Why a social federalism?

Nicolás Sartorius chairs the Association for a Federal Spain.

Why a social federalism?

There are those who oppose the culmination of the autonomic state in a federal model and do not realize that we are falling into a kind of "confederate bilateralism" that generates inequalities and dislocations

Whenever democracy has made its way in Spain, it has tended towards federalizing formulas of state organization, while dictatorships have imposed the most rigid centralism. Apart from the ill-fated First Federal Republic, deranged by own and strangers, the Constitution of the Second Republic, despite its definition as "integral State" - it was not going to brand itself as "disintegrated" state - established the autonomy of municipalities and regions. Autonomy that was reflected in the statutes of Catalonia, the Basque Country and the non-born statutes of Galicia and Andalusia due to the start of the Civil War. It is likely that others would have arisen - there was a project for Extremadura - if the Republic had survived. In the end, federalism is the most natural form of our state, because we are a plural country in its unity with different languages, cultures, rights and institutions within a common history. So common that when in Spain there is democracy or dictatorship, monarchy or republic, this is so in all the territories, however much some keep insisting on secessionist fantasies. Even when a separate life has been tried, taking advantage of the end of the European wars, both in the I and in the II, the stake did not find the slightest echo in the decision-making powers.

In the Constitution of 1978, with the state form of parliamentary Monarchy, we agreed what has been called the state of autonomies, with nationalities - "condition and peculiar character of the peoples and individuals of a nation" (as defined by the RAE) - and regions, extending the statutes to all of them. It was a historic advance of decentralization of political power, which the doctrine has come to describe as "quasi federal". But in politics, as in life, you cannot always be "almost something" without paying a price. Citizens have been told that there is no difference between autonomy and federation and this is not true. How could it be true with the Senate that we have, far from the territorial Chamber that orders article 69.1 of the Constitution? How is it going to be true with the competition bustle that we drag and the general discontent over the financing system?

We do not have, for certain important territorial issues, institutions that allow deliberation, coordination and common decision, which produces a perverse effect aggravated with the passage of time. Perversity consisting on each autonomous community, - faced with that lack of composition of the collective will between the Government of the nation and the different political communities -, tending, inexorably, to establish a "bilateral" relationship with the central government, in order to go ahead with each one’s ambitions, that is, the "what about mine - be it a AVE, a better financing, a "historical debt", the transfer of competences, etc. Demands whose possibility of success depends, many times, on the need that the current government has for the votes of the members of Parliament coming from said autonomous community. Thus, apart from the traditional nationalist parties, political parties have emerged, more or less nationalist or regionalist, which in certain occasions are essential for the necessary governance of the country and, as is logical, request a particular toll for their votes. That is to say, there are those who oppose the culmination of the state of the autonomies into a federal model and do not realize that we are falling into a kind of "confederate bilateralism," which generates inequalities and not a few unbalances.

40 years have passed since the 1978 Constitution was adopted and too many things have changed: we belong to the EU and it is not even mentioned in the Constitution; we have built the welfare state, whose main competences correspond to the autonomous communities; the feminine revolution is a transforming fact; globalization has accelerated and not taking into account its effects implies not knowing in what world one lives; the digital revolution changes everything in all aspects, including that of rights; threats in the form of nationalisms, populisms and anti-European movements, which spread like leprosy throughout Europe, have come out of the economic crisis and inequality. Can we stay static? The Constitution of 1978 is the best thing that we have done in our history and it is still valid in the fundamental, but it is convenient to update it if we do not want to place it in a state of risk.

The strength of the state depends, in essence, on the social and territorial cohesion that are, in my opinion, inseparable. Both are the ones that make institutions strong by achieving a solid adherence of citizens to them. Let us recognize that, today, they do not go through their best moment. Addressing a partial reform of our Constitution - and not an inconvenient and unfeasible constituent process - in those two very important matters would be the most necessary and prudent. Completing our autonomies in a federalism based on the principles of cooperation, institutional loyalty, solidarity, unity and pluralism would strengthen our democracy. A social federalism that should recognize certain social goods such as health, pensions, or housing in certain circumstances, with the same guarantees that fundamental rights enjoy today. A federalism inserted in an EU that is poised to federate if it wants to successfully confront the current dissolving threats. A danger, by the way, which either we confront with a greater political union, or the progress made in economic integration will be questioned, as it is already happening.

It is a stupid argument to say that for this political move a consensus is needed that today does not exist, and that, in addition, the secessionist parties would not be satisfied with a reform of this tenor. It is forgotten that consensus is not a starting point but a product of the relationship of forces and necessity, when the other options are only worse. Or does anyone believe that the 1978 Constitution was the product of a prior consensus? In addition, the proposed reform is not due to a secessionist phenomenon but to a national need. However, it is more than likely that a part of those who today proclaim independence would support a more social and more federal common project. It is also argued that, with the current environment of confrontation between the parties and even with forces that on one side and another -nationalisms of different coats- raise the constitutional rupture, it does not seem the most realistic thing to pretend to advance in a federal direction. The temptation would be to take refuge in the popular "little virgin, let me stay as I am." Big mistake, because precisely because of these tensions and threats it is more necessary than ever to address the reforms that would correct the current dysfunctions and thus strengthen our state. This would also contribute to renewing the constitutional pact with the participation of young generations who had no chance to vote on the 1978 Constitution.


 

Perhaps the most arduous in this task would be the building up of a state of opinion favorable to changes that eventually would end up as a citizen movement which would facilitate the necessary consensus. Because we must always be aware that a reform of the Constitution must be the outcomed of broad agreements between different political forces and with the citizenry. I think it's worth a try.

https://elpais.com/elpais/2019/01/26/opinion/1548523366_158070.html