Universal suffrage is a very recent conquest in the millennial history of humanity. In fact, the right to vote for certain ethnic minorities in some countries, and for women in the vast majority of them, is – on average – less than a century old. For example, in Spain women's suffrage was recognized in 1933, during the Second Republic (before falling into a long silence, until the recovery of democracy), in France in 1944, before, in Russia (1917) or the United States ( 1920).
In any case, the right to vote – and be voted for – in free elections is an essential, and long-desired, feature of democratic societies. This right has been so desired that most countries have not considered it necessary to establish the obligation to exercise it. In fact, compulsory suffrage is exceptional and is in force only in around twenty countries, including Belgium, Greece and Luxembourg in the European Union.
However, it is a peculiar right, a historical privilege that entails a singularity, the obligation to be used, either by legal imperative or – more usually – by civic imperative, by social responsibility. Advanced democracies provide us with a significant and growing number of rights, and only require of us two things: first, that we respect the laws, particularly fiscal rules, which contribute to their livelihood, and second, that we that we freely choose our representatives, voting when we are called to do so, as is the case next Sunday.
In Spain, as in other democratic countries, there are important challenges that our society has to face: the unbearable increase in inequalities, the risk of poverty for a significant part of the child and adolescent population, the fight against climate change , the 2030 agenda, the European construction, the wear and tear of our young welfare state, territorial diversity, polarization and the hatred that some political groups stimulate... Faced with this, a powerful tool at our disposal (the most powerful) is to vote that political option that seems to us most capable of facing these challenges, or those that each citizen considers the most relevant.
As soon as we reflect, we will agree that not all political options, nor all political protagonists, are the same, that disregard for politics is a mistake and, above all, that not voting is a dysfunctional and sterile way of doing politics, albeit implicitly. And given the solemnity of our civic obligation to vote, alleging discomfort due to the dates (“the nuisance of voting” to which Fernando Ónega referred sensibly recently) does not seem very consistent. In fact, there are close precedents in our country, those of the democratic elections in Galicia and the Basque Country three years ago, in July 2020.
Four considerations to finish:
1) All candidates must be required to show exemplary conduct, to act with respect and good manners in their relations with their adversaries. All this as proof of the consideration due to the voters of all parties without exception. Therefore, beyond the programs, it is essential to assess the personality of the candidates, especially their credibility, that is, their moral authority. The general lack of this causes the discredit of politics.
2) Given the importance of the right to vote to identify ourselves as full citizens, what is necessary should be done to recognize it for those thousands of fellow citizens who pay their taxes on time and who face bureaucratic obstacles as absurd (and as undemocratic) as the requirement of reciprocity with the country of origin, a demand whose satisfaction is not within their reach and which, on many occasions, has some relation to their migratory drive. In this regard, it is ironic to recall that, when suffrage had not reached universality, the right to vote was restricted to citizens who owned real estate or those who paid taxes continuously, limitations that they overcame with some effort.
3) The damage caused to the democratic system by the malfunctioning of the parties, when their sole purpose is the interest of their leaders and militants, who must never forget that they are not the owners of the parties, but only their managers. It is the voters who breathe life into the parties. Hence the primaries restricted to militants are a debatable resource.
4) All the coalition governments that have been formed to date, or that will be formed in the future with parties that are within the law, have stood for election and have representatives in Parliament, are and will be legitimate. A different thing is whether or not they are convenient for the general interests, which will depend on the policies that these parties propose. But precisely because they are all legitimate (whether a coalition or a legislature pact with right-wing, left-wing or separatist extremists), the generic disqualifications sometimes used by some staunch defenders must be rejected outright, without any justification or defense. of the strictest democratic purity, self-appointed as implacable judges, they stigmatize a party that… is in their way. Simply because it doesn't suit them. Everything else, words. leaf litter
TREVA I PAU, formed by Jordi Alberich, Eugeni Bregolat, Eugeni Gay, Jaume Lanaspa, Juan-José López Burniol, Carles Losada, Josep Lluís Oller, Alfredo Pastor, Xavier Pomés and Víctor Pou
