SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Podemos (We Can) party leader Pablo Iglesias gestures to supporters after results were announced in Spain's general election in Madrid, Spain, December 21, 2015. (Photo: Reuters)
The Spanish government will have a radical new look next year.
But who will lead it is still up in the air.
With 99% of the votes tallied, the ruling center-right Partido Popular (PP) received 29% of the vote in the general elections held on December 20. That percentage conceded them 122 out of 350 parliamentary seats in the Congress of Deputies, the chamber responsible for selecting the country's president (effectively the prime minister).
Since no single party other than its irreconcilable rival the socialists (Partido Socialista Obrero Espanol, PSOE) earned enough seats to form a majority coalition with them (91 seats with 22% of the vote), the results leave open the possibility of one forming among the opposition parties, involving the PSOE and new parties both to the left and right of the PSOE.
Failing such a coalition, or an even less likely 3-party one involving the PP, new elections will need to be called, leaving it to the voters to re-evaluate their choices with the hopes of pulling their government and their fragile economic recovery out of limbo.
The PP has ruled with an ironclad 186-seat majority since the 2011 elections, capitalizing on the global economic crisis, a massive real estate bust, and discontent with the way the socialists were handling it at the time. But after 4 years of weakened labor laws, curtailed social services, and unpopular policies on issues ranging from education to health, its campaign message - that Spaniards are better off because their economy is now leading the European Union in growth - did not resonate with the great majority of the voters.
Unemployment stills hovers above 22%, the majority of new jobs touted by the PP are temporary, low-paid ones, corruption cases involving the PP abound, and most are not happy with the PP's passive-aggressive handling of the Catalonian separatist movement, particularly in Cataluna.
The PSOE also fell short of its 2011 results, losing 19 seats. In spite of bringing a cadre of fresh faces to the forefront of the party in the last year or so, led by tall and handsome Pedro Sanchez, the PSOE has not regained the political weight that would have allowed it to turn the tables on the PP. And, indeed, after alternating periodically with the PP to lead Spain for nearly half of its 37 years as a modern democracy, it is unlikely that it ever will again.
The reason is that the political landscape in Spain has changed dramatically in the last few years. After several years of economic free fall and well over a decade of onecorruption case after another filing before the citizenry like penitents in a religious procession, there are new contenders in the Spanish political arena. They come from both the left and the right, with strong anti-corruption platforms, and are both now battling for the center. And they no longer appear to be mere populist blips.
In the case of the PSOE, the biggest challenge comes from Podemos ("We Can"). Along with closely allied parties flying under different regional banners, it funneled off most of the remaining left-leaning voters (a combined 69 seats with 21% of the vote), leaving the United Left, also allied with other left parties (Ahora en Comun-Unidad Popular), 4% of the vote and 2 seats. The Catalonia Republican Left along with other Catalonian separatist parties (ERC-CATSI) pulled in 9 seats with just 3% of the vote. The disproportionately much lower number of parliamentary seats won by parties other than the PP, PSOE, ERC is due to an electoral allocation system (the D'Hondt method) that favors the top parties in each voting district.
Podemos, which came in third overall in voting and seats, traces its ideological roots to the "indignados" occupy movement of May 15, 2011 in Madrid (which preceded Occupy Wall Street by several months). But it rose as a political party only months before capturing 8% of the vote in the EU parliamentary elections of May 2014. A year later, with affiliated new parties or the United Left, it managed to unseat conservative mayors in cities across Spain in the countrywide municipal elections of May 2015, most notably in Madrid, Barcelona.
The party was co-founded and is led by 37-year old Pablo Iglesias, a former political science professor, a rapid-fire debater, and a current European Union (EU) delegate. Its anti-austerity, pro-worker and pro-small business platform was spearheaded by an anti-corruption stance against the political "caste" system, in its rhetoric. It is a system, Iglesias echoed in nearly every speech and debate, that is sustained by a politician-corporate board member "revolving door." This message, whether already obvious to many or not, has been very effective in keeping in the forefront of everyone's mind the relationship between the entrenched self-interests of the old guard and the daily news of new or ongoing political corruption trials. Since injecting the term "puertas giratorias" (revolving doors) into the national dialogue, the PSOE has had to coopt it into their own platform and propose specific measures to reduce it.
Podemos looked poised to displace the PSOE as the leading center-left party before the center-right Ciudadanos (Citizens) rose and offered another home for the political center. Unencumbered by corruption and led by preppy but unaffected Albert Rivera, a 35-year old Catalonian, Ciudadanos captured 40 seats with 14% of the vote in its first general election. Even though the party has its roots in conservative Catalonian politics and supply-side economics, its attacks on the scandal-ridden PP were more relentless than they were on the PSOE. Consequently, in spite of warnings from the left that it is indeed right-wing and anti-labor to the bone, it has been successful in branding itself a centrist rival of the PP.
If the election results weren't enough, the run-up to them was also unprecedented and arguably the most entertaining in Spanish history. A long series of popular TV show appearances and debates preceded the vote, a la American politics but as if they were trying to get a leg up on it. It included PSOE's Sanchez rock climbing for the first time on an adventure show, Cuidadanos's Rivera rally racing in a subsequent episode, and, more sedately on a different program, Rivera and Podemos's Iglesias meeting for an informal debate over cups of coffee in a working class bar, which turned out to be remarkable in its civility and mutual respect. Not to be outdone, but handicapped by the robotic clumsiness of the 60-year old sitting president, Mariano Rajoy, the PP had the younger vice president of the government, Soraya Saenz de Santamaria, shed her normal headmistress demeanor and line dance on one show, impressively well.
The formal debates among the major parties were predictable, but more fact-filled and less bombastic than any from the US I've watched lately. However, Rajoy, exceptionally uncharismatic and sometimes fumbling when having to deviate from the party line, agreed to debate only with PSOE candidate Sanchez in the week before the elections, under the traditional and gentlemanly format of the last 30 or so years for the two parties (line dancer Santamaria stood in for him at a previous debate with a more problematic number of candidates).
Knowing he needed a nudge up in the polls and probably thinking he had nothing to lose, Sanchez surprised all by attacking Rajoy not only politically but personally, calling him out repeatedly on his "lies" and links to corrupt members of the PP, and saying that he was not "decent" man. Taken aback, Rajoy responded by calling him "cruel, mean-spirited, and despicable."
Pundits will be debating for years over whom the debate helped or hurt more, but a chorus of ranking PP members called Sanchez things like a "barrio chulo" (neighborhood tough) while upstart opposition leaders Iglesias and Rivera were delighted for the opportunity to appear above the fray.
In a disturbing turn of events, a few days after the debate and 4 days before the vote, a real barrio chulo, a 17-year old soccer hooligan intent on his 15 minutes of Twitter fame, punched Rojay in the face while campaigning in his home town in Galicia. There was a nationwide outpouring of support for Rajoy, including from all opposition parties, as he impressively brushed off the attach and stuck to his busy public agenda that day. Since the young thug was a supporter of a radical Galician independence group, no one in the PP could exploit the attack by suggesting that Sanchez's aggressive remarks inspired it. However, the violence undoubtedly drew more negative attention to them and, given Rajoy's aplomb in dealing with it, likely not only solidified the PP's base but drew back voters from Ciudadanos.
The dust is still settling on these elections and great uncertainties lie ahead in the governance of Spain, with politics not as fragmented here since the civil war (1936-39) and economies across Europe still on unsteady ground. Can a tri-party coalition, with two lefts (the PSOE and Podemos) and one right (Ciudadanos), work?
"The left is always divided. That's the problem," a young man handing out campaign flyers, ironically for the United Left, said to me a week before the vote. It brought to mind George Orwell's first-hand account of the civil war as an anti-fascist volunteer, in his Homage to Catalonia, of leftist factions sometimes shooting at each other when not at the fascists.
Yet these current divisions, on both the left and right, are long overdue. And all three parties of a possible coalition of opposition parties seem to agree that a corrupt relation between business and politics is at the root of Spain's still ailing institutions and economy. The origins of most of the crimes lie, no doubt, in the heady greed engendered by the pre-2008 boom years combined with a congenital lack of oversight inherited from nearly 40 years of dictatorship, when a nod and a wink by a government official was part of any business deal. But the modus operandi is all too familiar to the citizens of any modern democracy.
One could look at the number of cases being prosecuted and conclude "see, the system works", as the PP has, or claim, as the PSOE tried, "we love you and won't do it again." Sound like American Republicans or Democrats, at least those not named Warren or Sanders?
But here's the difference: most of the Spanish electorate, as evidenced by the polls and support for anti-corruption platforms, is concerned that it might be looking at the tip of the iceberg, and know that only structural changes can solve their problems, structural changes that seriously address the relationship between capitalism and democracy, including, and perhaps above all, those puertas giratorias.
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
The Spanish government will have a radical new look next year.
But who will lead it is still up in the air.
With 99% of the votes tallied, the ruling center-right Partido Popular (PP) received 29% of the vote in the general elections held on December 20. That percentage conceded them 122 out of 350 parliamentary seats in the Congress of Deputies, the chamber responsible for selecting the country's president (effectively the prime minister).
Since no single party other than its irreconcilable rival the socialists (Partido Socialista Obrero Espanol, PSOE) earned enough seats to form a majority coalition with them (91 seats with 22% of the vote), the results leave open the possibility of one forming among the opposition parties, involving the PSOE and new parties both to the left and right of the PSOE.
Failing such a coalition, or an even less likely 3-party one involving the PP, new elections will need to be called, leaving it to the voters to re-evaluate their choices with the hopes of pulling their government and their fragile economic recovery out of limbo.
The PP has ruled with an ironclad 186-seat majority since the 2011 elections, capitalizing on the global economic crisis, a massive real estate bust, and discontent with the way the socialists were handling it at the time. But after 4 years of weakened labor laws, curtailed social services, and unpopular policies on issues ranging from education to health, its campaign message - that Spaniards are better off because their economy is now leading the European Union in growth - did not resonate with the great majority of the voters.
Unemployment stills hovers above 22%, the majority of new jobs touted by the PP are temporary, low-paid ones, corruption cases involving the PP abound, and most are not happy with the PP's passive-aggressive handling of the Catalonian separatist movement, particularly in Cataluna.
The PSOE also fell short of its 2011 results, losing 19 seats. In spite of bringing a cadre of fresh faces to the forefront of the party in the last year or so, led by tall and handsome Pedro Sanchez, the PSOE has not regained the political weight that would have allowed it to turn the tables on the PP. And, indeed, after alternating periodically with the PP to lead Spain for nearly half of its 37 years as a modern democracy, it is unlikely that it ever will again.
The reason is that the political landscape in Spain has changed dramatically in the last few years. After several years of economic free fall and well over a decade of onecorruption case after another filing before the citizenry like penitents in a religious procession, there are new contenders in the Spanish political arena. They come from both the left and the right, with strong anti-corruption platforms, and are both now battling for the center. And they no longer appear to be mere populist blips.
In the case of the PSOE, the biggest challenge comes from Podemos ("We Can"). Along with closely allied parties flying under different regional banners, it funneled off most of the remaining left-leaning voters (a combined 69 seats with 21% of the vote), leaving the United Left, also allied with other left parties (Ahora en Comun-Unidad Popular), 4% of the vote and 2 seats. The Catalonia Republican Left along with other Catalonian separatist parties (ERC-CATSI) pulled in 9 seats with just 3% of the vote. The disproportionately much lower number of parliamentary seats won by parties other than the PP, PSOE, ERC is due to an electoral allocation system (the D'Hondt method) that favors the top parties in each voting district.
Podemos, which came in third overall in voting and seats, traces its ideological roots to the "indignados" occupy movement of May 15, 2011 in Madrid (which preceded Occupy Wall Street by several months). But it rose as a political party only months before capturing 8% of the vote in the EU parliamentary elections of May 2014. A year later, with affiliated new parties or the United Left, it managed to unseat conservative mayors in cities across Spain in the countrywide municipal elections of May 2015, most notably in Madrid, Barcelona.
The party was co-founded and is led by 37-year old Pablo Iglesias, a former political science professor, a rapid-fire debater, and a current European Union (EU) delegate. Its anti-austerity, pro-worker and pro-small business platform was spearheaded by an anti-corruption stance against the political "caste" system, in its rhetoric. It is a system, Iglesias echoed in nearly every speech and debate, that is sustained by a politician-corporate board member "revolving door." This message, whether already obvious to many or not, has been very effective in keeping in the forefront of everyone's mind the relationship between the entrenched self-interests of the old guard and the daily news of new or ongoing political corruption trials. Since injecting the term "puertas giratorias" (revolving doors) into the national dialogue, the PSOE has had to coopt it into their own platform and propose specific measures to reduce it.
Podemos looked poised to displace the PSOE as the leading center-left party before the center-right Ciudadanos (Citizens) rose and offered another home for the political center. Unencumbered by corruption and led by preppy but unaffected Albert Rivera, a 35-year old Catalonian, Ciudadanos captured 40 seats with 14% of the vote in its first general election. Even though the party has its roots in conservative Catalonian politics and supply-side economics, its attacks on the scandal-ridden PP were more relentless than they were on the PSOE. Consequently, in spite of warnings from the left that it is indeed right-wing and anti-labor to the bone, it has been successful in branding itself a centrist rival of the PP.
If the election results weren't enough, the run-up to them was also unprecedented and arguably the most entertaining in Spanish history. A long series of popular TV show appearances and debates preceded the vote, a la American politics but as if they were trying to get a leg up on it. It included PSOE's Sanchez rock climbing for the first time on an adventure show, Cuidadanos's Rivera rally racing in a subsequent episode, and, more sedately on a different program, Rivera and Podemos's Iglesias meeting for an informal debate over cups of coffee in a working class bar, which turned out to be remarkable in its civility and mutual respect. Not to be outdone, but handicapped by the robotic clumsiness of the 60-year old sitting president, Mariano Rajoy, the PP had the younger vice president of the government, Soraya Saenz de Santamaria, shed her normal headmistress demeanor and line dance on one show, impressively well.
The formal debates among the major parties were predictable, but more fact-filled and less bombastic than any from the US I've watched lately. However, Rajoy, exceptionally uncharismatic and sometimes fumbling when having to deviate from the party line, agreed to debate only with PSOE candidate Sanchez in the week before the elections, under the traditional and gentlemanly format of the last 30 or so years for the two parties (line dancer Santamaria stood in for him at a previous debate with a more problematic number of candidates).
Knowing he needed a nudge up in the polls and probably thinking he had nothing to lose, Sanchez surprised all by attacking Rajoy not only politically but personally, calling him out repeatedly on his "lies" and links to corrupt members of the PP, and saying that he was not "decent" man. Taken aback, Rajoy responded by calling him "cruel, mean-spirited, and despicable."
Pundits will be debating for years over whom the debate helped or hurt more, but a chorus of ranking PP members called Sanchez things like a "barrio chulo" (neighborhood tough) while upstart opposition leaders Iglesias and Rivera were delighted for the opportunity to appear above the fray.
In a disturbing turn of events, a few days after the debate and 4 days before the vote, a real barrio chulo, a 17-year old soccer hooligan intent on his 15 minutes of Twitter fame, punched Rojay in the face while campaigning in his home town in Galicia. There was a nationwide outpouring of support for Rajoy, including from all opposition parties, as he impressively brushed off the attach and stuck to his busy public agenda that day. Since the young thug was a supporter of a radical Galician independence group, no one in the PP could exploit the attack by suggesting that Sanchez's aggressive remarks inspired it. However, the violence undoubtedly drew more negative attention to them and, given Rajoy's aplomb in dealing with it, likely not only solidified the PP's base but drew back voters from Ciudadanos.
The dust is still settling on these elections and great uncertainties lie ahead in the governance of Spain, with politics not as fragmented here since the civil war (1936-39) and economies across Europe still on unsteady ground. Can a tri-party coalition, with two lefts (the PSOE and Podemos) and one right (Ciudadanos), work?
"The left is always divided. That's the problem," a young man handing out campaign flyers, ironically for the United Left, said to me a week before the vote. It brought to mind George Orwell's first-hand account of the civil war as an anti-fascist volunteer, in his Homage to Catalonia, of leftist factions sometimes shooting at each other when not at the fascists.
Yet these current divisions, on both the left and right, are long overdue. And all three parties of a possible coalition of opposition parties seem to agree that a corrupt relation between business and politics is at the root of Spain's still ailing institutions and economy. The origins of most of the crimes lie, no doubt, in the heady greed engendered by the pre-2008 boom years combined with a congenital lack of oversight inherited from nearly 40 years of dictatorship, when a nod and a wink by a government official was part of any business deal. But the modus operandi is all too familiar to the citizens of any modern democracy.
One could look at the number of cases being prosecuted and conclude "see, the system works", as the PP has, or claim, as the PSOE tried, "we love you and won't do it again." Sound like American Republicans or Democrats, at least those not named Warren or Sanders?
But here's the difference: most of the Spanish electorate, as evidenced by the polls and support for anti-corruption platforms, is concerned that it might be looking at the tip of the iceberg, and know that only structural changes can solve their problems, structural changes that seriously address the relationship between capitalism and democracy, including, and perhaps above all, those puertas giratorias.
The Spanish government will have a radical new look next year.
But who will lead it is still up in the air.
With 99% of the votes tallied, the ruling center-right Partido Popular (PP) received 29% of the vote in the general elections held on December 20. That percentage conceded them 122 out of 350 parliamentary seats in the Congress of Deputies, the chamber responsible for selecting the country's president (effectively the prime minister).
Since no single party other than its irreconcilable rival the socialists (Partido Socialista Obrero Espanol, PSOE) earned enough seats to form a majority coalition with them (91 seats with 22% of the vote), the results leave open the possibility of one forming among the opposition parties, involving the PSOE and new parties both to the left and right of the PSOE.
Failing such a coalition, or an even less likely 3-party one involving the PP, new elections will need to be called, leaving it to the voters to re-evaluate their choices with the hopes of pulling their government and their fragile economic recovery out of limbo.
The PP has ruled with an ironclad 186-seat majority since the 2011 elections, capitalizing on the global economic crisis, a massive real estate bust, and discontent with the way the socialists were handling it at the time. But after 4 years of weakened labor laws, curtailed social services, and unpopular policies on issues ranging from education to health, its campaign message - that Spaniards are better off because their economy is now leading the European Union in growth - did not resonate with the great majority of the voters.
Unemployment stills hovers above 22%, the majority of new jobs touted by the PP are temporary, low-paid ones, corruption cases involving the PP abound, and most are not happy with the PP's passive-aggressive handling of the Catalonian separatist movement, particularly in Cataluna.
The PSOE also fell short of its 2011 results, losing 19 seats. In spite of bringing a cadre of fresh faces to the forefront of the party in the last year or so, led by tall and handsome Pedro Sanchez, the PSOE has not regained the political weight that would have allowed it to turn the tables on the PP. And, indeed, after alternating periodically with the PP to lead Spain for nearly half of its 37 years as a modern democracy, it is unlikely that it ever will again.
The reason is that the political landscape in Spain has changed dramatically in the last few years. After several years of economic free fall and well over a decade of onecorruption case after another filing before the citizenry like penitents in a religious procession, there are new contenders in the Spanish political arena. They come from both the left and the right, with strong anti-corruption platforms, and are both now battling for the center. And they no longer appear to be mere populist blips.
In the case of the PSOE, the biggest challenge comes from Podemos ("We Can"). Along with closely allied parties flying under different regional banners, it funneled off most of the remaining left-leaning voters (a combined 69 seats with 21% of the vote), leaving the United Left, also allied with other left parties (Ahora en Comun-Unidad Popular), 4% of the vote and 2 seats. The Catalonia Republican Left along with other Catalonian separatist parties (ERC-CATSI) pulled in 9 seats with just 3% of the vote. The disproportionately much lower number of parliamentary seats won by parties other than the PP, PSOE, ERC is due to an electoral allocation system (the D'Hondt method) that favors the top parties in each voting district.
Podemos, which came in third overall in voting and seats, traces its ideological roots to the "indignados" occupy movement of May 15, 2011 in Madrid (which preceded Occupy Wall Street by several months). But it rose as a political party only months before capturing 8% of the vote in the EU parliamentary elections of May 2014. A year later, with affiliated new parties or the United Left, it managed to unseat conservative mayors in cities across Spain in the countrywide municipal elections of May 2015, most notably in Madrid, Barcelona.
The party was co-founded and is led by 37-year old Pablo Iglesias, a former political science professor, a rapid-fire debater, and a current European Union (EU) delegate. Its anti-austerity, pro-worker and pro-small business platform was spearheaded by an anti-corruption stance against the political "caste" system, in its rhetoric. It is a system, Iglesias echoed in nearly every speech and debate, that is sustained by a politician-corporate board member "revolving door." This message, whether already obvious to many or not, has been very effective in keeping in the forefront of everyone's mind the relationship between the entrenched self-interests of the old guard and the daily news of new or ongoing political corruption trials. Since injecting the term "puertas giratorias" (revolving doors) into the national dialogue, the PSOE has had to coopt it into their own platform and propose specific measures to reduce it.
Podemos looked poised to displace the PSOE as the leading center-left party before the center-right Ciudadanos (Citizens) rose and offered another home for the political center. Unencumbered by corruption and led by preppy but unaffected Albert Rivera, a 35-year old Catalonian, Ciudadanos captured 40 seats with 14% of the vote in its first general election. Even though the party has its roots in conservative Catalonian politics and supply-side economics, its attacks on the scandal-ridden PP were more relentless than they were on the PSOE. Consequently, in spite of warnings from the left that it is indeed right-wing and anti-labor to the bone, it has been successful in branding itself a centrist rival of the PP.
If the election results weren't enough, the run-up to them was also unprecedented and arguably the most entertaining in Spanish history. A long series of popular TV show appearances and debates preceded the vote, a la American politics but as if they were trying to get a leg up on it. It included PSOE's Sanchez rock climbing for the first time on an adventure show, Cuidadanos's Rivera rally racing in a subsequent episode, and, more sedately on a different program, Rivera and Podemos's Iglesias meeting for an informal debate over cups of coffee in a working class bar, which turned out to be remarkable in its civility and mutual respect. Not to be outdone, but handicapped by the robotic clumsiness of the 60-year old sitting president, Mariano Rajoy, the PP had the younger vice president of the government, Soraya Saenz de Santamaria, shed her normal headmistress demeanor and line dance on one show, impressively well.
The formal debates among the major parties were predictable, but more fact-filled and less bombastic than any from the US I've watched lately. However, Rajoy, exceptionally uncharismatic and sometimes fumbling when having to deviate from the party line, agreed to debate only with PSOE candidate Sanchez in the week before the elections, under the traditional and gentlemanly format of the last 30 or so years for the two parties (line dancer Santamaria stood in for him at a previous debate with a more problematic number of candidates).
Knowing he needed a nudge up in the polls and probably thinking he had nothing to lose, Sanchez surprised all by attacking Rajoy not only politically but personally, calling him out repeatedly on his "lies" and links to corrupt members of the PP, and saying that he was not "decent" man. Taken aback, Rajoy responded by calling him "cruel, mean-spirited, and despicable."
Pundits will be debating for years over whom the debate helped or hurt more, but a chorus of ranking PP members called Sanchez things like a "barrio chulo" (neighborhood tough) while upstart opposition leaders Iglesias and Rivera were delighted for the opportunity to appear above the fray.
In a disturbing turn of events, a few days after the debate and 4 days before the vote, a real barrio chulo, a 17-year old soccer hooligan intent on his 15 minutes of Twitter fame, punched Rojay in the face while campaigning in his home town in Galicia. There was a nationwide outpouring of support for Rajoy, including from all opposition parties, as he impressively brushed off the attach and stuck to his busy public agenda that day. Since the young thug was a supporter of a radical Galician independence group, no one in the PP could exploit the attack by suggesting that Sanchez's aggressive remarks inspired it. However, the violence undoubtedly drew more negative attention to them and, given Rajoy's aplomb in dealing with it, likely not only solidified the PP's base but drew back voters from Ciudadanos.
The dust is still settling on these elections and great uncertainties lie ahead in the governance of Spain, with politics not as fragmented here since the civil war (1936-39) and economies across Europe still on unsteady ground. Can a tri-party coalition, with two lefts (the PSOE and Podemos) and one right (Ciudadanos), work?
"The left is always divided. That's the problem," a young man handing out campaign flyers, ironically for the United Left, said to me a week before the vote. It brought to mind George Orwell's first-hand account of the civil war as an anti-fascist volunteer, in his Homage to Catalonia, of leftist factions sometimes shooting at each other when not at the fascists.
Yet these current divisions, on both the left and right, are long overdue. And all three parties of a possible coalition of opposition parties seem to agree that a corrupt relation between business and politics is at the root of Spain's still ailing institutions and economy. The origins of most of the crimes lie, no doubt, in the heady greed engendered by the pre-2008 boom years combined with a congenital lack of oversight inherited from nearly 40 years of dictatorship, when a nod and a wink by a government official was part of any business deal. But the modus operandi is all too familiar to the citizens of any modern democracy.
One could look at the number of cases being prosecuted and conclude "see, the system works", as the PP has, or claim, as the PSOE tried, "we love you and won't do it again." Sound like American Republicans or Democrats, at least those not named Warren or Sanders?
But here's the difference: most of the Spanish electorate, as evidenced by the polls and support for anti-corruption platforms, is concerned that it might be looking at the tip of the iceberg, and know that only structural changes can solve their problems, structural changes that seriously address the relationship between capitalism and democracy, including, and perhaps above all, those puertas giratorias.
"This sends a chilling message that the U.S. is willing to overlook some abuses, signaling that people experiencing human rights violations may be left to fend for themselves," said one Amnesty campaigner.
After leaked drafts exposed the Trump administration's plans to downplay human rights abuses in some allied countries, including Israel, the U.S. Department of State released the final edition of an annual report on Tuesday, sparking fresh condemnation.
"Breaking with precedent, Secretary of State Marco Rubio did not provide a written introduction to the report nor did he make remarks about it," CNN reported. Still, Amanda Klasing, Amnesty International USA's national director of government relations and advocacy, called him out by name in a Tuesday statement.
"With the release of the U.S. State Department's human rights report, it is clear that the Trump administration has engaged in a very selective documentation of human rights abuses in certain countries," Klasing said. "In addition to eliminating entire sections for certain countries—for example discrimination against LGBTQ+ people—there are also arbitrary omissions within existing sections of the report based on the country."
Klasing explained that "we have criticized past reports when warranted, but have never seen reports quite like this. Never before have the reports gone this far in prioritizing an administration's political agenda over a consistent and truthful accounting of human rights violations around the world—softening criticism in some countries while ignoring violations in others. The State Department has said in relation to the reports less is more. However, for the victims and human rights defenders who rely on these reports to shine light on abuses and violations, less is just less."
"Secretary Rubio knows full well from his time in the Senate how vital these reports are in informing policy decisions and shaping diplomatic conversations, yet he has made the dangerous and short-sighted decision to put out a truncated version that doesn't tell the whole story of human rights violations," she continued. "This sends a chilling message that the U.S. is willing to overlook some abuses, signaling that people experiencing human rights violations may be left to fend for themselves."
"Failing to adequately report on human rights violations further damages the credibility of the U.S. on human rights issues," she added. "It's shameful that the Trump administration and Secretary Rubio are putting politics above human lives."
The overarching report—which includes over 100 individual country reports—covers 2024, the last full calendar year of the Biden administration. The appendix says that in March, the report was "streamlined for better utility and accessibility in the field and by partners, and to be more responsive to the underlying legislative mandate and aligned to the administration's executive orders."
As CNN detailed:
The latest report was stripped of many of the specific sections included in past reports, including reporting on alleged abuses based on sexual orientation, violence toward women, corruption in government, systemic racial or ethnic violence, or denial of a fair public trial. Some country reports, including for Afghanistan, do address human rights abuses against women.
"We were asked to edit down the human rights reports to the bare minimum of what was statutorily required," said Michael Honigstein, the former director of African Affairs at the State Department's Bureau of Human Rights, Democracy, and Labor. He and his office helped compile the initial reports.
Over the past week, since the draft country reports leaked to the press, the Trump administration has come under fire for its portrayals of El Salvador, Israel, and Russia.
The report on Israel—and the illegally occupied Palestinian territories, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank—is just nine pages. The brevity even drew the attention of Israeli media. The Times of Israel highlighted that it "is much shorter than last year's edition compiled under the Biden administration and contained no mention of the severe humanitarian crisis in Gaza."
Since the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attack on Israel, Israeli forces have slaughtered over 60,000 Palestinians in Gaza, according to local officials—though experts warn the true toll is likely far higher. As Israel has restricted humanitarian aid in recent months, over 200 people have starved to death, including 103 children.
The U.S. report on Israel does not mention the genocide case that Israel faces at the International Court of Justice over the assault on Gaza, or the International Criminal Court arrest warrants issued for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The section on war crimes and genocide only says that "terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah continue to engage in the
indiscriminate targeting of Israeli civilians in violation of the law of armed conflict."
As the world mourns the killing of six more Palestinian media professionals in Gaza this week—which prompted calls for the United Nations Security Council to convene an emergency meeting—the report's section on press freedom is also short and makes no mention of the hundreds of journalists killed in Israel's annihilation of the strip:
The law generally provided for freedom of expression, including for members of the press and other media, and the government generally respected this right for most Israelis. NGOs and journalists reported authorities restricted press coverage and limited certain forms of expression, especially in the context of criticism against the war or sympathy for Palestinians in Gaza.
Noting that "the human rights reports have been among the U.S. government's most-read documents," DAWN senior adviser and 32-year State Department official Charles Blaha said the "significant omissions" in this year's report on Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank render it "functionally useless for Congress and the public as nothing more than a pro-Israel document."
Like Klasing at Amnesty, Sarah Leah Whitson, DAWN's executive director, specifically called out the U.S. secretary of state.
"Secretary Rubio has revamped the State Department reports for one principal purpose: to whitewash Israeli crimes, including its horrific genocide and starvation in Gaza. The report shockingly includes not a word about the overwhelming evidence of genocide, mass starvation, and the deliberate bombardment of civilians in Gaza," she said. "Rubio has defied the letter and intent of U.S. laws requiring the State Department to report truthfully and comprehensively about every country's human rights abuses, instead offering up anodyne cover for his murderous friends in Tel Aviv."
The Tuesday release came after a coalition of LGBTQ+ and human rights organizations on Monday filed a lawsuit against the U.S. State Department over its refusal to release the congressionally mandated report.
This article has been updated with comment from DAWN.
"We will not sit idly by while political leaders manipulate voting maps to entrench their power and subvert our democracy," said the head of Common Cause.
As Republicans try to rig congressional maps in several states and Democrats threaten retaliatory measures, a pro-democracy watchdog on Tuesday unveiled new fairness standards underscoring that "independent redistricting commissions remain the gold standard for ending partisan gerrymandering."
Common Cause will hold an online media briefing Wednesday at noon Eastern time "to walk reporters though the six pieces of criteria the organization will use to evaluate any proposed maps."
The Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group said that "it will closely evaluate, but not automatically condemn, countermeasures" to Republican gerrymandering efforts—especially mid-decade redistricting not based on decennial censuses.
Amid the gerrymandering wars, we just launched 6 fairness criteria to hold all actors to the same principled standard: people first—not parties. Read our criteria here: www.commoncause.org/resources/po...
[image or embed]
— Common Cause (@commoncause.org) August 12, 2025 at 12:01 PM
Common Cause's six fairness criteria for mid-decade redistricting are:
"We will not sit idly by while political leaders manipulate voting maps to entrench their power and subvert our democracy," Common Cause president and CEO Virginia Kase Solomón said in a statement. "But neither will we call for unilateral political disarmament in the face of authoritarian tactics that undermine fair representation."
"We have established a fairness criteria that we will use to evaluate all countermeasures so we can respond to the most urgent threats to fair representation while holding all actors to the same principled standard: people—not parties—first," she added.
Common Cause's fairness criteria come amid the ongoing standoff between Republicans trying to gerrymander Texas' congressional map and Democratic lawmakers who fled the state in a bid to stymie a vote on the measure. Texas state senators on Tuesday approved the proposed map despite a walkout by most of their Democratic colleagues.
Leaders of several Democrat-controlled states, most notably California, have threatened retaliatory redistricting.
"This moment is about more than responding to a single threat—it's about building the movement for lasting reform," Kase Solomón asserted. "This is not an isolated political tactic; it is part of a broader march toward authoritarianism, dismantling people-powered democracy, and stripping away the people's ability to have a political voice and say in how they are governed."
"Texas law is clear: A pregnant person cannot be arrested and prosecuted for getting an abortion. No one is above the law, including officials entrusted with enforcing it," said an ACLU attorney.
When officials in Starr County, Texas arrested Lizelle Gonzalez in 2022 and charged her with murder for having a medication abortion—despite state law clearly prohibiting the prosecution of women for abortion care—she spent three days in jail, away from her children, and the highly publicized arrest was "deeply traumatizing."
Now, said her lawyers at the ACLU in court filings on Tuesday, officials in the county sheriff's and district attorney's offices must be held accountable for knowingly subjecting Gonzalez to wrongful prosecution.
Starr County District Attorney Gocha Ramirez ultimately dismissed the charge against Gonzalez, said the ACLU, but the Texas bar's investigation into Ramirez—which found multiple instances of misconduct related to Gonzalez's homicide charge—resulted in only minor punishment. Ramirez had to pay a small fine of $1,250 and was given one year of probated suspension.
"Without real accountability, Starr County's district attorney—and any other law enforcement actor—will not be deterred from abusing their power to unlawfully target people because of their personal beliefs, rather than the law," said the ACLU.
The state bar found that Ramirez allowed Gonzalez's indictment to go forward despite the fact that her homicide charge was "known not to be supported by probable cause."
Ramirez had denied that he was briefed on the facts of the case before it was prosecuted by his office, but the state bar "determined he was consulted by a prosecutor in his office beforehand and permitted it to go forward."
"Without real accountability, Starr County's district attorney—and any other law enforcement actor—will not be deterred from abusing their power to unlawfully target people because of their personal beliefs, rather than the law."
Sarah Corning, an attorney at the ACLU of Texas, said the prosecutors and law enforcement officers "ignored Texas law when they wrongfully arrested Lizelle Gonzalez for ending her pregnancy."
"They shattered her life in South Texas, violated her rights, and abused the power they swore to uphold," said Corning. "Texas law is clear: A pregnant person cannot be arrested and prosecuted for getting an abortion. No one is above the law, including officials entrusted with enforcing it."
The district attorney's office sought to have the ACLU's case dismissed in July 2024, raising claims of legal immunity.
A court denied Ramirez's motion, and the ACLU's discovery process that followed revealed "a coordinated effort between the Starr County sheriff's office and district attorney's office to violate Ms. Gonzalez's rights."
The officials' "wanton disregard for the rule of law and erroneous belief of their own invincibility is a frightening deviation from the offices' purposes: to seek justice," said Cecilia Garza, a partner at the law firm Garza Martinez, who is joining the ACLU in representing Gonzalez. "I am proud to represent Ms. Gonzalez in her fight for justice and redemption, and our team will not allow these abuses to continue in Starr County or any other county in the state of Texas."
Gonzalez's fight for justice comes as a wrongful death case in Texas—filed by an "anti-abortion legal terrorist" on behalf of a man whose girlfriend use medication from another state to end her pregnancy—moves forward, potentially jeopardizing access to abortion pills across the country.