Introduction
Terminology
Account of Direct Democracy in Spain
Constituent Power
Popular Initiative
Referendum
Another political freedoms
Analysis of Direct Democracty in Spain
National Development of Direct Democracy
The Legislative Collective Petition
Referendum of ratification of Constitutional/Statutory Amendment
The Consultive Plebiscite
The Referendum on revoking syndical elected representatives
Popular control of war
Regional Development of Direct Democracy
Referendum of ratification for statutorial reform
Legislative petition and consultative plebiscite
Self-determination right
Municipal Development of Direct Democracy
Municipal regulations
Participative Budget
Regional regulation of municipal plebiscite
Practice of Direct Democracy in Spain
Practice of the referendum of
ratification of Constitutional Amendment
Practice of the legislative petition as for national
scope
Practice of the legislative petition as for regional scope
Practice of the consultive
plebiscite
Practice of Non-Governmental
Direct Democracy
Historical Antecedents
Applicable legislation
Introduction
In July/2002 the Human Development Report
was launched, published yearly by the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP); this report, born in 1990, is documentary reference
for a significative part of socoeconomical activism. This year it
submits an evolution, qualitatively important, that has been reflected
in the own subtitle of the report: "Deepening democracy in a
fragmented world".
Despite the severe methodological defects of the report when estimating
"grade of democratic development" of every country, despite to admit no
having found statistical correlation between democratization and human
development, its reading passes persistently on critical outline
against actual Regime that since decades endures and grows as for
popular level. The novelty is a platform as the UNDP shares criticism
and hope that people, or at least the collective subconscious, uphold
about democratic utopia.
Daily experience makes again and again more evident the cultural
process by which elite replace Force by Deception. In contrast to
Regime's self-glorification from its propaganda media, popular
deception and rejection is growing against hegemonic model, which most
clear proofs are progressive increase in electoral abstention and
popular rejection of supposed means of political participation.
Organic intelligentsia studies the matter in terms of "representation
crisis", but deliberately it does not cope with the central aspect of
design of liberal democracy. Because our hegemonic regime is
characterized by publicizing a wide range of civil rights, while
keeping political freedoms under a minimum, and suffocating every
warranty of popular Constituent Power. This replacement of Force by
Deception is a cultural process that has required over a century to
reach actual maturing. But nowadays, its efficiency on control of
people is showing inevitable fissures, being unable to keep eternally
virtual reality of a supposed popular soverignty, where actually elite
take turns in office, where transformations arise unexpectedly as
so-called "globalization" (with an uncontrollable nature for supposed
will of the people). Popular distrust is slowly growing, may be
subconciously, to a regime which shouts its democratic nature from the
rooftops by means of powerful speakers, but takes up decades without
increasing the miserly political freedoms.
In contrast to civil rights, when we talk about political freedoms, we
are refering to freedoms of exercise of popular sovereignty:
improvement
of Representative Democracy (electoral system, imperative mandate on
representatives, ...), set of freedoms related to Direct Democracy, and
especially related to warranties of permanent exercise of popular
Constituent Power. Civil rights are mere grantings which, in absence of
political freedoms, are prone to suffer from deformations and
contractions in the service of spurious interests (examples arise
everywhere these days). Dialectic confusion between civil rights and
political freedoms, is one of the errors deliberately spreaded by
Regime
trying to legitimize its model.
Since the sixties, this crisis is having many intellectual responses
that do not get to form a front capable of breaking up the regime and
its propaganda media. But it is quite positive that democratic utopia
survives within assorted "political habitats". On the one side,
democratic activism within capitalist left and right, main
beneficiaries of liberal democracy, is quite rare but still existing.
On the other side, anarchist view of consent is usually expressed in
terms of absolute democracy. And despite violent preconception binding
liberal democracy and capitalism (Spain/1936, Guatemala/1954,
Chile/1973, Nicaragua/1986, Algeria/1991, Serbia/1999 and may be
Venezuela soon) an increasing minority within non-capitalist left is
observing revolutionary nature of radical democracy; indeed criticism
of classic concept of Revolution has generated new models as
"autonomous zones" and first of all radical democracy.
Direct Democracy is one the most significative foundation of democratic
activism; it exhibits an important development in terms of research and
political technology (formal procedures, legal articles, ...), at a
world level it shows an embryonic but hopeful practice, and it is a
concept moderately known by people. Its political status resembles
suffragism early 20th century. And maybe, its political weight is only
overcome by the urgent need for breaking Regime's propaganda media up;
political urgency derived from the macabre and futuristic scene where
political freedoms are enjoyed within Virtual Reality.
Direct Democracy gathers a suggestive set of political freedoms
characterized by being exercised without institutional veto, from its
initiative to its soverign culmination. The most classic freedoms are
the legislative popular initiative and its binding referendum, but
there is an increasing demand and political pressure for other popular
initiatives and their referendums: as initiative for legislative
abrogation, for ratification of laws and international treaties, for
revoking posts and appeals of constitutionality. Other pioneering
experiences as municipal Participative Budget has reached high levels
of
maduration in any regions as Latin America.
But political weight of Direct Democracy does not lie in its design but
in its scope. Because when Direct Democracy is applied to
constitutional environment we are settling, from point of view of
political technology, some warranties of popular Constituent Power. The
popular initiative for constitutional amendment and calling for
constituent assembly, together with their referenda, are political
freedoms almost unknown but with an unquestionable The so-named
"self-determination right" is lain also within this scope, which formal
development and practice have a state so embryonic that it could be
viewed as non-existent (due mainly to democratic burden provoked by
nationalist passions, as hegemonic ones as postulant ones).
Indeed, the majority of political freedoms of Direct Democracy exhibits
now a certain formal research, and even an incipient legal existence.
But we stay in the first steps: formal defects are very frequent
(usually they are premeditated faulty designs) and popular political
culture about such freedoms is weak and volatile. We have historical
proofs already about negative effect from exercising freedoms of Direct
Democracy formally defective. Because paradoxically popular deception
and distrust is focused on the own concept of Direct Democracy while
elite, guilty of its defective design, remain outside and unpunished.
Therefore, critical reports on development and practice of political
freedoms of Direct Democracy has a high practical value. They help to
protect Direct Democracy, clarifying the actual formal defects,
reporting banned freedoms in evey country and filling the documentary
vacuum imposed by propaganda media and academic insitutions.
Demopunk Net copes with publishing a status report about Direct
Democracy, doing it about spanish realities. We encourage democrat
activists from another countries to cope with similar reports, offering
them our scarce resources. Also Demopunk Net has collaborated gladly
translating to spanish the report on 32 european countries "Country
Index on Citizien Lawmaking" of year 2002, published by the IRI-Europe institute.
This annual report contains likely the most exhaustive data set about
Direct Democracy in Spain. It is designed as tool of political
research,
particularly oriented to people and institutions seeking for
information
being essential and verifiable; therefore reader has available, within
the document, almost all of legal references for checking.
Report will be yearly reissued, making up with new collected data or
with political news about Direct Democracy through year. Report is
simultaneously published in spanish and english.
Firstly a detailed listing is delivered about actual state of manifold
political freedoms usually associated with Direct Democracy, pointing
to their development grade, or if they are explicitly forbidden, or
if they are political technology unknown by Regime.
Next an analysis is accomplished on those existing freedoms, estimating
their efficiency, limitations and throughput in terms of popular
sovereignty. Analysis covers national, regional and local scopes.
Report goes on offering detailed data, likely incomplete, about
practice of existing freedoms as national, regional and local scopes.
Also non-governmental events of Direct Democracy are detailed.
Finally, a short revision is carried out about historical background of
Direct Democracy in Spain.
Terminology
Within this introduction we want to specify terminology used through
report. Direct Democracy has unequal development around the world, a
good token of mentioned variability is revealed in the report "Country
Index on Citizien Lawmaking" (over 32 european countries), published
yearly by the institute IRI-Europe.
A few terms cannot describe adequately actual development of every
political freedom; therefore applicable terminology must be precisely
settled. Terminological accuracy is not an academic whim; at least if
it is trying to reflect what degree of popular sovereignty is
involved within a specific political freedom.
Most common meaning applied to term "popular initiative" comes
from swiss constitutional scene. There, this term has a meaning
eminently legislative: applied to constitutional amendment and
ratification of laws, where every event lead up to binding
referendum. However, this use is limited, it does not show power of
term, by ignoring popular initiative has to be also applicable for
another areas of sovereingty as: revocation of elected posts,
initiative to abrogate laws, collective petition for appeal of
unconstitutionality, and so on.
Many regimen and their constitutions make an incorrect and propagandist
use of term "popular initiative" when describing their sickly
political freedoms, damaged by significative defects. When formal
defects avoid fulfilling popular sovereignty, we reduce term to
expression "collective petition".
Similar deviations arise around term "referendum". Main feature
required by referendum is to be binding. Therefore, we must
keep from using terms as "consultative referendums", which offends
own sovereign essence of this political freedom. In this case we cut
down term to expression "plebiscite", despite some persons
prefer to reserve this term for political masquerades of some
dictatorships.
Finally, it is needed to define a matter more closely. As for popular
sovereignty it has not got the same weight when political freedoms are
applied to constitutional scene than to common legislative activity or
regulation's scope. Therefore, we will reserve term of political
freedoms of warranty of "constituent power" for those ones
implementing popular initiative for constitutional amendments or
constituent processes.
Account of Direct Democracy in Spain
A detailed account of actual political freedoms of Direct Democracy in
Spain is offered. Next a political analysis and assesment of its
practice will be undertaken.
Four main categories are covered:
- Political Freedoms of warranty of Constituent Power.
- Political Freedoms related to Popular Initiative.
- Political Freedoms of holding Referendum.
- Another Political Freedoms.
Constituent Power
Initiative to constitutional amendment: Forbidden to
popular initiative by the Art.166. Only
Goverment and legislative assemblies (national and regional) have
got such a right. No other institution can exercise it.
Popular initiative to Constituent Assembly or Process:
Forbidden. Political freedom unknown by the constitution.
Self-determination Right: Forbidden. Political freedom unknown
by the constitution.
Popular Initiative
Popular initiative to the referendum: Forbidden,
according to the Art.92 only President of
the Government enjoys this right. No person, group or institution can
start such a legal process leading up to a national referendum.
On the other side, every institution (regional powers, local powers,
...) pretending to hold a referendum on any regional or local issue,
requires mandatory authorization of State (Art.
149.1.32).
Popular initiative to revoke elected official: Forbidden.
Political freedom unknown by the constitution.
Popular initiative to legislative abrogation: Forbidden.
Political freedom unknown by the constitution.
Popular initiative to legislative process: Forbidden. The
constitution contains a right for legislative collective petition in
its Art.87, which will be analysed separately.
Popular initiative to ratify international treaties: Forbidden
expressly by the Art.87.
Collective petition for appeal of unconstitutionality:
Forbidden expressly by the Art.162.1a.
Referendum
Binding referendum: Forbidden, according to the Art.92 it can be only consultative plebiscite.
Referendum of ratification to constitutional amendments:
Applicable only to very significative reform according to the Art.168, in the rest it will be held if
required by one tenth of Congress or Senate, Art.167.
Another political freedoms
Participative Budget: Forbidden. Political freedom
unknown by the constitution.
Popular control of war: Forbidden. Political freedom
unknown by the constitution.
Referendum for revoking syndical representatives:
According to the Art.67.3 of Statute of
Workers is possible to held a referendum, by initiative of one third
of workers, on revoking any syndical elected representative.
Analysis of Direct Democracy in Spain
National Development of Direct Democracy
Above account about state of Direct Democracy in Spain does not admit
of many readings. Vast majority of political freedoms are unknown by
the
constitution, or are explicitly forbidden. Next analysis is focused on
existing freedoms, but main conclusion of this analysis is the
significative lack of freedoms of Direct Democracy. In a word, state
of Direct Democracy in Spain is painful; optimistic reader can be
only able to get some consolation in the precarious worlwide
development of this kind of political freedoms.
The own lack of freedoms admits few additional analysis. But we wish to
emphasize that absolute wilderness of political freedoms shielding
Constituent Power. The constitution sprung up Fascist Transition
(1975-1980) makes up an armoured regime, spanish people has not got
any chance to modify it. Only elites have got this effective power,
and seemingly there is no volition to improve democratic quality of
Regimen, neither in political establishment, nor their propaganda
media.
Next a short political analysis of poor political freedoms of Direct
Democracy is set out, covering following political rights existing in
Spain:
- The Legislative Collective Petition
- The Referendum of ratification for constitutional amendment
- The Consultive Plebiscite
- The Referendum on revoking syndical elected representatives
The Legislative Collective Petition
Stated by the Art.87 of the constitution, and
regulated by the Organic
Law for Legislative Popular Initiative, this political freedom
shows up in propaganda media usually as ILP (Legislative Popular
Initiative), and within the own constitution as "popular initiative".
Opposite to full sovereign meaning of term "popular initiative", this
sickly political freedom must be reduced to rank of petition due to
following formal defects:
- It does not lead up to a referendum. Merely, it introduces a
bill into the Congress. This failure of popular sovereignty usually put
a stop to majority of initiatives, that in the presence of referendum
could culminate in a law.
- It is expressly forbidden by the Art. 87.3
of the constitution for amendments of electoral law and any other
organic law, as well international issues.
In order to estimate severity of mentioned restriction of issues, it
is worth revising the constitutional definition of organic law in its Art. 81, or to extract some examples to see
more clearly the kind of political freedom that we are talking about.
Please, read slowly next list of examples -among hundreds- to
estimate what issues are not applicable to popular initiative:
Organic Law for Elections
Organic Law for Legislative Initiative (sic)
Organic Law for Referendum
Organic Law for Association Right
Organic Law for Petition
Every modification of Statutes of Autonomy
Every parliamentary ratification of international treaties and
agreements.
Organic Law for Judical Power
Organic Law for Constitutional Court
Organic Law for Ombudsman
Organic Law for Education
Organic Law for Universities
Organic Law for Penal Code
Organic Law for Rights and Freedoms of Foreigners
Organic Law for Telecommunications
Organic Law for Management of Personal Data
Organic Law of Penal Responsibility of Minors (including terrorist
offences)
Organic Law for Citizen Security
Organic Law for Syndical Freedom
Organic Law for Conscentions Objection
Organic Law for Religious Freedom
Organic Law for Financing of Regional Communities
Organic Law for Jurisdiction Conflicts
Organic Law for International Juridic Cooperation
Organic Law for Meeting Right
Organic Law for Rectification Right
Organic Law for Honour, Intimacy and the own Image Right
Etcétera ...
Opposite to spanish legislative petition, usually legislative popular
initiative introduces a bill into legislative organs, which have right
to set out a counterproposal; both proposals are finally voted
together by referendum. To this effect, spanish legislative petition
exhibits following deficiencies:
- Parlamientary presentation of the bill does not provoke a
counterproposal, and any discussion either. Legally, Promoter
Committe of the petition has not even right to be heared in the
Congress to defend its proposal.
- It is feasible that a popular legislative petition were amended
and approved by the Parliament with a contrary sense of its initial
nature. Promoter Committe cannot even ask for withdrawing.
- Bill is processed as another one, without leading up to a
referendum. Until now, most common end of legislative popular
petitions is to be rejected as a whole.
All of above limitations and deficiencies reduce this political freedom
to a sickly sham of Direct Democracy, seemingly with the unique
function to permit to spanish Regimen to apper in international
statistics as a country exhibiting "some" procedure of Direct
Democracy. Any way, the
article set of the spanish legislative popular petition presents
any
positive aspects, though with minor rank:
- Required number of signs (500.000, roughly a 2% of electoral
body) is moderated (Art.87.3 of the
constitution).
- Term to collect signs (6 months) ought to be upper, but it
may be estimated as moderate (Art. 7 of its specific
law).
- To collect signs, feasibility to use also jurymen appointed by
Promoter Committe is a very positive aspect (Art. 10
of its specific law).
- Refund of costs (with limit of 180.000 euros) for Promoter
Committe is a positive aspect (Art. 15 of its
specific law).
In March/2002 Izquierda Unida (non-capitalist left) has proposed in the
Congress some formal improvements, though they do not try to convert
this legislative petition into a real legislative popular initiative.
They propose to reduce in 25% the required 500.000 signs, to
introduce multilinguism in sheets of signs, ability of Promoter
Committe to defend its proposal and to withdraw if they estimate
impairment by parliamentary process. The Congress has already rejected
the reduction of signs "because it is contrary to the Constitution"
(sic); we hope these minimal reforms were approved, and traditional
arrogance of spanish Regime does not prevail.
The Referendum of ratification for constitutional amendment
This kind of referendum cannot be considered strictly a political
freedom, it is rather a warranty. Warranty of the constitution -at
least
part of it- cannot be modified by a procedure outside to people at
all. It is certainly a sovereign right, and in the case of Spain it
is the unique right of Direct Democracy that cannot be discredited
as a whole.
It has got any defects which must be underlined:
- It is not applicable to any constitutional amendment. It is only
applicable to the more significative amendments, described in the Art.168 of the constitution. In the rest of
reforms (Art.167) the referemdum is only held
if it is required by one tenth of Congress and Senate.
- This referendum is the last step of an extravagant procedure of
constitutional amendment that in the case of Art.168
consists on following sequence of facts
(notice that there are a legislative elections which, in a way,
turns final referendum on a redundant thing):
- Majority of 2/3 in the Congress
- Majority of 2/3 in the Senate
- Dissolution of both chambers and new legislative elections
- Ratification of beginning of study in the new Congress
- Ratification of beginning of study in the new Senate
- Majority of 2/3 in the Congress
- Majority of 2/3 in the Senate
- Final referendum
- Duration of informative campaign of referendum (20 days maximum)
is extremely short, Art.15 of its
specific law.
- Only political parties have got right of masive information
(television, radio, mailing) proportionally to their parliamentary
representation, Art. 14 of its specific
law. This design, besides of very short duration of campaign, leads up
to plebiscitary nature.
The Consultive Plebiscite
Stated by Art.92 of the constitution, and
regulated (as former referendum of ratification) by the Ley Organic Law on the kinds
of referendum. This consultation is a sickly political freedom
reduced to plebiscite due to its very severe deficiencies:
- Only the President of Government can call it, with parliamentary
authorization (Art.92 of the constitution and Art.161 of Regulations of Congress). No person,
group or institution can start such a legal process leading up to a
national referendum.
- It is consultative. It has not got binding nature, nor any legal
duty. Art.92 of the constitution.
- As former referendum of ratification, it has got the same
deficiencias about duration of campaign and right of masive
information to people.
The Referendum on revoking syndical elected representatives
Almost world-wide, it is common to find some elements of Direct
Democracy when syndical landscape is free, particularly around the
initiative excersized by assemblies of workers.
It is proper to show up the existence in Spain of a kind of referendum
and its initiative for revoking syndical elected representatives, Art.67.3 of Statute of Workers.
This perl of Direct Democracy is a real exception in the spanish
Regime. No other elected post in Spain exercise its representation so
accountablely. However, we must make some matters more precise:
- The 33.3% porcentage of the initiative for referendum is a figure
disproportionately high. Compare closeness of this figure with the
majority of 50% required for eventual revokation by referendum.
- Spanish economical system is markedly capitalist, therefore
planification and management of means of production are a full right of
owners. This referendum of revoking is certainly sovereign, but
exclusively over syndical representation sphere, not over means of
production.
- For last 15 years, assemblies of workers have been obstructed by
changes within enterprise structure. Proliferation of companies of
personnel subcontracting provokes workers do not know among themself,
organization of assemblies of workers is only feasible for the own
enterprise. Indeed, vast majority of such companies lacks syndical
representation because it is not feasible to convoke the assembly (it
requires one third of workers, Art.77) which could call for syndical
elections.
Popular control of war
Popular control of war is perhaps the most utopian and desirable
political freedom of Direct Democracy. To be described sometimes as
an extravagant freedom is proof until what extent people are very far
from having control of the most grave sociocultural event. Logically,
spanish people has a control of war as non-existent as the very vast
majority of world-wide people has.
About so significative events as peace and war, the actual spanish
constitution exhibits a worrying frugality. The Art.63
of the constitution reserves initiative to declare war and peace only
for the King (!!!), who requires parliamentary ratificación.
Spanish democrat people live ashamed by such a situation, where a
hereditary post in his masculine descendants has got such a
constitutional competency of initiative. To avoid international
embarrasment, it is not hardly surprising Regime failed to observe the
own constitution giving to war the shape of peace-keeping missions
(Irak, Serbia, ...), without need of royal initiative, without need of
parliamentary ratification.
Definitively, we feel melancholy by redaction of the Art.6
of the constitution of the II Republic (1931): "Spain gives up to
war as tool of national policy", and by its development in the
Art.77.
Regional Development of Direct Democracy
The 17 Autonomous Communities have got same poor degree of Direct
Democracy than national scene.
There is not a constitutional framework protecting political freedoms
as regional scope. Unique constitutional references has mainly
restrictive nature, reflecting the deep conflict among nationalists
mastering spanish political landscape:
- Independently who have right to initiative for regional
referendum, according to the Art.149.1.32
mandatory authorization concerns State (sic, we do not know what
institution is addressed by the constitution when using term
"State").
- Above restriction could also affect process of statutorial
reform. According to the Art.147.3 final
authorization concerns national legislative organ, that must go with
authorization for regional referendum of ratification.
- Statutes of Autonomy can be only amended every five years (Art.148.2). There is a constitutional procedure
(Art.151) with a kind of regional referendum to circumvent this
restriction.
In February/2002, a proposal of regional power of Catalonia was
rejected by the Congress about being transferred the competence of
authorization of popular consultations stated by the Art.149.1.32. A real example how elite in
Spain understand political freedoms of Direct Democracy: instead of
improving the poor catalan legislation of Direct Democracy, or
proposing to remove authorization for popular consultation, catalan
elite prefer to claim such a privilege for themself.
Some communities have generated specific legislation for municipal
popular consultations, that will be analyzed within the section
"Municipal Development of Direct Democracy". As exclusively regional
scope following aspects will be approached:
- Referendum of ratification for statutorial reform
- Legislative petition and consultative plebiscite
- Self-determination right
Referendum of ratification for statutorial reform
In relation to amendments of Statutes of Autonomy, only some (4 from
17) Autonomous Communities exhibit a popular referendum as final step
of statutorial reform: Basque Country, Catalonia, Galicia and Andalusia.
According to the Art.147.3 of the constitution
and the Art.145 of Regulations of Congress this
referendum is not protected, statutorial reform elaborated by the
regional assembly is merely processed as another organic law. Indeed,
this referéndum is a warranty recognized regionally by each
statute, but if such a referendum exists then it must be authorized
by national power (Art.149.1.32).
The constitution does not warrant the existence of this referendum, and
if this referendum exists the constitution does not warrant as last
step of statutorial reform either. To achieve the referendum were last
step of statutorial reform, statutes of mentioned Autonomous Community
establish the organic law approved by the national power will include
authorization for the referendum.
This intricate legal scheme is derived from nationalist conflict
existing in Spain. Paradox is double. On the one hand, national
power does not constitutionally protect referendum of ratification
for statutorial reform, but in the event of existing it wants to
maintain its chance of veto over a referendum (Art.149.1.32).
On the other hand, if national power approves the statutorial reform,
then it shoud authorizate the referendum; but... could other thing
happen else?, perhaps to approve the reform but not to authorize
subsequent referendum?
Legislative petition and consultative plebiscite
With regard to legislative petition and consultive plebiscite,
Autonomous Communities have practically rewritten literally the
national laws, or Aragon's law. It is not worth enlarging on small
differences among comunities, we will emphasize only some
significative data:
- In the communities of Aragon, Balearic Islands, Canary Islands
and Galicia, Promoter Commite can defend its legislative petition
before the regional chamber. There is not such a right as national
scope.
- In the community of Aragon, Promoter Committe can withdraw
(subject to parliamentary consent) its petition if it estimates the
petition is been distorted by the parliamentary process. There is
not such a right as national scope.
- In the community of Catalonia there is the absurd ban on deputies
to belong to the Promoter Committe, what permits to make sure of utmost
lack of representation of Promoter Committe during parliamentary
process
of petition.
- In some Autonomous Communities, legislative petition can be
exercised by groups of municipalities.
Self-determination right
There is no viable procedure within actual legislation and logically
there is no specific regulation; therefore it is a political freedom
forbidden in Spain.
Under these circumstances it is not feasible to carry out an additional
analysis. However, taking account its constituent signficance and the
acute nationalist dispute beared by spanish political landscape, it is
worth doing a short resume of the different positions:
- Hegemonic nationalism (Spain supporters) denies even the own
existence of such a freedom. There is no volition to articulate
democratic ways in the future: neither in political establishment, nor
in the own society.
- Majority of postulant nationalism (Basque supporters, Catalonia
supporters) holds permanent claim for this freedom. But always with
imprecise terms, without clarifying their proposed formal
procedures. There are only information about proposals so puerile as
the sole referendum of self-determination.
Some years since Demopunk pages offer to democrat population of Spain a
example of political technology: the document "Formal Procedures of
Self-determination Right" is unfortunately a real exception in
the spanish society; it does not seem democrat motivation generates
political solutions.
Municipal Development of Direct Democracy
Municipal regulations
There is not a constitutional framework protecting political freedoms
as for municipal scope. Practically, no spanish municipality have
developed regulations of Direct Democracy, there are rather a
colourful collection of regulations of Citizen Participation, mainly
oriented to neighbouring associations (i.e, a house without doors,
without windows and without chimney).
Therefore, Demopunk pages have published a draft of guidelines on rights of Direct
Democracy as for municipal scope. It defines and regulates rights
of binding referendum and popular initiatives. In a few cities is
being introduced within electoral programmes for municipal
elections. If you are interested in developing Direct Democracy in
Spain (although there are several collaborations from Latin America)
and you are related with making municipal electoral programmes, may
be you must know the proposal.
We have only reports, indirect almost all of them, of some municipal
regulations of Direct Democracy:
- In the town of Leganes
(Madrid, in center of Spain) is feasible referendum and its
initiative from people. Terms of the regulation are not precisely
known.
- In the town of Mieres (Asturias, in the north of Spain) the
Regulation of Citizen Participation (June/2001) states shortly
consultative plebiscite and its initiative from people. The sincere
and picturesque redaction of its article 31.2 is a real example of
municipal development of Direct Democracy in Spain: Art.31.2 [...]
Never popular consultations will have binding nature, because it is
not about referendum.
- We have imprecise reports on some towns in Catalonia have
developed regulations.
Participative Budget
As political freedom enjoyed in Portoalegre (Brazil), around Participative Budget
some few spanish towns have developed several projects, promoted for
the most part by IU-IC (political group of non-capitalist left). Each
project has a different degree of maduration, but unfortunately we have
no legal article set of any regulations for inspection:
- In Las Cabezas de San Juan exists the most mature project. It is
a town with 16000 inhabitants in the province of Seville (in the south
of Spain), that has developed the political fredoom known as "The Distribution".
Municipal budget of year 2002 has been made by means of "The
Distribution".
- In the town of Rubí (Barcelona, in the north-east of
Spain) there is in progress a
political process that likely will culminate in the municipal
budget of year 2003 generated by the political freedom of
Participative Budget.
- There is certainty
of IU has proposed to Diputation of province of Valladolid (in the
center of Spain) to elaborate a Participative Budget for the year
2003 shared by all of its municipalities. Since the actual proportion
of political forces, this proposal is no much viable.
Regional regulation of municipal plebiscite
Some few of the 17 Autonomous Communities have regulated a procedure of
plebiscite applicable to all of its municipalities (Catalonia/1996, Andalusia/2001). Other
communities (Navarra y Asturias) are in
legislative process. And other communities (Galicia) has some kind of
short regulation.
All of them suffer from the jacobian restriction that authorization of
any popular consultation concerns the own national power (Art.149.1.32 of the constitution). An absurd
restriction derived from nationalist conflict, and therefore with an
unaccountable function within Direct Democracy.
Regional regulation is a minimum framework which can be extended by
every municipality. Experience of being Autonomous Community who
regulates popular consultation is producing bittersweet results.
On the one side, it is quite positive a regional norm make easy to all
of its municipalities' people some resources of Direct Democracy. To
this effect, spanish constitution had better protect local referendums
than demand its authorization by national power.
On the other side, these regional regulations are inheriting weak
nature from spanish Direct Democracy as for national or regional scope,
that only helps practice of such freedoms to be disappointing:
- Binding nature of referendum is never protected. We call on every
municipality to surpass the masquerade of the plebiscite and to make
easy for their inhabitants exercise of the political freedom of
binding referendum; something that will be impossible in some
communities (Navarra and Asturias) where explicit regulations for
consultative nature are being introduced.
- Autonomous Communities include themself in process of
authorization of popular consultations. Therefore, on mentioned
authorization will have a say not only national power, also regional
power.
- Porcentages of required signs are usually quite high (15% - 20%).
- Informative campaigns are ridiculously short (10-15 days), while
they ought to be between 3 and 6 months.
- There is no economical return for the Promoter Committe.
Finally, this report want to clarify a severe error which sometimes
appears:
THERE IS NO LEGAL DUTY FOR LOCAL REFERENDUM TO BE
CONSULTATIVE
Municipal referendum is NOT regulated by the Art.92
of the constitution which imposes the consultative plebiscite. Indeed
specific national law about referendum, fortunately, excludes local
referendum from its scope by its Additional
Disposition. Legislation of Local Regime (Law 7/1985, articles
18 y 71) does not stated consultative nature either. Therefore, binding
or consultative nature is exclusive responsibility of
regional and local lawmaker.
Practice of Direct Democracy in Spain
As described in former section "Analysis of Direct Democracy in
Spain", spanish legislation protecting political freedoms of Direct
Democracy is almost no existent; the few existing regulations are so
weak that become disappointing and ineffective. Statistics of spanish
practice published by national and international organizations are out
of focus by national and regional referendums happened during the
Fascist Transition (1975-1980).
But real situation is different: elite responsible for our shortage
of Direct Democracy, who are in charge of Regimen from the Fascist
Transition, have not even done effort for practice of such sickly
political freedoms were an act of popular hopefulness. Vast majority
of legislative petitions are rejected and the unique consultative
plebiscite happened is still today a scandalous memory (even under
suspicion of electoral fraud).
Legislation of Direct Democracy is sickly, and its practice is
disappointing. But the most negative aspect is absolute absence of
political debate for setting-up political freedoms of Direct
Democracy. To this effect, apathy of spanish society is total.
Without palliatives. Propaganda media of Regime do not give one
second, a squared centimeter either, to analysis of these freedoms
(this datum is not mere words, rather it is a verifiable fact). Vast
majority of people do not know the existence of these freedoms: the
older ones because having been educated in the desert emerged from
Franco's genocide, the younger ones victims of alienation by silence
of propaganda media.
A significative example of remoteness of Direct Democracy in Spain
is the own use of this term (rather, absence of its use). Term
"Direct Democracy" is regularly subtituted by term "Citizen
Participation". A semantic slip that degrades term in its more
relevant aspect, it is degraded in underlying popular sovereignty.
On the other side, majority of european countries are provoking an
increase (may be transitory) of Direct Democracy by means of
referendums of integration into supra-national organizations as
European Union and NATO. Also to his effect, Spain presents a
disappointing example. Not only by lacking legislation to warrant
such referendums, also because such decision have already been taken
without popular ratification.
Practice of referendum of ratification for
constitutional/statutorial amendment
So far there have been no referendum of ratification for
constitutional amendment. The unique constitutional
amendment along near 25 years has been accomplished without popular
ratification, derived from duties acquired by european integration,
and relative to right of foreigners for active and passive suffrage in
municipal elections.
National and international statistics insist on presenting
referendums during the Fascist Transition (1975-1980) as a
significative part of practice of Direct Democracy in Spain.
Therefore, account of those referendums will be done, related to
initial ratification of the actual constitution and ratification of
initiative to set up some (4 from a whole of 17) Autonomous Communities:
December 15th of 1976. Plebiscite of ratification for Law of Political
Reform
Once rebel general Franco died, its successor the monarch Juan
Carlos I (successor according to the Franco's plebiscite in 1966)
convoked this plebiscite after achieving the Franco's legislative
organ approved the law in November 18th of 1976.
Formally there is no difference with the Franco's plebiscites in
1947 and 1966: neither in democratic warranties, nor activity of
propaganda media. But provided its result and it led up to the
transition to a liberal predemocracy, historians insist on presenting
as part of curriculum of Direct Democracy in Spain. 77% of electoral
body voted, and the "yes" got a 94%..
December 6th of 1978. Referendum of ratification for the
Constitution
The legislative assembly elected by former Law of Political Reform
took on constituent functions. A referendum of ratification was
held on the final text of the Constitution. Turnover was (67%) quite
modest being about so signficative referendum, positive votes were a
87%.
In the Basque Country happened an odd circumstance: almost all of
parties of vasque nationalism called for abstention, and positive
votes (34.93% over whole electoral body) were not enough to overcome
the sum of negative votes (10.93% over whole electoral body) and
abstention (50.49%). This combination has allowed everyone claim its
own interpretation of result.
October 25th of 1979. Referendum of ratification for initiative to
set up Autonomous Community of Catalonia
Referendums of ratification (simultaneously in all of its
provinces) for initiative to set up the Autonomous Community, by
virtue of the Art.151.2.3.
October 25th of 1979. Referendum of ratification for initiative to set
up Autonomous Community of Basque Country
Referendums of ratification (simultaneously in all of its
provinces) for initiative to set up the Autonomous Community, by
virtue of the Art.151.2.3.
February 28th of 1979. Referendum of ratification for initiative to set
up Autonomous Community of Andalusia
Referendums of ratification (simultaneously in all of its
provinces) for initiative to set up the Autonomous Community. In
the province of Almeria majority was not reached, and the Art.151.2.3
was not fulfilled. Referendum was repeated in October 20th of 1981,
this time reaching majority in all of its provinces.
December 21th of 1980. Referendum of ratification for initiative
to set up Autonomous Community of Galicia
Referendums of ratification (simultaneously in all of its
provinces) for initiative to set up the Autonomous Community, by
virtue of the Art.151.2.3.
It is proper to clarify an error that sometimes appears. Above
regional referendums did not ratify article sets of statutes of
autonomy; indeed no statute of autonomy in Spain exhibits popular
ratification. In 4 from the 17 autonomous communities this kind of
referendum ratified the initiative of Diputations to set up
autonomous communities; on the others had not been any kind of
popular ratification: neither the article set, nor the own initiative
to set up the autonomous community.
Practice of legislative petition as for national scope
Following an account of legislative petitions that entered into
Congress is offered, besides a short summary about how they were
dealt with:
June 2002. Rejected the legislative petition asking for sole right to
sell medicines in chemist's
Jano On-line y agencies (12/June/2002). The plenum of Congress
rejected unanimously to take in consideration a proposal of law, put
forward by means of a legislative popular initiative supported by
Association of Pharmacists of Valencia [in the east of Spain] with
more than 1,3 millions of signs, trying to grant to chemist's shops
and pharmaceutical services of hospitals the sole right to distribute
medicines and pharmaceutical-sanitation products.
Deputies think, generally speaking, the initiative implies a
"reiteration" of in force regulations, and when it brings
innovation, it encroachs upon autonomic competences and without
contributing any improvement for citizen. The proposal of law would
have had nature of basic law if not having been rejected its taking
of consideration by 288 votes against, none for and 2 abstentions.
[...]
The initiative was also rejected even by Parliamentary Group of
Izquierda Unida [non-capitalist left], who usually support this kind
of initiatives "expressing will of the people to maintain actual
system of distribution of medicines", subject of proposed text. So
Marisa Castro, its spokeswoman in the Lower House, stated,
"regretting" to have to reject the proposal by estimating that, though
a "few" proposed innovations are "positive", many ones do not conform
to in force european directives.
[...]
November 1999. Rejected the legislative petition to reduce working
week to 35 hours
Daily El Mundo (12/November/1999). The Plenum of Congress
rejected, by 161 against 145 votes for, chance to debate reduction of
working week to 35 hours, without decrease of wages.
The proposal was from a Popular Legislative Initiative supported
by 700.000 signs of citizens, collected during six months by social
groups, trade unions and associations and promoved by Izquierda Unida.
All of this effort finished by votes of Partido Popular, of CiU
and of Coalición Canaria. Deputies of IU, PSOE, PNV and Mixed
Group voted for proceeding with the initiative.
[...]
The initiative proposed to modify an article of Statute of Workers
to set working week to 35 hours, without decrease wages. It also
included a transitory disposition to put into effect reduction of
working hours, by collective negotiation.
In defence of the initiative, the general coordinator of IU, Julio
Anguita, refered to four reasons to take its consideration: progress
of science and technique that reduces workers needed to make a task;
search for society of full employment; promotion of social rights
and, above all, "the march to utopia".
[...]
Who were more actively opposed to the initiative was the Popular Group,
which, through Gerardo Camps, considered a "mock to democratic system"
having to accept a initiative because it was supported by the signs of
hundreds of thousands of citizens (sic).
The popular deputy used also figures of creation of employment during
last years to reject the proposal.
March 1999. First law by legislative petition, Law of Horizontal
Property
Daily El Mundo (19/March/1999). First time from the birth of the
Constitution (1978), spanish Parliament has approved a law promoted
by the popular initiative.
From September of 1994, when agents of properties started the use
of this right, 832.000 spaniards have signed for modification of a
law afecting 29 millions of persons.
Yesterday, after voting, president of General Council of
Association of Agents of Properties, Manuel Roberto, was satisfied:
"It is the most democratic law approved by the Courts until now,
because it has been promoted by citizens".
All of parliamentary groups participating in the approval of law
pointed up the "high degree of consensus reached among deputies".
In Pablo Castellano's opinion, deputy of IU, "strong popular
petition has influenced a lot in positive attitude of parties".
Besides, Castellano trusts in this experience "to be an
incentive for another social sectors become more participating in
legislative activity".
Luis Ortiz, deputy of Popular Party pointed up "great maturity
exhibited by the Parliament before the popular initiative", and
marked "the big step taken for horizontal regime of property in
order to cope with reality of present".
[...]
December 1998. Rejected the legislative petition for achieving
cost-free status of school books
Daily El Mundo (11/December/97). School books are not going to be
free in mandatory education as asking for parents of pupils.
Yesterday, the Plenum of Congress rejected by 161 votes against, 130
for and an abstention to debate in the Chamber the proposal of law
that had been presented by the Spanish Confereration of Associations
of Parents of Pupils (CEAPA) and was supported by 600.000 signs.
The legislative popular initiative presented by the CEAPA asked
for cost-free status of school books in mandatory education, from 6 to
16 years.
The party PP and the nationalist parties, CiU and PNV, voted
against the proposal arguing total cost-free status produces
inequality by treating in the same way families with resources and
the most unfavoured ones. Besides, representatives of this political
groups argued that total cost-free status would have negative
effects, provoking two kinds of pupils: those ones using new books
and those would have to conform to used books, because pupils should
return their books when finishing the course.
[...]
December, 1996. Rejected the legislative petition to warrant a
budgetary minimum for Education
Daily El Mundo (11/December/96). Three years after, they said no.
The Congress rejected the popular initiative promoted by CC.OO for a
law of financing public system. Signs of over 625.000 citizens have
been unuseful
Promoters of the initiative sent a letter to parliamentary groups
to delay the debate, by estimating that now, in open educative
conflict, its debate is not suitable.
However, the proposal was rejected and yesterday the parliamentary
group of PP refused in the plenum of Congress of Deputies to take on
consideration the popular legislative initiative asking for a
setting law of regulation financing of Education.
The so-named "Law of Financing" of the LOGSE (Law of General
Regulation of Educative System) is, according to its supporters (IU,
CC.OO, UGT and since this course PSOE), the procedure to assure
permanent financing of education regardless of ruling political
party.
According to the deputy Luis de Grandes, party PP respects the
legislative popular initiative, but it estimates now it is obsolete,
then his group will vote against acceptance, and he pinpoints the
position of PP coincides with the former socialist Goverment's one.
It is proper to emphasize the last and shameful experience (June/2002),
when Congress rejected unanimoulsy to process a petition of over
1.300.000 citizens (almost three times of required signs). Following
evidence could be denied only from institutional cynicsm: this amount
of signs has a sovereign legitimacy cuantitatively upper than votes
used to elect some existing parliamentary groups; purely, to grant
more weight for votes applied to Representative Democracy is
hypocritical.
But its sovereign legitimacy is also cualitatively upper to be popular
expression on a specific issue; using a scientific comparison we could
state "density of sovereign legitimacy" is maximum when aplication area
is minimum. Talking about this legislative petition, if spanish
Regime's elite were not blind by arrongance, they would have had
political understanding to admit at least to proceedings the proposal
of 1.300.000 citizens.
Reader will be able to estimate that if spanish legislative petition
was really legislative popular initiative (that is to say, if it
finished in referendum together with the parliamentary
counterproposal), then today petition of June/2002 would be law.
Also reader could estimate if spanish Regime had not forbidden popular
initiative for referendum of revocation of elected post (recognized
freedom, for instance, in the actual venezolan constitution), likely
today there would be an initiative of revocation for all of deputies
signed by 1.300.000 citizens.
In general, all of these regrettable decisions not only unlegimitize
representative democracy but also provoke a wave of citizen
disappointment about political freedoms of Direct Democracy. An
unfair disappointment because actually there are only scarce (0.2
petitions/year) and sickly political freedoms which are persistly
shown by propaganda media as the procedures of "citizen participation"
within Regime.
Practice of legislative petition as for regional scope
Due to amount and significance of restricted issues
for the legislative petition, only a few groups of activism are
being able to make use of this freedom: majority of regional
legislative petitions have been about enviromental protection.
Practice of legislative
petition as regional scope
is quite scarce. We have not
got enough resources to assure following list is exhaustive and
includes all of legislative petitions happened as for regional scope.
But surely, it is a very reasonable and representative aproximation.
In hand. Canary Isles, proposed a legislative petition about enviromental
protection
The Platform in Defence of the Malpaís of
Güímar and Track of El Socorro handed over, in October
15th of 2001, the signs of 23.024 people supporting its legislative
petition in the Parliament of Canary Isles, asking for extension of
protection of the Malpaís of Güímar up to include
the Track of El Socorro.
February 2002. Aragon, Promoter Committe withdraws the legislative
petition
In 1998 37.000 signs was released
(while being needed 15.000) supporting a proposal of law for promotion
of energy saving and renewable energies. However, after over three
years(!!) of parliamentary process the Promoter Committe asked for
its withdrawal by estimating final text approved by Parliament was
substantially diverted from initial nature. The legislative assembly
did not object to withdrawal. Despite understandable unrest of
promoters, they must find consolation from thinking right of proposal
of withdrawal is an aragonese singularity. No other community, as for
national scope either, enjoys this small warranty.
2001. Valencia, rejected legislative petition of regulation and
protection of Huerta of Valencia as protected natural space
Promoted by Izquierda Verde of the Vega Baja with support
over twice the required 50.000 signs. It had aim of safeguarding
virtues of valencian huerta, bringing together measures to warrant
its preservation and survival. It was rejected by regional
legislative assembly.
December 2000. Basque Country, approved the Chart of Social Rights
from a legislative petition
The legislative petition of the Chart of
Social Rights against unemployment and poverty, was inspired by the
social movement in Europe by Basic Income. It was presented when a
vivid debate within movement was happening, what even led up to
promoters tried to induce modifications once parliamentary process
had started. On the other side, the own political groups interpreted
and amended the petition, generating some complaints about distorting
original nature.
Generally, this petition has been involved in non-related political
negotiations. Initial text was supported by 30.000 signs and took over
three years to be processed.
November 2000. Catalonia, approved the regulation of incineration of
residues from a legislative petition
This legislative petition has been marked by denunciation
and unrest of its promoters. Presented in March/1998 with the sign of
107.000 people, it proposed ban of this activity and promotion of
alternative systems. What initally was proposed in terms of ban was
imparied up to an unacceptable level for its promoters, who publicly
reported its desire of breaking with the approved law.
1992. Aragon, created the Council of Protection of Nature from a
legislative petition
The Council of Protection of Nature was from a proposal of
the Environmentalist Coordinating Comitte of Aragon (CEA) to create
an organ of citizen participation in environment. Required 15.000
signs were collected to present before the regional legislative house
the proposal. The Law 2/1992 created the Council of Protection of
Nature, though quite decreased and cutted by parliamentary groups,
remaining finally as consultative organ.
As national practice, regional practice is very scarce (0.3
petitions/year) and with some petitions actually disappointing.
Eclectic reader could still find consolation because described
practice allows to estimate clearly how some petitions would have
ended up if they were real popular initiatives, that is to say if
they had reached a binding referendum on their legislative proposals
together with their parliamentary counterproposal.
Practice of the consultative plebiscite
March 12th of 1986. Consultative plebiscite on
integration in the NATO's civil structure
This plebiscite is one of
darkest pages of actual Regime, and still today it provokes several
errors and equivocations; let us start clarifying them:
- This plebiscite was NOT called as a specific constitutional
warranty, as another countries can hold on decisions about integration
into supranational organizations. Spaniards do NOT enjoy such
warranties. It was held in virtue of the Art.92
of the constitution, it is to say as a mere consultative plebiscite
on an matter of "special significance".
- This plebiscite did NOT consult population about integration into
NATO; the matter of "special significance" about people were
consulted in 1986 was integration into civil structure of the NATO (Art. 1 and 2 of its call decree), that is to say a
similar status to french one: membership of NATO's Council,
standarization agreements, and so on. Indeed, integration into militar
structure of NATO happened in 1997 (of course, without plebiscite).
Historical context of this plebiscite was the radical change of
position of spanish socialdemocrat party, PSOE. During first years
of Fascist Transition, the party PSOE held positions more typically
left-oriented than communist party PCE; among these positions was a
strong activism against the NATO. In October/1981 the spanish congress
decided (without plebiscite) integration into the NATO, and
negotiations of integration were started; spanish socilademocrats
(PSOE) exploited politically popular rejection against mentioned
decision. Once PSOE got its first absolute parliamentary majority,
they began an acute change of position culminating in calling the
mentioned plebiscite.
President of the Government, Felipe Gonzalez, presented in consultative
plebiscite an intricate question (Art. 1 y 2),
that together with the very short duration of campaign (Art. 4), provoked deliberately uncertainty among
people.
All of parties, except for communist one, supported (by means of
several ways) integration into the NATO, but vast majority of people
was against. Campaign took 14 days, during this term propaganda media
of Regime published every day voting poll. First days reflected
known opposition against the NATO, but little by little "supposed"
support for the PSOE's proposal was growing. All of propaganda media
did their utmost in a blatant campaign in favour of positive vote.
Last day of the campaing, the socialdemocrat leader Felipe Gonzalez, as
president of the Government (caller of plebiscite), appeared in TV
proclaiming that he refused to manage a negative result. This public
appearance provoked a real wave of fear among people (reader must
try to understand that five years before Spain had suffer from a
violent coup, and political opposition was -and is still- plenty of
persons come from or educated in former dictatorship).
There also are reports of unusual troubles in mail voting, mainly used
by young voters (students and soldiers of mandatory service). By all
of these reasons, there are reasonable doubts in some circles perhaps
Regime dared to electoral fraud.
The official result of plebiscite was: a turnout of 59% of electoral
body, and a 56% of voters approved integration into civil structure of
the NATO.
Strictly there have never been a referendum on integration into the
NATO. As described, decision of membership happened in 1981 (without
plebiscite) and militar integration (without plebiscite) was in July
7th of 1997, with parliamentary majority of capitalist right. Let us
remember one charming anecdote in 1997, faithful reflection of
political landscape in Spain:
The same day of NATO summit (July 7th of 1997) a
national daily launched, with false indignation, a piece of
information about spanish military men had arrived at a brothel in
armoured vehicle where quarrels were provoked. Likewise indignant, the
rest of propaganda media echoed the new, but they forgot to explain to
their consumers that the fact had happened actually nine months
before. The clumsy media manipulation of Regime tried to serve
antimilitarist rubbish-food, while its leaders signed militar
integration into the NATO. [More
information]
Memory of NATO plebiscite is a nightmare for spanish democrats.
Formally its an infamous happening under suspicion, but besides it
continues provoking among people discredit of political freedoms of
Direct Democracy.
A last reference allow us to know more precisely democrat mentality of
leader who called for plebiscite. Following statements were published
in the book "Presidents", Victoria Prego. Ed.Plaza&Janes, 2000:
Felipe González: "I felt bad. I
think it is the most dificult decision in my whole life, the hardest
moment during my term of office. I felt bad then and also later. I
was perfectly aware of, despite having won the referendum, and
because having won it, I would have to pay a very high price in terms
of attachment, not to mention of votes. And of course we paid: in
1986 and also in 1987, certainly, and it happened so because it was
entrusted to citizens moral responsability that did not concern them.
This was the reason to pay and no another thing.... Imagine that
a referendum was held on breaking up war. Citizens have not to decide!,
They do not get paid for it!, they do to be citizens!, they do not get
paid to decide of a militar pact is suitable or not, sheet! For such a
decision they have their representatives, who they trust more or less
in, but they are there for such a decision".
Practice of
Non-Governmental Direct Democracy
Lack of political freedoms of Direct Democracy legitimizes to people
for stating Constituent Power by all of means within their reach. The
own spanish constituion is armoured, being forbidden popular
initiative for constituional amendment.
Under these painful conditions it is hardly surprising that people
arrange non-governmental events of Direct Democracy, acts that Regime
ignores systematically, or even represses.
Following there is an account of non-governmental events of Direct
Democracy known for us. Likely there are unknown instances, unknown due
to harsh behaviour of propaganda media of Regime.
September 29th of 2001. Non-governmental referendum on urbanization of
Square Of the Castle in town of Pamplona (Navarra).
The project of corporation of Pamplona (Navarra), city in
the north of Spain, about rearranging the downtown Square of the
Castle and building an underground parking provoked popular
mobilization aimming to have a say. 25000 signs were collected asking
for calling a referendum (Pamplona has 180000 inhabitants); the town
council with an arrogant gesture rejected the popular petition. More
information in http://www.plazadelcastillo.com
People were obliged to ignore legal procedures of regime to be able to
express their opinion. National authorities forbidden the popular act,
thanks for one fast judicial sentence policial repression was avoided.
Local authorities boycotted the act denying resources and sites. In
broad street 19.639 people voted, 94% of them were against municipal
project. Authorities do not respect results.
March 12th of 2000. Social Consultation for
Abolition of Foreign Debt
Organize throughout Spain by Citizen Net for Abolition of
Foreign Debt, RCADE (http://www.rcade.org)
planned to people three
questions
about abolition of foreign debt. For more information browse http://www.consultadeuda.org
RCADE decided social consultation coincide with a national electoral
day, as well put their voting tables near to electoral colleges;
trying to take advantage of influx of people to make easy
participation in consultation. However, Regime sensed this decision
as a provocation, forbiding the act and organized its repression.
Promoters legitimized by lack of political freedoms of Direct Democracy
decided to go on the consultation. (Lot of adittional information
is available)
Despite massive repression and numerous incidents,
this consulation was a great organizational and participation outcome. 1.087.792
people voted in the consultation (estimating urns where had not
repression, participation would have reached 2.224.714 people). 97% of voters
answered in the affirmative to questions.
This one has been the bigger non-governmental event of Direct
Democracy. It is painful to report Regime did not only repress it
actively, also has ignore its results.
Even worse, RCADE is an
organization harshly punished. The brutal repression of a pacific
"non-authorized"
demostration near to spanish Congress can be verified in the report International
Amnesty/2001; as colophon of those thrashing Regimen has
sentenced in July/2002 one of victims to two years in jail by
"disobedience".
October/1999. Parents of 53000 children insist on fulfilment of the
school referendums
This incident was not strictly a non-governmental event of
Direct Democracy, but it reflects to until what extent arrogance of
Regime ignores every popular decision.
According to directives of educative authorities, in June 1999 a lot of
public schools in the East of Madrid (capital of Spain) voted by
referendum on the educative project of next year. Authorities order
that if a change of school timetable is pretended (for instance,
non-split school day) then referendum must be supported by a
qualified majority of 80% (!!!). Once referendums were held, mentioned
majority of 80% was reached in 106 schools (53000 children in all).
Incidentally, next month educative competences were transfered to
regional government of Madrid, and new authorities refused to recognize
electoral results, forcing to start school year using old school
timetable against will of over 80% of affected people.
Parents of children mobilized themself and protested against
aggression, many teachers tried to help parents offering balanced
solutions, however they were threatened with reprisals and Regime
sent political commissars (educative inspectors) to assure
completion of its arrogant decision.
Few months later, teachers surpassed by repress and parents
disappointed by lack of results from their mobilizations were obliged
to forget their referendums and to go on using old school timetables. (More information)
8/March/1998. People of County of Trevino vote in non-governmental
referendum its segregation of province of Burgos.
This small territory in the north of Spain (221 km2 y 1100
habitants) is literally immersed in (surrounded by) province of
Alava (which provincial capital is 15 Km. far) however belongs to
province of Burgos (which provincial capital is 100 Km. far). More
information in http:///www.geocities.com/trevino_es_alava/
For long time social collectives, as well several institutions (towns
of the county, Diputation of Alava, legislative assembly of Basque
Country) are asking national government for calling a referendum on
eventual segregation; national government rejects continously the
petition. (More information).
It made people to ignore legal procedures of Regime in order to be able
to express their opinion. 76% of people of County of Trevino
voted, and 68% of them for segregation of province of Burgos.
Regime did not repress celebration of referendum, but it does not
respect results. Circumstance of segregation were between Castile and
Basque Country provokes whole weight of conflict among nationalists
prevent from a reasonable solution.
Historical Antecedents
Antecedents of Direct Democracy in Spain are rare, outstanding
political freedoms protected by the Constitution of spanish II
Republic (1931). We have not got information about practice of these
freedoms, likely the short live of the spanish II Republic avoided
their practice. We have not got information either about regulation
and practice of Direct Democracy as for regional and local scope.
Following a short account is offered:
- Art.66. Referendum for law abrogation
could be held on by initiative of 15% of electoral body. However,
applicable scopes were very restricted. This
political freedom is non-existent within the actual spanish
constitution.
- Art.66. It was enabled legislative
popular initiative by 15% of electoral body. Althought required
porcentaje was very high, seemingly its scope had got no restriction,
leading up to a more powerful political freedom than legislative
collective petition within the actual constitution.
- Information are not available if specific law about referendum
and popular initiative mentioned in Art.66 was
eventually written and approved.
- There was not referendum of ratification for constitutional
amendment. A painful absence.
- Art.22. There was a referendum of
ratification for segregation of a province from its autonomous
community, by initiative of majority of its town councils.
- Competences (Art.14) of national power did not include mandatory
authorization for popular consultations in regional or local scopes
(as the actual constitution does in its Art.149.1.32)
- Art.123. Appeal before Court of
Constitutional Warranties was enabled to people (single and
collectively) as equal than institutions. It is unknown if the law (Art.124) regulating its functions introduced
eventually discriminations. In this sense, actual spanish Regime states
severe discriminations (its Art.162
distinguish between appeal of unconstitutionality and appeal of
protection).
Above minimum experience does not lead up to an historical background
of political culture for actual spanish society. Franco's genocide
and decades of dictatorship erased every historical memory.
Applicable legislation
Present report has been development trying to warrant scientific
minimum for our research. Motivated reader will be able to verify on
the own legislation conclusions (sometimes conclusions of distressing
harshness) which are arisen from formal study of political freedom of
Direct Democracy.
Selected articles of following legislation are appended:
- Spanish Constitution of December 9th of 1931
- Spanish Constitution of December 27th of 1978
- Regulations of Congress of Deputies, of February 24th of 1982
- Law of Statute of Workers, of March 24th of 1995
- Organic law regulating popular legislative initiative (sic), of
March 26th of 1984
- Organic law about regulation of the several kinds of referendum,
January 18th of 1980
- Decree of calling for referednum (sic) in relation to NATO, of
February 6th of 1986
Spanish Constitution of December 9th of 1931
[full text]
Article 6
Spain gives up to war as tool of national policy
Article 22.
Any province constituting an autonomous region or as part of it
will be able to resign its regimen and to return as province bound to
Central Power. To take this decision needs the initiative of majority
of its town councils and the ratification of, at least, two thirds of
electors registered in the roll of province.
Article 66.
People can force to have a say holding a "referendum" on laws approved
by the Courts. It will be enough, to be requested by a 15% of electoral
body.
This resource will not be applicable to: the Constitution, its
complementary laws, laws about ratification of international
convenants registered in the Society of Nations, regional Estatutes,
and tax laws either.
People will be also able, exercising right of initiative, to
introduce a bill into the Courts, if it is required by at least a 15%
of electors.
A special law will regulate procedure and warranties of
"referendum" and popular initiative.
Article 123.
To appear before the Court of Constitutional Warranties will be
feasible for:
- Attorney organs
- Judges and courts according art.100
- Government of the Republic
- Spanish regions
- Every single or collective person, even if they had been
directly affected.
Article 124.
A special organic law, approved by these Courts, will establish
immunities and prerogatives of members of the Court and the extent
and effects of appeals mentioned in art. 121.
Spanish Constitution of December 27th of 1978
[full text]
Article 63.
1. The King accredits ambassadors and another diplomatic
representatives. Foreign representatives in Spain are accredited
before him.
2. To express consent of State to bind internationally by means of
treaties, in accordance with the Constitution and laws, concerns the
King.
3. Prior authorisation of the Courts, to break out war and peace
concerns the King.
Article 81
1. Organic laws are those ones related to development of fundamental
rights and public freedoms, those ones approving Statutes of Autonomy
[regional states], general electoral framework and those ones stated
by this Constitution
2. Approval, amendment and repeal of organic laws need absolute
majority of the Congress, during a final voting over the whole of
the proposal.
Article 87.
1. Legislative initiative concerns to the Government, the Congress and
the Senate, according to Constitution and the Regulations of the
chambers.
2. Assemblies of Autonomous Communities will be able to ask the
Government for adopting a law draft or to send a law proposal to the
Board of Congress, delegating before mentioned chamber at the most
three members of the Assembly in charge of its defence.
3. An organic law will regulate practice and requirements of popular
initiative to formulate law proposals. In any case, at least 500.000
verified signs will be needed. Mentioned initiative will not
applicable to matters owing by organic laws, tributary laws or
with international character, nor related to prerogative of grant.
Article 92.
1. Political decisions with special transcendence will be able voted in
consultative referendum by all of citiziens.
2. Referendum will be convoked by the King, by means of proposal of
President of the Government, previously authorized by the Congress of
Deputies.
3. An organic law will regulate conditions and procedure of several
kinds of referendum covered by this Constitution.
Article 147. [Statute of Autonomy]
1. According to present Constitution, Statutes will be the basic
institutional norm within each Autonomous Community and the State
will recognize and protect them as an integral part of its juridic
framework.
2. Statutes of Autonomy will have to contain:
a. The best denomination of the Community describing its
historical identity.
b. Delimitation of its territory.
c. Denomination, organization and location of the own autonomous
institutions.
d. Assumed accountabilities within framework stated by the Constitution
and bases for transfering associated services.
3. Reform of Statutes will comply with procedure stated by themself,
and will require, in any way, approval of the [national] Legislative
Houses, by an organic law.
Article 148. [Competences of Autonomous
Communities]
[...]
2. Five years later, Autonomous Communities will be able to extend
their competences successively according to article 149, by means of
amendment of their Statutes.
Article 149. [Competencias del Estado]
1. The State has got exclusive accountability for following matters:
[...]
32th. Authorization to hold popular consultations via referendum
Article 162. [Formulation of appeal:
legitimation]
1. It is legitimized
a. To formulate appeal of unconstitutionality: President
of the Government, the Ombusdman, 50 Deputies, 50 Senators, executive
collective organs of Autonomous Communities and their Legislative
Assemblies.
b. To formulate appeal of protection, every natural or juridical person
invoking a legimitate interest, as well as the Ombusdman and attorney
function.
2. In the other cases, the organic law will establish legitimized
persons and organs.
Article 166. [Constitutional amendment:
initiative]
Initiative of constitutional amendment will be exercised in the terms
stated by items 1 and 2 of article 87.
Article 167. [Constitutional amendment:
General and ordinary character]
1. Proposals of constitutional amendment must be approved by a majority
of three one-fifth of every chamber. If there not were agreement
between them, it will be tried creating a committee with equal number
of
deputies and senators which will offer a text that will be voted by
the Congress and the Senate.
2. If approval is not possible by means of above procedure, and in the
case of the text had obtained positive vote of absolute majority of
the Senate, the Congress will be able to approve the amendment by two
one-third.
3. Once amendment was approved by the legislative houses, will be voted
in referendum to ratify it when be requested, before fifteen days since
its approval, by one-tenth of members of any chamber.
Article 168. [Constitutional amendment:
extraordinary character]
1. When have being proposed complete revision of the Constitution or
partial one affecting to the Preliminary Heading, to 2nd Chapter, 1st
Section of Heading I or to Heading II, will be needed approval by
majority of two one-third of both chambers, and immediate
dissolution of the legislative houses.
2. The elect chambers must ratify the decision and to begin study of
the new constitutional text, which must be approved by two one-third
of both chambers.
3. Once approved the amendment by the legislative houses, it will be
voted in referendum for ratification.
Regulations of Congress of Deputies, of February 24th of 1982
[full text]
Article 145
Amendment of a Statute of Autonomy, processed according norms stated by
itself, will require be approved by Organic Law.
Article 161
1. It [the consultive referendum] will require mandatory authorization
of the Congress of Deputies, after proposal by Decree of the President
of Government before the King calling on consultive referendum about
any political issue of significative nature.
2. Message or communication addressed by President of the Government to
the Congress will be debated by the Plenum of the Chamber. Debate will
conform to norms reserved for totality one.
3. Decision of the Congress will be notified by President of the
Chamber to President of the Government.
Law of Statute of Workers, of March 24th of 1995
Article 67. Calling for
elections and term of office
[...]
3. Duration of term of delegates of personnel and members of committe
of company will be four years, holding in exercise of their competences
and warranties while new elections had not been promoted
and held.
During their term of office, delegates of personnel and members of
committe of company could be only revoked by decision of workers who
elected them, by means of an assembly called for this decision by at
least one third of electors. It is needed absolute majority of them,
by personal, free, direct and secret suffrage. Nevertheless, this
revocation could not happen during negotiation of a collective
bargain, and to raise again either until six months had at least
passed.
[...]
Organic law regulating popular legislative initiative (sic), of March
26th of 1984
[full text]
Article 7. [Beginning of
procedure to collect signs and its term]
1. Once proposal is admited, the Board of Congress informs it to
Central Electoral Council, which will guarantee regularity of
procedure of collection of signs.
2. Central Electoral Council will notify admision of proposal to
Promoter Committe, in order to begin collection of required signs.
3. Procedure of collection of signs will have to finish giving
collected signs to Provincial Electoral Councils, within the term of
six months starting at notification mentioned in the former
paragraph. This term could be prorogued by three months when a
weighted reason exists, estimated by Board of the Congress. Exhausted
the term without delivering collected signs, initiative will expire.
Article 10. Special jurymen
1. Without prejudice to procedure stated in former article, signs could
be also authenticated by special jurymen appointed by Promoter Committe.
2. Special jurymen can be spanish citizens, with all of their
political and civi rights and without penal antecedents, which swear
or promise before Provincial Electoral Councils to bear witness to
authenticity of signs of supporters of the bill.
3. Special jurymen will fall into, in the case of falseness, the
penal responsibilities provided by law.
Article 15. State compensation for
incured spending
1. The State will compesate incured spending of Promoter Committe
derived from spreading proposal and collection of signs when
parliamentary process is reached.
2. Spending will have to be justified formally by Promoter
Committe. State compensation will be never greater than 180.000
euros. This amount will be revised periodically by the Courts.
Organic law about regulation of the several kinds of referendum,
January 18th of 1980
[full text]
Article 14
1. During propaganda campaign, public communication media will have to
grant free slots. Only political groups with representation in the
Courts will have right to use free slots, according following
criteria:
a) When consultation is along the whole territory of the
State, slots with national coverage will be granted. In this case
political groups with representation in the Courts will be
beneficiary, proportionally to number of deputies got in last general
elections.
b) In the other kinds of referendum regulated in this law, slots will
be granted within emissions, during prime time, or publications
covering the provinces where the referendum will be held. In
this case beneficiaries will be political groups proportionally to
representation in the Congress of Deputies, got in any province where
referendum will be held, and in legislative assembly of Autonomous
Community or, if in default, within any provincial deputation
included by territory where referendum will be held.
2. Mailing of propaganda about referendum will have exemption and
special service according to a specific regulation.
Article 15
1. Duration of campaign cannot be lower than ten, nor upper than twenty
days, and it will end at 00:00 hours of day before to voting day.
2. During five days before is forbidden publishing, total or partial
spread or comment of elements or results of any survery or
public-opinion poll, as well operations of estimation of voting from
public-opinion poll, related direct or indirectly with consultation
held by referendum.
Additional Disposition
Dispositions of present law do not cover with its regulation popular
consultations that can be held by Municipal Councils, related to
significative matters within municipal scope, in their own territories,
according to legislation of Local Regime, and always maintaining
exclusive competence of State for its authorization.
Decree of calling for referendum (sic) in relation to NATO, of February
6th of 1986
[full text]
Article 1. [Government
Agreement]
By agreement of Goverment of January 31th of 1986, a consultive
referendum of every people will be held on following political
decision:
GOVERNMENT AGREEMENT
Complete text of political decision subject of consultation
"The Government estimates suitable, for national
concerns, Spain remains in the Atlantic Alliance, and decides
mentioned permanence is established in following terms:
1.º Participation of Spain in the Atlantic
Alliance will not include its involvement into integrated militar
structure.
2.º Prohibition of installing, storing or entering nuclear weapons
in Spain will be kept.
3.º Progressive reduction of militar presence of the United States
will be started."
Article 2. [Text of consultation]
In relation to mentioned decision the Electoral Body will have to
answer following question:
"Do you estimate suitable for Spain to remain within the
Atlantic Alliance in terms accorded by the Government of the Nation?"
Article 4. [Electoral campaign]
Electoral campaign will take fourteen days, and will finish at zero
hours of day 11 of March of 1986.
TAZ-Copyright: "These pages (TAZ) can be freely
copied, totally o partially, as pristine kernel of other people's
production or with another aim. It is no needed to quote source nor
any requirement, except for keeping visible, translated and aplicable
this TAZ-Copyright"