25 ms·

That Constitution was voted in referendum by the whole country, and the support it got in Catalonia was even greater than in Madrid. > the people most oppresse

by euyyn 9y ago

That Constitution was voted in referendum by the whole country, and the support it got in Catalonia was even greater than in Madrid. > the people most oppressed by Franco Let's at least agree that this is subjective.

toyg 9y ago
People voted for a dramatic improvement in the status quo, not necessarily for a perfect document. It was drafted by 7 hand-picked representatives, 4 of which were basically franchists, and ratified by franchist institutions before being put to a popular vote. Had it been written in a more democratic way, by an assembly of people elected democratically, maybe it would have been different and more respectful of different identities; but it wasn’t, because franchist interests were still very strong.
- euyyn 9y ago
  That is pure revisionism. > It was drafted by 7 hand-picked representatives, 4 of which were basically franchists Two out of the seven writers of the Constitution were Catalan (~1/3 of the writers for ~1/6 of the population). One of them a communist. The other one, exiled during the dictatorship for supporting Catalan nationalism. > ratified by franchist institutions before being put to a popular vote Before being put to a popular vote, it was ratified by the Congress that resulted from the first free elections in Spain in 40 years. The francoist party of Fraga only won 16/350 seats in that Congress; comparable to the 11 seats obtained by the Catalan party of Pujol. Half the seats had been won by centrist voters, and the other half by marxist voters. This Congress was our "assembly of people elected democratically", that could tell the writers to go back to their drafts until the result was to their liking. Those seven writers, by the way, weren't "hand-picked": they were picked by that Congress, among their members; they were all freely-elected representatives.
  - toyg 9y ago
    > The francoist party of Fraga only won 16/350 seats in that Congress; The prime minister was still an ex-Franchist and the UCD had plenty of old hands around. The Franchists still had huge relevance in the army. The drafters were still moving with a somewhat limited room for manoeuver. > could tell the writers to go back to their drafts until the result was to their liking. Not really. These things don't happen in a vacuum, the longer the process and the higher the risk that it things could go pear-shaped. There was active terrorism and of course cold war activity. Compromises were made, which were good for the times but not necessarily the best overall.
    - euyyn 9y ago
      Of course the situation was delicate, and required a great deal of negotiations and compromises; that's when democracy shines most, when all parts compromise to reach an agreement. I'm just stating that no, the writers of the Constitution weren't "hand picked", rather selected by Congress among representatives elected democratically; and no, it wasn't ratified by francoist institutions, rather by a democratically-elected Congress (and later on by a referendum). That's just revisionism that gets spread to fuel Catalan nationalism.
guiriduro 9y ago
The options then (1970s) on offer were: 1) remain as a Francoist dictatorship 2) accept a new constitution with some democratic principles (but adherence to things like the unity of spain, the convenient 'forgetting' of fascist crimes and torture etc.) Given there were no other options, and few people wanted to return to dictatorship, the new constitution was adopted. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a shotgun, Hobson's choice between dreadful and merely bad. Why should people continue to adhere to it?
- euyyn 9y ago
  That isn't how things happened. Before the Constitution was even drafted, Suarez had put forward, and the francoist institutions had approved, the "Ley para la Reforma Política": https://www.boe.es/boe/dias/1977/01/05/pdfs/A00170-00171.pdf https://www.boe.es/boe/dias/1977/01/05/pdfs/A00170-00171.pdf Read the first two articles of that law; Spain was no longer a dictatorship. The last clause of the law enacts it as supreme law of the land. It is following that law that the first Congress of the new democracy (with the mandate to write a Constitution) was elected, using the same procedure we keep using today to elect our Congress. In that election, the francoist party of Fraga lost immensely to the centrist and marxist parties. If the Constitution they wrote didn't pass the popular vote of the referendum, general elections would be repeated and the process would start again. It never was a choice between accepting the new Constitution or going back to a dictatorship. It's called "Transición" instead of "Revolución" because the francoist regime turned itself into a democracy following its own laws and procedures.
  - toyg 9y ago
    > If the Constitution they wrote didn't pass the popular vote of the referendum, general elections would be repeated and the process would start again. That's a very optimistic view of the situation. In practice, the instability resulting from not completing the process would have had dramatic consequences. Among other things, there was a Cold War on which could have easily started a new civil war. > the francoist regime turned itself into a democracy following its own laws and procedures. But exactly because the prime mover was the regime itself, there was always a chance it could go back on its steps. Compromises had to be made to ensure the transition would go through smoothly, as it's always the case.

by euyyn 9y ago

toyg 9y ago

People voted for a dramatic improvement in the status quo, not necessarily for a perfect document. It was drafted by 7 hand-picked representatives, 4 of which were basically franchists, and ratified by franchist institutions before being put to a popular vote. Had it been written in a more democratic way, by an assembly of people elected democratically, maybe it would have been different and more respectful of different identities; but it wasn’t, because franchist interests were still very strong.

euyyn 9y ago
That is pure revisionism. > It was drafted by 7 hand-picked representatives, 4 of which were basically franchists Two out of the seven writers of the Constitution were Catalan (~1/3 of the writers for ~1/6 of the population). One of them a communist. The other one, exiled during the dictatorship for supporting Catalan nationalism. > ratified by franchist institutions before being put to a popular vote Before being put to a popular vote, it was ratified by the Congress that resulted from the first free elections in Spain in 40 years. The francoist party of Fraga only won 16/350 seats in that Congress; comparable to the 11 seats obtained by the Catalan party of Pujol. Half the seats had been won by centrist voters, and the other half by marxist voters. This Congress was our "assembly of people elected democratically", that could tell the writers to go back to their drafts until the result was to their liking. Those seven writers, by the way, weren't "hand-picked": they were picked by that Congress, among their members; they were all freely-elected representatives.
- toyg 9y ago
  > The francoist party of Fraga only won 16/350 seats in that Congress; The prime minister was still an ex-Franchist and the UCD had plenty of old hands around. The Franchists still had huge relevance in the army. The drafters were still moving with a somewhat limited room for manoeuver. > could tell the writers to go back to their drafts until the result was to their liking. Not really. These things don't happen in a vacuum, the longer the process and the higher the risk that it things could go pear-shaped. There was active terrorism and of course cold war activity. Compromises were made, which were good for the times but not necessarily the best overall.
  - euyyn 9y ago
    Of course the situation was delicate, and required a great deal of negotiations and compromises; that's when democracy shines most, when all parts compromise to reach an agreement. I'm just stating that no, the writers of the Constitution weren't "hand picked", rather selected by Congress among representatives elected democratically; and no, it wasn't ratified by francoist institutions, rather by a democratically-elected Congress (and later on by a referendum). That's just revisionism that gets spread to fuel Catalan nationalism.

guiriduro 9y ago

The options then (1970s) on offer were: 1) remain as a Francoist dictatorship 2) accept a new constitution with some democratic principles (but adherence to things like the unity of spain, the convenient 'forgetting' of fascist crimes and torture etc.) Given there were no other options, and few people wanted to return to dictatorship, the new constitution was adopted. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a shotgun, Hobson's choice between dreadful and merely bad. Why should people continue to adhere to it?

euyyn 9y ago
That isn't how things happened. Before the Constitution was even drafted, Suarez had put forward, and the francoist institutions had approved, the "Ley para la Reforma Política": https://www.boe.es/boe/dias/1977/01/05/pdfs/A00170-00171.pdf https://www.boe.es/boe/dias/1977/01/05/pdfs/A00170-00171.pdf Read the first two articles of that law; Spain was no longer a dictatorship. The last clause of the law enacts it as supreme law of the land. It is following that law that the first Congress of the new democracy (with the mandate to write a Constitution) was elected, using the same procedure we keep using today to elect our Congress. In that election, the francoist party of Fraga lost immensely to the centrist and marxist parties. If the Constitution they wrote didn't pass the popular vote of the referendum, general elections would be repeated and the process would start again. It never was a choice between accepting the new Constitution or going back to a dictatorship. It's called "Transición" instead of "Revolución" because the francoist regime turned itself into a democracy following its own laws and procedures.
- toyg 9y ago
  > If the Constitution they wrote didn't pass the popular vote of the referendum, general elections would be repeated and the process would start again. That's a very optimistic view of the situation. In practice, the instability resulting from not completing the process would have had dramatic consequences. Among other things, there was a Cold War on which could have easily started a new civil war. > the francoist regime turned itself into a democracy following its own laws and procedures. But exactly because the prime mover was the regime itself, there was always a chance it could go back on its steps. Compromises had to be made to ensure the transition would go through smoothly, as it's always the case.