Socialists Oust Spain's Ruling Party

Another thread about this is already running since yesterday here, with quite a lively discussion of the various problems:
Spain: Bombs Rip Through Train Stations At Rush Hour

Another one:
The War on Terror and the Implications of the Madrid Bombing

Three Days in Spain By William Rivers Pitt
Three Days in Spain
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Monday 15 March 2004

The winds of change are blowing furiously through Spain today, as terrorism and war take center stage for the first time since September 11 as the determining factors in a democratic election.

It began in horror with the bombing of Spanish commuter trains and the deliberate slaughter of 200 people on Thursday. Thousands more were wounded in the blasts, and the entirety of the nation was hurled into the blackest mourning. The government of Jose Maria Aznar has attempted to connect the bombings to the Basque separatist group ETA, but evidence - including a videotaped claim of responsibility - is pointing towards al Qaeda as the perpetrators.

The reasons Aznar's government wanted to see the attacks connected to ETA instead of al Qaeda were found in the streets of Spain by the thousands on the Saturday after the bombs went off. Madrid was awash with protesters demanding answers from Aznar as to who was responsible. They thronged the streets holding signs reading 'Paz,' and carried a banner reading 'Your War, Our Corpses.' There were protests in Andalucia, Barcelona and other cities, as well. If the attacks could be connected to ETA, the resulting fury would be directed towards the Basque separatists. If the attack was perpetrated by al Qaeda, however, that fury would roar towards Aznar himself.

He would be held personally responsible for those deaths because he involved Spain in the invasion of Iraq despite the disapproval of some 80% of Spain's citizens. If the attack was perpetrated by al Qaeda, it would be seen as revenge for Spain's role in Iraq. As the Spanish people wanted no part of that war, and as Aznar brought them into that war against their wishes, the blood of those people, according to those thousands of protesters, would be dripping from his fingers.

Much of the mainstream media's coverage of these protesters suggested that the crowds had been usurped by anti-war activists, that the majority of the protest was aimed at the bombers and not Aznar's government. But then, on Sunday, the people of Spain went to the polls for the parliamentary elections. Turnout for the vote was extraordinarily high. The results appear to prove beyond dispute that the anti-war sentiment seen in the crowds on Saturday was not the exception, but the rule.

There were several parties on the ballot on Sunday, the two most prominent being Aznar's Popular Party and the Socialists. Before the bombing, it was widely believed that Aznar's hand-picked successor for the prime minister's spot, Mariano Rajoy, would win handily, and that the conservative Popular Party would retain its majority in the 350-member Congress of deputies. By 6:00 p.m. EST on Sunday, however, conventional wisdom had been turned on its head. With 96% of the votes counted, the Socialist Party had taken 163 seats, Aznar's Popular Party had taken 148 seats, and Rajoy had given a concession speech for himself and his defeated party. It was a reversal of epic and stunning proportions.

There are a number of lessons to be taken from the incredible turn of events over the last 100 hours, few of which are comforting.

The timing of the attack on Thursday is deeply troubling. If al Qaeda was indeed responsible, the terrorist organization certainly planned the blast to happen on the eve of the election. While many may rejoice at the repudiation of a party that brought its nation to war against the will of the people, the fact remains that this repudiation came after 200 people died. Terrorism, slaughter and fear owned the ballot boxes in Spain on Sunday, a precedent that is simply horrifying.

America's role in the Iraq invasion itself played a central role in the Thursday attacks, and bears a lion's share of responsibility for the horror. George W. Bush sprinted to attack a nation that posed no threat to his country, or Spain, or any other. He has poured hundreds of billions of dollars and nearly 600 American lives into the endeavor, in no small part because of now-debunked claims that Iraq and al Qaeda enjoyed an operational alliance.

Had Bush chosen to press the fight against al Qaeda itself, and not against toothless red herrings like Iraq, it is entirely possible that the bombings in Spain would never have happened. The force and funding of American wrath would have been brought to bear against actual terrorists, severely impeding actions like the one which so shook Spain. Had Bush chosen to press the fight against al Qaeda itself, and not Iraq, Spain and Aznar and all those dead would not now be on the forefront of the carnage.

Again, many will find some grim satisfaction in this, but the facts auger towards a deepening gloom. Clearly, the Iraq war has not made America or the world safer. It has, in fact, further imperiled many nations and many peoples. The people of Spain were right to resist it. The hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Americans who took to the streets to resist it were right to resist it. The 30 million people who protested in every capitol on Earth on February 15th were right to resist it.

Though they have been proven right, there is no comfort in it, for as the terror in Spain has demonstrated, the people of the world face more of a threat now than ever before. This will be further articulated on March 20th, as yet more protests to mark the first year of the war will again boil in the streets of the world. There is no comfort in it, for the war grinds on, and the consequences continue to claw at us all.

In the horror and the woe, there are three thin linings of silver. The first is this: Although a constitutional monarchy modeled much after the United Kingdom, Spain is showing all the signs of a young and healthy democracy - engaged, concerned, and vital. The protests and voter turnout are evidence enough of this. Surely, the 80% who opposed involvement in Iraq show they are a vocal populace who enjoys the mantle of democratic reform bestowed a generation ago.

Their constitution was ratified in December 1978 after a three year process that began upon Franco's death and subsequent acquisition of the reins by King Juan Carlos during the interim. The last 25 years have seen Spain eager to become a player with the other Western modern European nations like the UK, France, or Germany. The first step was joining NATO in 1982, and since, the pendulum of power in the prime minister's seat has veered between the Socialist Party on the left and the conservative - center-right by U.S. standards - Popular Party. The pendulum swung back on Sunday. The nation is a young and healthy modern republic, coming closer with each year to being the player in the European Union it wants to be.

The second lining is this: When the bombs went off in Spain, that nation and the world faced a tipping point. The fear and horror could have compelled the Spanish people to support their government and its role in the farcical War on Terror. They could have allowed themselves to be swept up in hysteria and lined up behind leaders who have, thus far, done everything wrong. They did not do this. They did, in fact, overwhelmingly repudiate their government and its war. This came at a terrible cost in blood, but had they done otherwise, the precedent as witnessed and potentially followed by the world could have spiraled beyond even a semblance of control.

The third lining is this: The bombing took place on Thursday. Two days later, the people of Spain were battering down the doors of government offices demanding information, demanding truth. "We cannot vote without knowing who are the assassins," cried the protesters. "The government is hiding information. They think we're idiots." Emilio Jimenez Tomas of Madrid, in a comment given to the New York Times as he surveyed the wreckage left behind by the bombings, said, "Look at this. This is an election and the government pretends that they don't know anything about who really did it. They've been lying to us and we won't know the real truth until after the election."

Two days. That was all it took for the people of Spain to become impatient, to pressure their government for the truth. When they did not get it, they threw that government out on it's ear. For America, a nation approaching the 1,000th day in which their government has not provided the truth of September 11th, this is a lesson to be taken deeply to heart.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My thanks to historian Laurin Suiter for providing background on Spain's democracy.

From the reports I have heard, it sounds like the new head socialist in Spain has decided to personally set the anti-terrorism cause back. His stated plan--to pull Spanish troops out of Iraq and distance his government from the US' War on Terror--sends a clear message to the terrorists who killed his people that terrorism works and (more specifically) that killing people in Spain works.

Nice job, jaggoff.

Does anybody not "get" that terrorists will work harder to bomb more and kill more people now that they've gotten reassurance that doing so helps them achieve their goals?

Scrat
Scrat wrote: Does anybody not "get" that terrorists will work harder to bomb more and kill more people now that they've gotten reassurance that doing so helps them achieve their goals?

For once, I agree with Scrat. Rewarding the terrorists is counter-productive.

BBB

Scat

The democratically elected new Spanish Prime Minister just did that, what he -and his party- promised before the elections, and which was said in numerous campaigns.

Don't blame him, his party or the Spaniars that you didn't know about that!

Besides, the Spaniards do have a quite long experience with terrorism.

I don't think you get it Walter. It would appear from the outside that the bombings changed the outcome of the election. We call this electioneering, but it might better be called electerrorism. This is a worst possible scenario for democracy.

I guess the same argument can be made re our coming election. We'd better all vote for Bush, or it will look like that the terrorists got their way.

Am I getting it, cjhsa?

Well, I've read/seen a lot about the election in Spain.

Might well be, however, that you got the better perspective and insight view, cjhsa.

I have no predictions for this fall's elections D'art, not at this point. But before the bombings took place Spain't Popular Party was strongly leading in the polls. Something obviously changed the results.

Yes: about 10% more went to the elections.

Besides, all the past times, poll said as well, that about 90% were against the war.

And strongly leading? 4% it was on Wednesday.

Some of the posters here are on the suposition that Spaniards voted PSOE out of fear of more attacks.

That's unfair to a people who has proved a big sense of solidarity and of repulse against terrorism. 11 million Spaniards took the streets to protest against the bombings. It is as if 100 million Americans had gone to the streets to protest 9/11.

When (Partido Popular's presidential candidate) Mariano Rajoy went to his polling booth, he was jeered by fellow citizens. The cry was: "Lier!".

Two things outraged enough Spaniards to make them go to the polls in higher numbers and change the outcome:
1. Aznar's and Partido Popular's support for a war, 90% of the Spanish people were against (and this is a major difference with the US)
2. The feeling that for 2 days they were lied by the government, who tried to hide all evidence linking Al-Qaeda to the bombings. If the Basque terrorists, ETA, were the culprits, then the boost would have been towards PP.

Finally, PSOE is not AT ALL a party that is easy on terrorism. Many of their militants have been killed by ETA terrorists.
PSOE was the party who put Spain in NATO.
But it favors multilateral agreements, not unilateral action. That is why it was against the adventure in Iraq led by the US government.

Pacifists.

You don't know much about Spain and Spaniards, if anything at all, I suppose.

I'm glad there are posters on this thread (Walter and fbaezer) who actually know something about Spanish politics. Then there are the name callers...

I'm sad there are people with their heads firmly stuck in the sand. As we say, "cannot see the forest for the trees".

Well, cjhsa, so from where do you have you deep knowledge about Spain and the Spaniards?

I really think, you are deeply insulting a nation, which had and has suffered, and still is suffering a lot due to terrorism.

All I've said is that an act of terrorism DIRECTLY changed the outcome of a democratically held election. Doesn't that bother anyone but me?

One of the motives for these notices was probably to affect the Spanish elections and/or the political tendency in Spain. This attempt failed.


Also the new Spanish government will give the fight of the terrorism the highest priority.


You mean honestly that, when more people go to the ballots, this is to be bother?