It was already expected that the Barcelona mayoral elections were going to be the hardest-fought of all the different contests of the past 28-M and that there was the possibility that the constitution of the new plenary session this Saturday would be reached without knowing who would be the future mayor. In view of the results, the only viable alternatives today are those of Xavier Trias and Jaume Collboni. What is already clear, and it was one of the great unknowns that these elections have resolved, is that Ada Colau has not been able to govern in a third term because the people of Barcelona have not given her this opportunity. In the last plenary session of the legislature held yesterday, the mayoress said goodbye with the pride of having been the first woman to take office in Barcelona and admitted that, whatever happens in the future, "what is certain is that I I will not preside over the plenary session again ”.
"When I leave, all those who are going against me will blame me," Colau commented on the eve of the election. Surely some will miss her more than others, but it cannot be argued that the management of the leader of Barcelona en Comú has left no one indifferent. There will be time to analyze his work more clearly and to what extent his essential philosophy, consisting of an urbanism more thought of people and concerned with the climate crisis, has been more a discourse facing the gallery than a reality. Colau has managed to focus on his superilles and the introduction of the tram, but the general problem of air pollution suffered by the city has not improved and the implementation of low emission zones has failed. Nor has his hand been noticed in the serious housing situation, despite all his statements.
It is true that from the first minute of his term there were intense campaigns against him, but neither did he do anything to try to find a pact with a civil society that also deserved to be heard. One definition could be that Colau was correct in the diagnosis and in what the Barcelona of the future should be like, but he did not know how to successfully put it into practice and got lost in a radical dialectic. His successors would err if they tried to dismantle the legacy he leaves behind. What it is about is doing it better and seeking the consensus of all.
