Traditionally, the Spanish transition to democracy has been seen as a simple historical process, piloted by political elites —Adolfo Suárez, Juan Carlos I and Torcuato Fernández-Miranda among others— and carried out without major problems than those presented by terrorism. under that story —which could be considered as “official”— The engine of the country’s transformation would be consensus and dialogue among political leaders.
These would have managed to dismantle the dictatorship and establish a democracy comparable to the European ones. And they would have done it without the levels of conflict being excessively high. It is a story still in force, as it continues to predominate in a good part of the collective memory. Consensus as the motto of the Transition, regarding the achievement of the Constitution in 1978 by agreement of the majority of political forces, continues to be a recurring mental image (Ortiz Heras, 2011: 341).
In the official account, the Spanish population would have passively attended the decisions of their leaders. He would not have actively participated in the democratization process. Social conflict, the labor movement and the anti-Francoist movement would not have played any relevant role in the social transformation. However, between 1976 and 1979 the number of strikes and demonstrations was continuously increasing. It went from 1,194 strikes to 2,680 in 1979. This meant a corresponding increase in the number of participants and days not worked. All this caused this (1976) to be the year of greatest labor conflict since Franco’s death (Redero San Román, 2008: 138).
The following question may then be raised, What role did Spanish society have in this first phase of the Transition? Were social and cultural movements –such as the protest song– relevant to political change or, as is often believed, their contribution to the achievement of democracy was reduced?? This article analyzes the importance of citizen mobilization to achieve the first free general elections since 1936 and the impact it had on the subsequent development of the Transition.
The fall of the Franco regime. The Government of Arias Navarro
The Franco regime experienced a crisis during his last years. This was essential so that, after Franco’s death, the maintenance of the July 18 regime became unfeasible. Factors such as the world economic crisis after 1973. Also the internal tensions within political elitesthe international pressure and the increase in social movements.
This last element has been ignored for many years in analyzes of the Transition. However, it is essential to understand the transition from dictatorship to democracy. Although in the final years of Francoism the most open sector had certain ideas about the future of the regime, none of those plans was to provide Spain with a parliamentary democracy equivalent to the European ones.
The death of dictator Francisco Franco on November 20, 1975 was key to the collapse of the regime. at the end of that year Arias Navarro he was appointed President of the Government by King Juan Carlos. Suspicious of the events that had occurred in Portugal months before —the Carnation Revolution— Arias tried to lead a timid opening process based on the idea of a “Spanish style democracy”more linked to the organic democracy than to European democracies (Ysàs, 2010: 40).
The opposition, encouraged by the dictator’s death, saw in that government a continuation of the regime. For this reason, he promoted numerous demonstrations and strikes throughout 1976 to bring down Arias Navarro. Especially the months of February and March were decisive in reviling the figure of the then President of the Government.
The strikes initially had mostly economic demands, but the fact of carrying them out in a highly repressive dictatorial context caused them to acquire a political character. Examples of these strikes are those of February 25, when a massive strike of carriers broke out nationwide, or that of the 27th in Sabadell, where forty thousand workers supported a political strike demanding freedom and democracy, achieving that it was spread to different parts of Spain.
Days later, on March 3, the so-called “Victorian events”. Four thousand workers, locked in an assembly in the church of San Francisco de Asís, were attacked by the police. This used tear gas and live ammunition against the workers, in order to expel them from the religious center. As a result of that operation died five people and more than one hundred and fifty were injured by rubber bullets.
Arias Navarro’s response to the increase in social conflict was to increase repression. On May 29, the Law Regulating the Right of Assembly was created, a law aimed at ensuring national stability and with clear authoritarian overtones. However, the civil governor reserved the right to prohibit meetings or deny authorizations.
This meant the discredit of the Government of Arias Navarro, hit by the economic crisis and affected by numerous strikes in all productive sectors. To this must be added the creation of the Democratic Coordination (CD) or “Platajunta” on March 26. He was a solid rival for Arias Navarro. The temporary unification of the Democratic Board of Spain and the Democratic Convergence Platform allowed increasing pressure against the Government and cornering the Pardo leader.
Finally, the increase in anti-Francoist activity and the progressive but slow rise of terrorist groups Like the GRAPO, FRAP and ETA ended up blowing up the Arias Navarro government. Faced with the danger of democratic rupture and the absolute discredit of the President of the Government, the King Juan Carlosin the capacity of head of state and official successor of Francisco Franco opted to force the resignation of Arias Navarro and appoint Adolfo Suárez as President of the Government. Thus began a new period in the history of the Transition.
The rise of Adolfo Suárez and the Law for Political Reform
As the historian Xavier Domènech affirms, the resources of the anti-Francoist opposition were capital for the change that took place during the first half of 1976 (Domènech, 2012: 209). Suárez’s rise to the presidency was a victory for the opposition and meant the defeat of Franco’s continuity, represented by Arias Navarro. From that moment, therefore, things would change. The growth of terrorist activity tensed the Suárez government and worsened the political situationcontributing to the growth of repression and this, in turn, of terrorist activity.
On July 18 the Antifascist Resistance Groups First of October (GRAPO) organized attacks on a national scale with a double objective. On the one hand, they sought to reject the amnesty law proposed by the Government. According to this, only prisoners without blood crimes could be released. On the other, it was intended to show rejection of the regime and contribute to further destabilize the Government and cause its fall.
The attacks of July 18 have been described by Carrillo-Linares (2008: 567) as “a spectacular terrorist action, never carried out with such accuracy before, and that was his true public presentation in society.” These were meticulously calculated acts that in that context posed a serious threat to the Government of Adolfo Suárez, even more so considering the rise of the far right.
Fascist groups began to attack the bookstores that hosted acts of the left. This was the case of the Rafael Alberti bookstore in Madrid. This was attacked with concrete blocks and shots on July 9, 1976. The motivation was having hosted a book signing of the communist singer-songwriter Manuel Gerena in April, an important figure in the protest song. After several death threats to the owner, the bookstore would be robbed again on November 6 of that year. It was completely destroyed and burned by fire after gasoline was introduced under the door (Sarría Buil, 2009: 123-125).
Transition, conflict and constitutions
Despite everything, the cycle of terrorist activity did not fully take off until January 1977, with the Atocha attacks. These were a key moment of the Transition. Until then, the political landscape continued to be dominated by opposition protest. Also for the attempt to provoke a democratic rupture and the maneuvers of Suárez to ensure the stability of the country. East, faced with the increase in social conflict during the summer of 1976, he decided to change course. He made the determination to promote a law that “established the basic lines for the Government to draft the Constitution” (Pérez Areas, 2008: 355).
At that time, a “Constitution” was understood as a reform of the fundamental laws, which gave great importance to the king. A bicameral system would be established with a Senate of 250 members, of which 40 would be chosen by royal appointment. The king would have the capacity to continue choosing the government. This was still responsible to the monarch and not to Parliament (Sánchez-Cuenca, 2014: 175-179). The objective was to achieve a link between the old and the new system before the prosecutors of the Francoist Cortes. It was sought that it not only be, but also appear to be a continuation and not a rupture.
The opposition responded by reinforcing the pressure on the street to prevent a law that meant giving up control of the exchange rate to the dictatorship. It is in these moments when the consensus myth. This myth, which fills the collective memory of an entire generation, idealizes the Transition. He alludes to the fact that both the reformists of the regime and the opponents collaborated for the common good to carry out the different reforms that were proposed from 1976 to 1978.
The reality was that the correlation of forces leaned towards Suárez’s side, since the opposition did not have enough strength to overthrow the Franco regime. Hence the negotiations and pacts beginning in December 1976. Until then, Suárez systematically and as far as possible removed and silenced the opposition from the public sphere. However, he needed Political Reform Law was approved and ratified in a referendum.
That would allow him to consecrate himself to the public as the initiator of political change. also anoint of democratic legitimation to your government. In the midst of all this, there was also the preservation of stability and control to avoid situations such as that of Portugal or Greece. In that sense, maintain a certain balance between democratic reformism and continuation of the Francoist system —symbolized in the figure of King Juan Carlos— was vital to prevent the loss of support in the army.
This was key to ensure the stability of the country. Symbolic pillar of the regime, the…