until his death, Franco never understood the opposition of the church. No other Spanish ruler had enacted measures so favorable to the church as Franco, and he complained bitterly about what he considered to be its ingratitude.
Because the church had already begun its transformation into a modern institution a decade before the advent of democracy to Spain, it was able to assume an influential role during the transition period that followed Franco's death. Furthermore, although disagreements over church-state relations and over political issues of particular interest to the Roman Catholic Church remained, these questions could be dealt with in a less adversarial manner under the more liberal atmosphere of the constitutional monarchy.
A revision of the Concordat was approved in July 1976 by the newly formed Suarez government. Negotiations soon followed that resulted in bilateral agreements, delineating the relationship between the Vatican and the new democratic state. The 1978 Constitution confirms the separation of church and state while recognizing the role of the Roman Catholic faith in Spanish society.
Within this basic framework for the new relationship between the church and the government, divisive issues remained to be resolved in the late 1980s. The church traditionally had exercised considerable influence in the area of education, and it joined conservative opposition parties in mounting a vigorous protest against the education reforms that impinged on its control of the schools. Even more acrimonious debate ensued over the emotionally charged issues of divorce and abortion. The church mobilized its considerable influence in support of a powerful lobbying effort against proposed legislation that was contrary to Roman Catholic doctrine governing these subjects. The passage of a law in 1981 legalizing civil divorce struck a telling blow against the influence of the church in Spanish society. A law legalizing abortion under certain circumstances was passed in August 1985 and further liberalized in November 1986, over the fierce opposition of the church.
Another manifestation of the redefined role of the church was contained in measures aimed at reducing, and ultimately eliminating, direct government subsidies to the church. As part of the agreements reached in 1979, the church concurred with plans for its financial independence, to be achieved during a rather lengthy transitional period. At the end of 1987, the government announced that, after a three-year trial period, the church would receive no further direct state aid but would be dependent on what citizens chose to provide, either through donations or by designating a portion of their income tax for the church. Although the church's exempt status constituted an indirect subsidy, the effect of this new financial status on the church's ability to wield political influence remained to be seen.
Although church-state relations involved potentially polarizing issues, the church played a basically cooperative and supportive role in the emergence of plural democracy in Spain. Although it no longer had a privileged position in society, its very independence from politics and its visibility made it an influential force.
The most influential Catholic lay group during the Franco period was the controversial Opus Dei (Work of God). This group did not fit conveniently into any political category. Although it denied any political aims, its members played pivotal roles in the modernization of the economy under Franco and in the subsequent liberalization of politics and government. At the same time, they were theologically conservative, and their desire for modernization was far from radical. They believed that economic reforms would improve society to the extent that thoroughgoing political reforms would be unnecessary.
Opus Dei was founded in 1928 by an Aragonese priest, Jose Maria Escriva de Balaguer y Albas, and it was subsequently recognized by the Roman Catholic Church as its first secular religious institution. Although attention has been drawn primarily to its activities in Spain, it is an international body with members and associates throughout the world. Members take a vow to dedicate their professional talents to the service of God and to seek to win converts through their missionary zeal. The organization in Spain has emphasized professional excellence, and it has expected its members to serve in important government positions.
During the late 1950s and the 1960s, Opus Dei members came to control the economic ministries, and they occupied other important cabinet posts as well. This was in keeping with the organization's aim of influencing the development of society indirectly. Opus Dei recruited its members from among the brightest students, which encouraged a sense of elitism and clannishness. Because of this clannishness and the secrecy that surrounded the organization, some critics termed it the "Holy Mafia."
The Opus Dei technocrats were largely responsible for devising, introducing, and later administering the economic stabilization program that formed the basis of Spain's economic development. They encouraged competition as a means of achieving rapid economic growth, and they favored economic integration with Europe. Although these policies implied eventual political as well as economic liberalization, this was not Opus Dei's avowed goal; the group remained socially conservative, stressing personal piety and orthodox theology.
With the advent of democracy, Opus Dei lost much of its influence, and it was condemned by the more progressive forces in both the Catholic hierarchy and Spanish society for having propped up a repressive regime. Its stature was somewhat restored under Pope John Paul II, who viewed the orthodox Catholicism of the organization with favor. Opus Dei remained influential in the area of education as well as in certain sectors of the financial community.
Military intervention in politics has been a recurring theme in Spain since the end of the Napoleonic wars. From 1814 to 1936, Spain experienced no fewer than fifty-four attempts by the army or by groups of officers to intervene against the civilian authority. Twelve of these succeeded in overthrowing the existing regime or in abrogating its constitution. The form each of these interventions took was that of a pronunciamiento (pl., pronunciamientos), whereby a group of rebelling officers would "pronounce" what it wanted the civilian leaders to do.
The support of the armed forces was an essential factor in maintaining Franco's forty-year dictatorship. Franco was always aware of the importance of this support, and he managed to foster the belief that the army's interests would be served best by the continuation of his rule. Franco restored to the army its role of guarantor of the nation's values. At the same time, Franco was aware of the dangers of a politicized army. He retained firm control of the military establishment and prevented any individual officer from gaining a power base. If a military leader became too popular or began to question Franco's policies, he was quickly removed from any position of influence.
Following the death of Franco, King Juan Carlos and Prime Minister Suarez were able to achieve a peaceful transition to democracy by proceeding with extreme caution and consulting with the military leadership throughout the process. Thus, the military leaders retained the belief that they had the right to be consulted on matters of national importance. The democratic leftists were also aware of the ever-present possibility that reformist measures could alienate the military and could provoke a coup attempt, which led them to accept many compromises throughout the transition period.
The role of King Juan Carlos was vital in gaining the army's acceptance of the new democratic regime. He had been trained in military academies, and he understood the viewpoint of the officer corps. He made a point of establishing close ties with the armed forces after Franco's death in order to gain their loyalty to him as Franco's chosen successor. At the same time, he was able to keep the government informed as to how far it could go in the reform process without provoking a military reaction.
Although many officers did not care for the political reform program set forth by Suarez, the military leaders did not express open opposition to the democratization process until the legalization of the PCE in the spring of 1977. They felt betrayed by Suarez, who had promised not to take such a step, and although there was no coup, they protested vehemently.
The independence with which the army leaders had expressed their revulsion at the government's decision highlighted the possibility that a powerful military organization could limit popular sovereignty. Subsequently, measures were taken to affirm the supremacy of civilian control. At the same time, the government took steps to assuage military opinion by allocating funds for the modernization of military equipment and for raising military salaries. Efforts also were made to rationalize the military career structure and to eliminate bottlenecks in the promotion process.
In succeeding months, the armed forces and the civilian government coexisted uneasily. Intermittent rumblings were heard from reactionary army leaders, who retained an antidemocratic mentality and who could not come to terms with their new position in society. The armed forces seethed with plots for military takeovers, and the government's leniency toward conspirators, rather than mollifying the military leaders, encouraged the plotters to more daring acts. This unstable situation was exacerbated by the escalation of terrorist violence. Army dissidents perceived the government as allowing the country to descend into anarchy, and military unrest culminated in the dramatic coup attempt of February 23, 1981. This attempted takeover was thwarted by the decisive intervention of King Juan Carlos, but conspiracies continued to be uncovered.
When the Socialists came to power in 1982, the deterrent power of the armed forces was still a factor to be considered. The PSOE government continued to be cautious in dealing with issues affecting the military, although it took a firmer stance than did its predecessors. As rumors of impending coups quieted, and as extreme right-wing parties failed to gain popular support, the government undertook stronger legal measures to bring the armed forces under the political control of the prime minister as well as to modernize and to streamline the military organization.
A significant aspect of the military reorganization was the emphasis on the armed forces' role in defending the state from external, not internal, enemies. This was reinforced by Spain's entrance into NATO. This new outward focus, combined with the general stability and conservatism of the government, helped to make military intervention in the political realm both impractical and unlikely.
Under the rigorous censorship that prevailed during the Franco regime, only news favorable to the government could appear in the press, and there was little concern for the veracity of such reports. With no reliable coverage of political events, reportage diminished to a few items pertaining to society news, sports, or business.
A new press law, approved in 1966, provided a degree of liberalization for publications and eliminated prior censorship, although newspapers were expected to exercise self-censorship. The 1966 law did not usher in freedom of the press, but it did expand the scope of news that could be published; newspapers even began debating what forms of government might evolve after Franco's death.
Although the 1978 Constitution guarantees the right to disseminate information, as of mid-1988 the 1966 press law had not been replaced, and regulations dating from the Franco years had been used in attempts to control journalists who published articles offensive to the government. In addition, some observers believed that government subsidies to the press, beginning in 1979, threatened to compromise true freedom of the press.
The early post-Franco years witnessed a proliferation of newspapers and magazines, although many of these were short lived. The enthusiasm for publishing was not matched by a commensurate eagerness for reading on the part of the populace. In part because of the prolonged repression of the dictatorship, Spaniards had lost the habit of reading newspapers. Whereas about 2,000 newspapers had appeared daily during the Second Republic, in the 1980s there were only 130. This drastically reduced figure was an indication of the population's distrust of the press, although the growth of radio and television newscasts was also a factor. Spain's per capita newspaper circulation was far below that of most West European countries, and in the late 1980s less than 10 percent of the population regularly bought a daily newspaper.
By all accounts, the most influential newspaper was El Pais, founded in 1976. It played a critical role in guiding the formation of opinion in the early days of Spanish democracy. The paper maintained a liberal, factually objective viewpoint, and it appealed primarily to well-educated citizens. In the mid1980s , it was the country's largest daily newspaper, with a circulation of 350,000 daily and 590,000 on Sundays.
The much older ABC was a conservative-monarchist newspaper. Founded in 1905, it enjoyed wide popularity during the Franco years, but its circulation declined after 1975. El Alcazar represented ultra-right wing opposition to democratic policies. Many of its articles pertained to the armed forces, because it appealed to a sector of society still nostalgic for Francoism. The oldest continuously published newspaper in Spain was La Vanguardia, founded in 1881 and published in Barcelona. Until the early 1980s, this conservative paper had the largest circulation in the country.
Other major daily newspapers included the Catholic rightist Ya, which strongly defended the church's position on such issues as divorce and abortion, and Diario 16, which began publication in 1975 as a spinoff of the respected weekly, Cambio 16. Marca was a popular daily newspaper, devoted exclusively to sports news. Founded in the early days of the Franco regime, it enjoyed immense popularity between 1940 and 1970, primarily because sports coverage was the only uncensored news permitted by the government. There were also a number of important regional newspapers in Catalonia (Avui) and in the Basque Country (Deia in Bilbao and Egin in San Sebastian) that published, at least partly, in the respective regional language; the circulation of each usually ran between 40,000 and 50,000 daily.
One large news agency, EFE, dominated the distribution of news. This national agency, which the government owned and subsidized, was controlled by the Ministry of Transportation, Tourism, and Communications. The government frequently exercised its prerogative of appointing EFE directors. At the same time, financial aid from the state contributed to the significant growth of the agency. Observers questioned the appropriateness of newspapers' receiving their information from an agency so closely linked with the government.
In addition to newspapers, Spain had a large number of weekly and monthly periodicals that filled in the gaps in newspaper coverage. Two leading weeklies specialized in political reporting: Cambio 16, founded in 1972; and its more recent, somewhat sensationalist rival, Tiempo. Other periodicals for the most part concentrated on entertainment, social events, sports, and television. One of the most popular magazines in Spain, Interviu, combined unrestrained political reporting with equally uninhibited photography. This blending of political and sexual liberation proved highly attractive to Spanish readers, after Franco's repressive policies in both these areas. The best-selling magazine in Spain was the weekly television review Tele-Indiscreta, the large circulation of which indicated the immense popularity of television throughout the country.
Spain was served by four major radio networks in the late 1980s: Radio Nacional Espanola (RNE), controlled by the government; Radio Cadena Espanola (RCE), which consisted of stations formerly owned by Francoist groups; Cadena de Ondas Populares Espanolas (COPE), a network supported by the Roman Catholic Church; and Sociedad Espanola de Radiodifusion (SER), the largest and most popular at the commercial networks.
The 1975 Geneva Conference restricted the number of networks that might operate on the medium wave in each country. In Spain, the four major networks plus one Catalan station broadcasted on the medium wave as well as on frequency modulation (FM). A number of new stations and networks began broadcasting on FM after the government redistributed the franchises in 1982. The quality and the popularity of this FM programming had increased to such an extent, that in the mid-1980s, more Spaniards were listening to FM than to medium wave. In 1986 there were approximately 10.8 million radio receivers in the country.
Radio broadcasting was regulated by the General Bureau for Radio Broadcasting and Television (Direccion General de Radiodifusion y Television). In October 1977, the government relinquished its monopoly on radio news dissemination and declared that it would no longer require the country's nonstate radio stations to broadcast government news bulletins. News coverage became both faster and better after the end of RNE's monopoly, as was evidenced dramatically during the February 1981 coup attempt, when radio correspondents provided vivid and timely descriptions of the night's events to a worried population, in a manner that neither the slower print media nor state-run television could match.
Of the various forms of communications media, television occupied a unique position in the shaping of Spanish social values and institutions. Spaniards received a relatively small proportion of their news and information from the print media, and they spent more time watching television than the people of any other country in Western Europe except Britain. Even most of the poorest homes had television sets, which numbered approximately 10 million in 1986.
Television was controlled by a state monopoly, RadioTelevision Espanola (RTVE), the responsibility for which was shuffled from one ministry to another in the 1970s and the 1980s. Television as well as radio continued to be subject to intense government scrutiny and censorship, through the early years of the post-Franco era, and the Francoist notion of television as an arm of government did not end with Franco's death. As part of agreements stemming from the Moncloa Pacts, a governing body was established to guarantee RTVE's objectivity. This body, called the Administrative Council, was to consist of six members elected by the Congress of Deputies in order to ensure that it would reflect the political composition of the Cortes. This council was less than vigilant in its watchdog role, however, and during the late 1970s and the 1980s there were many cases of political and financial corruption as well as mismanagement on the part of RTVE.
Spain had two major television channels: one ultrahigh frequency (UHF); and the other, very high frequency (VHF). They operated under the country's only television network, Television Espanola (TVE), which in turn was under the jurisdiction of the RTVE. In the 1980s, several autonomous governments obtained permission to build television transmission facilities for broadcasting in their regional languages.
The most noteworthy development regarding television in the late 1980s was the passage of a bill in April 1986 which, when carried out, will end the state monopoly on television by allowing three new private television channels to operate under the supervision of an independent broadcasting authority. The bill included restrictions to prevent private investors from gaining a monopoly control of a station, and it also established requirements about programming. The bill became law on April 4, 1987, and observers noted that the introduction of commercial television might lead to an improvement in the rather erratic programming of Spanish television.
Spain's remote position on the southwest periphery of Western Europe has affected much of its history, even when it belonged to the Roman, the Habsburg, and the Napoleonic empires. The Pyrenees have presented a formidable land barrier against both invasions and influences from the north. At the same time, Spain's location at the western entrance of the Mediterranean has impelled the country to play the role of an important maritime power and has enabled it to act as a bridge among Europe, Africa, and the Americas.
In the nineteenth century, Spain, beset by political instability deriving from the cataclysm of the French Revolution as well as from its own later failure to participate in the Industrial Revolution, withdrew behind its borders. After suffering a humiliating defeat by the United States in the Spanish-American War and losing its last colonies in the Philippines and the New World, Spain's focus turned even further inward. Neutral in both world wars, Spain found that its isolation deepened during the Franco years, intensified by the ostracism the country experienced because of its associations with Nazi Germany and fascist Italy.
After the Nationalist victory in the Civil War, the Franco regime devoted itself primarily to domestic affairs, relegating foreign considerations to a secondary position. The primary concerns were to establish political stability and to ensure economic reconstruction and development. Spanish diplomacy was an instrument with which the government tried to obtain political legitimacy and to gain Spain's acceptance by the international community. Franco played the leading role in pursuing these foreign policy goals, as he did in every other aspect of his government.
Spain's pariah status following World War II strengthened Franco's internal position, solidifying the support of the Spanish people behind their beleaguered leader. Nevertheless, as Spain began to benefit from mounting Cold War tensions, from signing an agreement with the United States, and from achieving United Nations (UN) membership, the siege mentality of the Spanish people lessened.
Relations with ...
<"87.htm"> the European Community
<"88.htm"> NATO
<"89.htm"> the United States
<"90.htm"> Latin America
<"91.htm">Gibraltar, Ceuta, and Melilla
<"92.htm"> the Middle East
<"93.htm"> the Soviet Union
<"94.htm"> France
As Spain began to emerge from its postwar isolation, successive Franco cabinets sought to establish closer ties with Europe. After Franco's death, this became Spain's major diplomatic goal. The desire to be recognized as a member of the West European democratic societies was a primary motivating factor in Spain's attempts to gain membership in the European Community (EC).
Spain had become an associate member of the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation (OEEC) in 1958 and a full member of that organization's successor, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), in 1959. It also had gained membership in the World Bank. The EC, however, was much more reluctant to have Spain join its ranks. Agreement for a preferential commercial trade pact was reached in March 1970, after six years of negotiations, but it was a strictly economic accord. The continued existence of undemocratic governmental institutions in Spain was strongly resented by member countries of the EC, and it continued to be a barrier to Spanish accession.
Shortly after Spain's first democratically elected government in more than forty years came to power in June 1977, Prime Minister Suarez dispatched his foreign minister to Brussels to present Spain's formal application to join the EC. The major political parties in Spain, divided over other issues, all firmly supported this attempt to advance Spain's modernization as well as its international legitimation. Prospects for the approval of this application were enhanced by the implementation of democratic policies by the post-Franco governments. European attitudes toward Spain began to improve, and Spain was admitted to membership in the Council of Europe, in November 1977. The Spanish government's determination to continue moving in the direction of closer relations with Europe was manifested in the creation in February 1978 of a new cabinetlevel position, that of minister in charge of relations with Europe.
Nevertheless, negotiations for Spain's accession to the EC were complicated and protracted. After Spain had acquired the necessary democratic credentials, the economic implications of the prospective Spanish accession caused misgivings among EC members. Spain's level of economic development was significantly lower than that of other member nations, and its industrial sector was in need of profound structural reform. There were also difficulties concerning Spain's fishing fleets. It was in the area of agriculture, however, that the potential consequences of Spanish membership created the greatest concern among EC members, particularly France. These and other factors would necessitate substantial increases in budget expenditures on the part of the EC, which was already experiencing a financial crisis.
After lengthy bargaining, agreements were reached on these issues, and a Treaty of Accession was signed in the summer of 1985. On January 1, 1986, Spain finally entered the EC, along with Portugal. The terms of the Treaty of Accession were less than favorable to Spain, making the country a net contributor to the EC budget for several years, but there was no popular or governmental protest. A major nonpartisan foreign policy objective had been achieved, and most Spaniards savored the longawaited feeling of formal inclusion in the West European society of nations.
Their enthusiasm was tempered in subsequent months, as issues, such as the barring of Spanish fishermen from Moroccan waters because of an EC dispute with Morocco, made clear that not all aspects of EC membership would be beneficial to Spain. A poll taken in the spring of 1987 revealed that a large majority of Spaniards believed that entry into the EC had not helped Spain. Farmers were particularly dissatisfied with the consequences of the EC's Common Agricultural Policy. Nevertheless, the same poll indicated that a majority of Spaniards favored EC membership and that their sense of being "citizens of Europe" was increasing.
Even though popular and official opinion had been virtually unanimous in favoring Spain's accession to the EC, considerable doubts were expressed with regard to Spanish membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Spain's significant geographical position, astride some of the world's major sea, air, and land communication routes, made it a valuable potential partner for the alliance. Spanish proponents of NATO membership argued that these same geopolitical considerations made such membership equally advantageous to Spain, because the country's strategic location could make it an obvious target in any major conflict unless it had allied support. They also maintained that integration into NATO would ensure sorely needed modernization of Spain's armed services in addition to the securing of adequate national defense. A corollary hope was that NATO membership would reorient the focus of army leaders away from reactionary preoccupations and toward defense of the West.
Many political forces in Spain, particularly the socialists and the communists, did not agree that full membership would benefit the country's defense and foreign policy aims. On the contrary, they felt it would raise the level of tension between the rival power blocs and would make Spain a more likely target in any future conflict with the Soviet Union. Moreover, opponents of NATO membership pointed out that NATO would be of no assistance in an area of primary concern to Spain: the two Spanish enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla, which are located in Morocco and which are outside the geographic zone of application of the North Atlantic Treaty. They also maintained that NATO would be of no benefit to Spain in the country's long-standing effort to recover Gibraltar, because it could be assumed that other NATO members would support Britain on this issue. Resentment of the United States as the principal supporter of the Franco regime was another factor influencing those who opposed Spain's entry into NATO.
Although Suarez had announced Spain's intention of applying for NATO membership, his Union of the Democratic Center (Union de Centro Democratico--UCD) government remained somewhat divided over the question. After Suarez resigned in 1981, his successor, Leopoldo Calvo Sotelo, gave high priority to this issue, arguing that Spain's entry into NATO would expedite negotiations for integration into the EC. In December 1981, the Cortes approved membership in NATO by majority vote, over the vigorous opposition of a large leftist minority. Spain officially joined NATO in May 1982.
Leaders on the left protested bitterly that NATO membership had been pushed through parliament in violation of the consensus that had been the basis of all major political decisions since 1977. The Socialists organized a protest campaign, and the PSOE leader, Gonzalez, made the NATO issue a major feature of his electoral platform in 1982, promising a popular referendum on withdrawal from NATO in the event of a Socialist victory.
No immediate steps were taken to fulfill this promise, following the overwhelming Socialist victory in October 1982, although the PSOE confirmed in June 1983 that it would campaign in favor of withdrawal when the referendum was held. Many Socialists took part in a large anti-NATO demonstration organized by the PCE in June 1984, but Gonzalez was having second thoughts, and he found reasons to delay the referendum. Although neutralist opinion remained strong in Spain, the government evolved toward a position favoring continued membership in NATO, which it perceived as the principal guarantor of European security. A significant factor in this change of position was the fear that withdrawal from NATO might become an insuperable obstacle to entry into the EC.
When the referendum eventually was set for March 2, 1986, Gonzalez engaged in a vigorous campaign for continued, but limited, NATO membership. The government presented NATO membership as a corollary to EC membership, and it warned of the serious economic consequences of a vote to withdraw. In spite of opinion polls indicating the probability of a negative outcome, the government secured a clear margin of victory for its position. With almost 60 percent of the electorate participating, 52.6 percent of the voters supported Spain's continued membership in NATO, while 39.8 percent opposed it. Spain remained the sixteenth member of NATO.
The following year, in a move seen as emphasizing the European aspect of the defense system, Gonzalez made a bid for Spanish membership in the Western European Union (WEU), a sevennation European defense grouping, originally formed in 1948, that experienced revitalization in the 1980s. On April 19, 1988, Spain and Portugal were formally invited to join the organization.
The anti-American sentiment that figured significantly in Spain's relations with NATO had its roots in the historical rivalry between the two countries for control of the territories of the New World. The Spanish-American War ended this rivalry, stripping Spain of its remaining colonies and leaving a residue of bitterness toward the United States.
In the years following the Spanish-American War, economic issues dominated relations between Spain and the United States, as Spain sought to enhance its trading position by developing closer commercial ties with the United States as well as with Latin America. A series of trade agreements signed between Spain and the United States in 1902, 1906, and 1910 led to an increased exchange of manufactured goods and agricultural products that benefited Spain's domestic economy. Cultural contacts and <"69.htm"> tourism also increased.
The emotions of the American public were stirred profoundly by the outbreak of the Civil War in Spain, and approximately 3,000 United States citizens volunteered to serve in the Spanish Republican Army, although the United States government remained adamantly neutral. Following the Nationalist victory, much of public opinion in the United States condemned Franco's regime as a fascist dictatorship, but the United States government participated in various Allied agreements with Spain, aimed at ensuring that Franco would not permit the Iberian Peninsula to be used by Adolf Hitler against Allied forces.
The 1953 Pact of Madrid between Spain and the United States provided for mutual defense as well as for United States military aid, and it brought to an end Spain's postwar isolation. It did not end anti-Americanism in Spain, however. Francoist leaders resented having to accept what they considered to be insufficient military supplies in return for basing rights. They also chafed at United States restrictions against the use of American equipment in defending Spain's North African territories in 1957. This anti-American sentiment was bipartisan in Spain. Whereas Francoists resented the United States for its democratic form of government, the opposition parties in Spain perceived the United States as the primary supporter of the Franco regime and therefore as a major obstacle to the democratization of Spain.
Following the death of Franco in 1975, the United States welcomed the liberalization of the Spanish regime under King Juan Carlos and sought to bring Spain further into Western military arrangements. In 1976 the bilateral agreement between Spain and the United States was transformed into a Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation. In addition to renewing United States basing rights in return for United States military and economic aid, this treaty provided for a United States-Spanish Council intended to serve as a bridge to eventual Spanish membership in NATO.
During the early years of democratic rule, the government's focus was on consolidating the parliamentary system, and foreign policy issues received less attention. However, a point of contention persisted between the governing UCD and the Socialist opposition over Spain's relations with NATO and with the United States.
When Calvo replaced Suarez as prime minister in 1981, he made vigorous efforts to gain approval for Spanish membership in NATO, and shortly after this was accomplished a new executive agreement on the use of bases in Spain was signed with the United States in July 1982. This agreement was one of a series of renewals of the basic 1953 arrangement, providing for United States use of strategic naval and air bases on Spanish soil in exchange for United States military and economic assistance.
Many Spaniards resented the presence of these bases in Spain, recalling the widely publicized photograph of United States president Dwight D. Eisenhower, throwing his arms around Franco when the first agreement on bases was signed. There were occasional popular protests against these reminders of United States support for the dictatorship, including a demonstration during United States president Ronald Reagan's 1985 visit to Spain.
The Socialists had consistently advocated a more neutralist, independent stance for Spain, and when they came to power in October 1982, Gonzalez pledged a close examination of the defense and cooperation agreements with the United States. A reduction in the United States military presence in Spain was one of the stipulations contained in the referendum, held in 1986, on continued NATO membership. In keeping with this, the prime minister announced in December 1987 that the United States would have to remove its seventy-two F-16 fighter-bombers from Spanish bases by mid-1991. Spain also had informed the United States in November that the bilateral defense agreement, which opinion polls indicated was rejected overwhelmingly by the Spanish population, would not be renewed. Nevertheless, in January 1988 Spain and the United States did reach agreement in principle on a new base agreement to last eight years. The new military arrangements called for a marked reduction of the United States presence in Spain and terminated the United States military and economic aid that had been tied to the defense treaty.
One of Spain's major foreign policy objectives since the advent of democracy has been to increase its influence in Latin America. Spain has a special interest in this area because of historical ties and a common linguistic, cultural, and religious heritage. In the post-Franco years, economic investments and diplomatic initiatives were added to the more nostalgic links between Spain and its former colonies.
Relations between Spain and Latin America have undergone profound transformation since Spain's imperial days. Resentment of Spain as the imperial power continued long after the colonial period, because many Latin Americans blamed Spain for their lack of progress and for their problems with democratization. In the early years of independence, the attitude of most Latin Americans was one of disdain for Spain. This changed, following the Spanish-American War in 1898. The devastating defeat inflicted upon Spain by the United States combined with increased United States interference in Latin America led the two Hispanic areas to draw closer together in the face of a common enemy. Both Spain and Latin America began to re-emphasize their common ties of culture, language, and religion, although trade, diplomatic, and political relations between the two areas remained minimal.
During the 1950s, modernized methods of communications and transportation facilitated closer contacts between Spain and Latin America. Trade increased, and Spain's rapid economic growth in the 1960s and the 1970s enabled the country to approach its relations with Latin America from a position of greater economic strength. A paradoxical foreign policy phenomenon during this period was the refusal of the fiercely anticommunist Franco to break off relations with Fidel Castro Ruz's Marxist Cuba. In this instance, historical ties appeared to take precedence over ideology.
After Franco's death, Spain's transition to a democratic form of government was paralleled by the establishment of various forms of democratic rule in some Latin American countries. The timing of these governmental changes was largely coincidental, although Spain offered its transition process as an example for Latin America to follow.
The democratization process in Spain caused a reorientation of Spanish foreign policy. Under Suarez, Spain pursued a more aggressive foreign policy, which included giving increased attention to Latin America. Both Suarez and King Juan Carlos made official visits to most of the Latin American countries, and Spanish investment in the area increased markedly. When war broke out between Britain and Argentina over the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) in the spring of 1982, Spain supported Argentina's claim to the islands, even though the Spanish government opposed the military junta that ruled Argentina at the time.
When the Socialists came to power in 1982, Foreign Minister Fernando Moran asserted that the amount of influence Spain could exert in Europe and on the United States would depend on Spain's maintaining special relationships outside these areas, particularly with Latin America. In keeping with this policy, the Socialist government created a special assistance program for Latin America that had a budget of tens of millions of dollars in 1985.
A particular area of concern for Gonzalez was the intensifying conflict in Central America. Under his leadership, Spain took an active part in the Contadora Group, an association of Latin American republics seeking peaceful solutions to the bloody struggles in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua.
Before becoming prime minister, Gonzalez had been involved in the articulation of the Socialist International's policies toward Latin America and had served as the president of that organization's committee for the support of the Nicaraguan Revolution, which was formed in 1980. Although Gonzalez was sympathetic to the early goals of the Sandinistas, who had seized power in 1979, he later became highly critical of their radical Marxist policies. He favored the more pragmatic approach of Latin America's social democrats.
It became increasingly apparent that the prime minister's moderate views were in marked contrast to the Marxist orientation of his foreign minister. Gonzalez was also less stridently antiAmerican than Moran. Although critical of United States actions in both Nicaragua and El Salvador, the prime minister recognized that the United States had legitimate interests in the area and that it could not be excluded from the negotiating process. These increasingly divergent views between Gonzalez and his foreign minister led to the latter's removal in the summer of 1985.
Moran's successor, Francisco Fernandez Ordonez, followed a more restrained approach--calling for Spain to be the IberianAmerican conscience of Europe--in furthering Spain's active role in Latin America. Spain continued to support efforts for a peaceful resolution to the strife in Central America. In January 1988, Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega requested that Spain take part in the verification of the peace process in Central America. Gonzalez accepted the proposal, provided that the other Central American governments were in agreement and that a ceasefire were in effect. The prime minister reiterated his support of the Contadora Group and emphasized that the countries involved had the ultimate responsibility for finding a solution to the conflict. He also called for an end to United States aid for the armed forces fighting against the Sandinista government (Contras) so that the peace plan could be implemented.
Although Spain had again become a significant presence in Latin America in the 1980s, there was no indication that it was on the way to supplanting the United States in the region, or, indeed, that it wanted to assume that role. At the same time, a vital sense of Hispanic commonality between Spain and Latin America appeared likely to continue.
The return of Gibraltar to Spain has remained a foreign policy goal for all Spanish rulers since the area was lost to Britain under the terms of the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713. Franco's fierce determination to regain Gibraltar culminated in his closing the frontier between Spain and Gibraltar in 1969. Governments that came to power after the regime was democratized engaged in calmer but equally persistent negotiations with the British and with the residents of Gibraltar over the future of the area. These discussions ultimately resulted in the April 1980 Lisbon Agreement, which was more symbolic than substantive, but which served as a framework for subsequent Anglo-Spanish negotiations.
The Spanish government had intended to reopen the frontier between Spain and Gibraltar shortly after the signing of the Lisbon Agreement, but it postponed this step in anger at a series of British actions, including the use of Gibraltar as a military depot and refueling base during the Falklands War in 1982. The frontier was finally reopened in the early days of the Socialist government that was elected later in the year.
Spain's entry into NATO added new complications to the Gibraltar question, including Spain's insistence that Gibraltar was a NATO naval base as well as a British one, a contention that the British government denied. The Spanish navy refused to participate in joint military exercises with the British while Britain maintained a military base on Gibraltar. At the same time, Spanish membership in NATO provided a vehicle for negotiations on the Gibraltar question in a less competitive atmosphere. It also put Spain in a better bargaining position.
The ultimate issue underlying the various twists and turns of the Gibraltar problem was sovereignty. The approximately 30,000 residents of Gibraltar remained adamantly opposed to becoming Spanish citizens, although the UN continued to pass resolutions condemning British rule in Gibraltar as a colonial situation. As a more flexible and democratic government took root in Spain, however, and as the country achieved greater integration into Europe through its EC and NATO memberships, the possibility of a resolution of the sovereignty issue became less remote. The Socialist government, unlike its predecessors, emphasized that any solution to this problem must be in keeping with the interests of Gibraltar's inhabitants. This led observers to conjecture that--through some type of regional autonomy structure, provided for in the 1978 Constitution--a long-term plan for a form of autonomous government for Gibraltar acceptable to all concerned, might be possible.
In much the same way that Spain laid claim to Gibraltar as part of its territory, Morocco maintained that the Spanish enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla were integral parts of Morocco's sovereign territory. The two North African towns and their tiny offshore islands, the last vestiges of Spain's far-flung empire, had belonged to the Spanish crown for centuries. Both were administered as integral parts of Spain and had predominantly Spanish populations; Spain insisted that they remain Spanish.
Ceuta, which had become a Spanish possession following the union with Portugal in 1580, was historically a focal point for trade between Europe and Africa. Located only thirty kilometers from metropolitan Spain, it could reasonably be regarded as a natural prolongation of the Iberian Peninsula. Although Ceuta was used for military purposes, it also functioned as a fishing port, and it had close economic links with Andalusia.
There were almost no direct links between Ceuta and the other Spanish enclave of Melilla, which had come under Spanish rule in the late fifteenth century. Melilla was situated more than 500 kilometers away from the Iberian Peninsula, and it did not benefit from the lively tourist traffic that Ceuta enjoyed. Because of its geographical location, Melilla also was subject to greater influence from its Moroccan hinterland than was Ceuta. In addition, more Moroccans actually lived in Melilla than in Ceuta, where the atmosphere was far more European.
There were protests on the part of the Muslim communities in both enclaves over the passage, in July 1985, of an aliens law, which required all foreigners in Spain to register with the authorities or be expelled. Tensions were especially high in Melilla, where less than one-third of the Muslim community held Spanish nationality. Promises from Madrid to assist in integrating the Muslims of both enclaves into Spanish society angered portions of the local Spanish communities, who in turn demonstrated in support of the aliens law.
The outlook for continued Spanish sovereignty in the two enclaves appeared uncertain. When Spain joined the EC in 1986, Ceuta and Melilla were considered Spanish cities and European territory. They joined the EC as part of Spain, and they hoped to receive financial assistance from the EC's Regional Development Fund. Spain also hoped that membership in NATO, while providing no security guarantee to Ceuta and Melilla, might make Morocco's King Hassan II less likely to move against territory belonging to a NATO member; however, Spanish demands for the return of Gibraltar could fuel Moroccan claims to the North African enclaves.
Mounting tensions between the Spanish and the Muslim populations in Ceuta and in Melilla added to the precariousness of the Spanish position. In addition, a few leaders in both the socialist and the communist parties expressed sympathy for Morocco's claim, contributing to a growing fear of abandonment on the part of the enclaves' inhabitants. A resolution of this tenuous situation did not appear imminent in mid-1988.
In spite of tensions with Morocco over control of Ceuta and Melilla, Spain continued to consider itself as a bridge between the Arab world and Western Europe. In an effort to maintain good relations with Islamic states, the Spanish government adopted a pro-Arab stance in most Middle East conflicts. For years, Spain was the only West European country that did not recognize Israel. The Spanish government finally established diplomatic relations with the Israeli state in January 1986. When that step resulted in widespread criticism from the Arab states, Spain hastened to compensate by according diplomatic status to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) mission in Madrid in August 1986. More generalized efforts to increase Spain's role throughout the Middle East and Africa in the 1980s included expanded trade and cultural relations.
Diplomatic relations between Spain and the Soviet Union were not formally reestablished until February 1977, although there had been extensive trade and cultural contacts between the two nations for decades, and Spain had already established diplomatic relations with the other Warsaw Pact states. This long delay was due in part to Franco's strong anticommunist feelings, but more particularly to his bitterness toward the Soviet Union for its support of the Republican forces during the Spanish Civil War. Anti-Soviet sentiment was not limited to the Francoists in the years following that devastating upheaval. Because of the attempts of the Soviet dictator, Joseph Stalin, to destroy leftist elements within Spain that were independent of Moscow, anti-Francoists as well as Franco's supporters were deeply distrustful of Moscow.
Spain's relations with the Soviet Union were also significantly affected by its relations with the United States. From the point of view of the Soviet Union, it was vital to maintain a strong position in the Mediterranean in order to guard the gateway to the Black Sea and to assure access to the Atlantic Ocean through the Strait of Gibraltar. At the same time, the United States, wary of Soviet expansionist aims, had sought to protect this vital region by the establishment of United States bases on Spanish soil. The opposition that subsequently developed within Spain to the continued presence of United States forces there received encouragement from the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, when Moscow delivered a warning to Madrid, referring to the "negative consequences" that could ensue if Spain joined NATO, Spain's foreign minister curtly remonstrated with the Soviet Union for attempting to interfere in Spain's internal affairs.
Spanish public opinion has generally not shared United States fears of a serious Soviet military threat. Spaniards have favored increasing trade with the Soviet Union, and they have welcomed Moscow's support of Spain's demand for the "decolonization" of Gibraltar. In the late 1970s and the 1980s, however, Spain moved toward an increasingly independent stance, and this applied to its relations with the Soviet Union as well as with the United States. Such independence also was reflected in the efforts of the PCE to reduce its ties to Moscow. In the mid-1980s, Spain's major difficulty with regard to the Soviet Union concerned the extensive espionage activities that had been mounted from the large Soviet embassy installed after Franco's death and that had led to the expulsion of several Soviet diplomats.
While the Soviet Union appeared to most Spaniards to be too far away to pose any immediate threat, Spain's most difficult relations in the postwar years were with its European neighbor to the north, France. Spain's relations with France had been troublesome since 1945, when France called for an Allied invasion of Spain to remove the last fascist dictator. When the United States and Britain refused to agree to such a course of action, France permitted anti-Franco forces to use France as a base for organizing raids into Spain. When some of these infiltrators were apprehended and executed in Spain in 1946, the Allies declared that Spain would be forbidden to join the UN while under the control of Franco. France was also the major obstacle to Spain's entry into the EC. Responding to the pressures of a strong agricultural lobby, the French government succeeded in delaying Spanish membership in the EC.
French policies also exacerbated Spain's most volatile domestic political problem, that of Basque terrorism. For years, France maintained a policy of providing sanctuary to terrorists, who were seen as "resistance fighters." This policy became less tenable, however, after the democratization of Spain. Following the appearance of terrorist activity within France itself, the policy of sanctuary was markedly restricted, and by 1986 France was cooperating with Spain in efforts to combat terrorist activity.