Josep Maria Castellà (Tortosa, 1967), Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Barcelona and former member of the Venice Commission, recently shared his insights on the state of democracy in Spain. His observations, made during a visit to Oviedo, follow his participation in an event analyzing the crisis of the rule of law. Castellà noted the significant changes in Oviedo since his last visit in 1982, reflecting broader transformations within Spain’s political landscape.
Is this a true systemic crisis or a reversible deterioration?
Castellà believes that new circumstances, particularly the influence of new technologies, have fundamentally altered the foundations of representative democracy. He points to the diminished role of mediating institutions, with parties becoming less relevant and parliaments holding more symbolic than real power. This shift, he argues, represents a notable change in democracy. However, he also emphasizes democracy’s resilience, drawing parallels to past crises in the 20th century. “Democracy is very resilient. In the end, we return to Churchill: it is the least bad system. I believe it is capable of recovering or, rather, adapting to these new circumstances,” Castellà states.
These crises often coincide with difficult times for society. Castellà agrees, noting that broad sectors of the citizenry question the system when it fails to address their concrete problems. The current succession of crises, from the 2008 financial downturn to international crises and the COVID-19 pandemic, significantly contributes to this sentiment. Despite these challenges, Castellà perceives a shared common sense among the populace regarding the preservation of democracy and the rule of law. While populism is a significant force, he differentiates it from the totalitarianisms of the early 20th century, suggesting that the existential threat to democracy is not of the same nature. He also observes reactions against populism, with party systems, albeit with internal changes, continuing to function. He highlights the role of certain parties in Europe, whether Christian Democratic, liberal-conservative, or social democratic, as bulwarks of the system. Spain and Germany, despite internal shifts, are seen as more resistant, while France and Italy face greater challenges. The European Union, he adds, remains a crucial factor for stability.
The fatigue of a young democracy
When Spain transitioned from dictatorship, there was intense democratic enthusiasm. Castellà finds it striking that the current fatigue precedes the consolidation of a truly pluralistic political culture and constitutional democracy. He questions why this crisis is perceived by a significant portion of the population despite the system not objectively showing signs of exhaustion. The Constitution remains in force, rights are protected by judges, and Spain’s integration into the European Union has been a success. Yet, this perception of fatigue persists.
Castellà believes that populist movements tend to moderate when they gain power. European experience, he suggests, shows that ‘cordons sanitaires’ are often counterproductive, nurturing an anti-system alternative that, when faced with reality, proves less radical. Entering government, he argues, provides a significant reality check. He cites the German Greens as an example of a party that started as a radical force and is now a normal part of the system. He generally views the integration of such parties as positive, allowing them to confront real problems rather than merely making denunciations.
Social Media and the Erosion of Political Deliberation
With social media, politics seems to have become a permanent conversation. Castellà views attempts at more immediate, radical, or electronic democracy as well-intentioned but unrealistic. Public life, he asserts, has a complexity and channels that must be preserved. Expanding the agora to all citizens does not necessarily improve deliberation; often, it simplifies and polarizes it. Therefore, mediating institutions remain fundamental. Public opinion needs mediation: the press, television, and professionals who select and inform appropriately. Overcoming parties and representation to replace them with movements led by charismatic leaders and direct participation mechanisms has not proven to improve politics. On the contrary, he points to Italy as an example where real participation is scarce, and leaders end up using the results for their convenience. This does not mean that the representative system and parties should not be reformed, as they clearly cannot remain the same. However, the populist alternative has not proven effective either, and democracy without pluralism ultimately becomes a caricature of itself.
Anti-politics, in essence, becomes covert bad politics, a substitute that fails to resolve public issues. Deliberation is good, but the Parliament is its quintessential place, with all necessary openness to civil society, but channeled institutionally. Otherwise, under the guise of greater participation, it ends up generating mechanisms useful to power, as they can be instrumentalized by increasingly presidentialist governments, which does not better represent society or the plurality of its interests.
Fragmented Parliament and the Lack of a Culture of Pact
Castellà observes a clear dilemma in Spain. Until the ‘They don’t represent us’ crisis of 2011, Spain functioned on an imperfect bipartisanship, sufficient to articulate a democracy of majorities and alternation. Since then, with the multiplication of parties, polarization has emerged, making it difficult to form majorities. This fragmentation has not translated into pacts that overcome polarization, leading to a perverse trend. While some countries with many parties, like Denmark or the Netherlands, have a culture of coalition, Spain, he argues, has the worst of both systems: fragmentation without a culture of pact.
He believes that the idea of the two major parties reaching consensus seems almost impossible today. He distinguishes between the constitutional and the conjunctural political planes. On the constitutional plane, agreements are essential, for instance, to reform the Constitution or appoint members of counter-powers like the Constitutional Court or the General Council of the Judiciary. The absence of agreements here is very damaging because constitutional politics cannot be governed by the simple imposition of the majority in power. The problem arises when these two planes mix, and the polarization inherent in ordinary politics contaminates constitutional politics.
Castellà notes that the perception of the General Council of the Judiciary or the Constitutional Court as organs distributed among ideological blocs is worsening. While in principle, major parties agreeing to appoint diverse profiles with different sensibilities can be positive, this has degenerated. Today, agreement often means one party votes for the other’s candidates, and vice versa. This, he argues, does not select the best jurists but rather transmission belts for the parties, and he sees no signs of change. Parties are increasingly weaker socially but simultaneously seek to capture all institutions, not in service of real internal plurality, but the interests of their respective leaders.
He also points to the
