[Previous entry: "Silly Joke of the Day"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "Alternative alphabets"]

03/16/2004 Entry: "Spain, Terror and Democracy"

I see blog pundits getting themselves lathered over the Spanish election results. They're cowards and appeasers, those Spaniards. Voting in a horrid socialist instead of a manly conservative. Shame. Or something like that.

I'm not a pundit, and I haven't followed Spanish politics. If it hadn't been for the Madrid bombing, the Spanish elections would barely have registered on my radar. And I venture that they wouldn't have been even that in the US media. But terrorists struck and it seems pretty clear, though not certain, that the outcome of the election changed as a result.

What isn't clear is why the result came out the way it did. Some are suggesting, as I say, that this represents a victory for the terrorists but I don't see how that claim can have any legitimacy. The aim of the terrorists is to destroy western democracy. What they achieved was a larger than expected turnout - in other words, a wider participation in democracy. Whether the new government in Spain is more or less effective than the old in dealing with terrorism it is too early to say, but that won't have anything to do with their socialism. (A reminder to my American cousins, if they need one, that their closest ally in the Gulf also has a government which carries a socialist label) To say that the Spanish people have moved to appease the terrorists is just bonkers. They've punished their former government, for sure, but that isn't the same thing at all.

I find it hard to escape the conclusion that what really bugs the pundits is that the Spanish have had the temerity to elect a socialist government. I know that many Americans have a really hard time accepting that Europeans don't regard socialism with the same distaste that they do.

But we don't. Get used to it.

Posted by Steve S @ 03/16/2004 03:53 AM GMT

The turnout was certainly bigger than it would have been otherwise, but I wonder if they'll come back a few months ago and wonder what they've done. What would have happened if we'd had an election three days after 9/11? I wonder if they should have cancelled the election, for mourning.

Posted by Caryn @ 03/16/2004 04:33 AM GMT

I think part of the difficulty is exactly what you pointed out.
US pundits wouldn't have noticed Spain.

They hear 'socialist' and define their response without awareness.
I think US citizens noticing the rest of the world can be a good thing and we can encourage it on our blogs.
But to call a sovereign people cowards and to parrot without thought or respect tends to shut down dialogue and learning.

Posted by Bene Diction @ 03/16/2004 08:29 PM GMT

Few people would argue that the UK currently has a socialist government. It maybe known as the Labour party, but its pollicies have been very conservative (in some ways more so than the conservatives!)

Posted by Adrian Warnock @ 03/16/2004 08:48 PM GMT

I'd not argue with that Adrian. But I suspect that the socialists of Spain are about as socialist as Blair. Not very.
Which makes the language used by some commenters elsewhere all the more ridiculous.

Posted by Richard @ 03/17/2004 01:02 AM GMT

I'll echo Adrian's comments; I wouldn't quite call NuLab "conservative" but they've moved away from the hard statism of the Kinnock crew.

Had the results happened without the bombings, it would have gotten about a tenth of the coverage it's getting in the US. It would have been cast as a loss for Dubya and not a victory for al Qaeda.

Posted by Mark Byron @ 03/17/2004 02:20 AM GMT

Fwiw, I gather I was wrong in my assumption about the Spanish Socialist Party. I understand from my friend who knows about such things that they are roughly equivalent to "Old Labour". Good for them, I say.

Posted by Richard @ 03/17/2004 06:28 PM GMT