What is happening in Spain? Ten Questions About Constitutional Crisis

Spain’s politics this week are somewhat reminiscent of the US – two camps accusing each other of subverting democracy, a court ruling on purely political lines and the use of the word ‘conspiracy’.

At the center of this messy situation is who has the power to appoint judges to the Constitutional Court in Madrid — and thereby exercise control over judges who set the rules of the political game. The Constitutional Court reviews bills that are unconstitutional. It is often about important issues like abortion and euthanasia.

One-third of the judges of the Constitutional Court have expired. But the conservative opposition Partido Popular (PP) refuses to vote for new candidates. According to the party of President Alberto Núñez Feijóo, not politicians, as it is now, but judges should be responsible for appointments to this high court. And without opposition support, the minority government of Social Democratic Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez is short on votes.

Ten questions about this impasse.

read more: How does a Spanish judge act politically?

1 Why are Spain’s top judges appointed by politicians?

Appointment of Chief Justices is done indirectly through the General Assembly for Judiciary. All twenty members of this council are political appointees. This practice relates to Spain’s transition from dictatorship to democracy, which began in 1975. generality Francisco Franco passed away. In 1985, the then left-wing government, realizing that too many judges had come from the dictatorship, introduced a provision that made Parliament responsible for appointing members of the Council. For example, the political color of the court moves along with the color of the government.

2 Does PP make sense in rejecting this practice?

The opposition’s position is supported by the European Union, which is not in favor of judges being appointed by politicians. Yet the party is also opportunistic: the majority of judges are appointed by the PP. Now that he is in the opposition, the party is making this situation problematic.

3 Why is this suddenly an important theme for the opposition?

The conflict has its origins in the 2017 Catalan secession referendum. At that time nine separatist leaders were charged with sedition. The Sánchez government pardoned them and last month removed the crime of ‘rebellion’ from the criminal code, replacing it with ‘disruption of public order’, and promised Catalans would be charged less for organizing the referendum with public money. Sánchez did this in part because his minority government needed the support of the Catalan party.

Right-wing parties, traditionally strongly nationalist in orientation, were horrified by these concessions to separatists. Opposition leader Feijóo was initially willing to compromise with Sánchez on the judges issue, but became so angry about the reform of the Rebellion Act that he let the deal fall through.

4 So do the judges continue even after their terms expire?

Sánchez hasn’t given up yet: He hopes to overcome this obstacle by including in his reform plans an amendment that would reduce the number of votes needed to appoint new judges. That way his government would have enough votes to pass the new appointments.

5 How did this affect the opposition?

worse. The opposition described Sánchez’s move as an attack on the rule of law in general and the independence of the judiciary in particular, comparing the prime minister to his counterparts in Poland and Hungary.

read more: After pressure from the EU, Poland backs down, but Orban seeks confrontation

6 Can opposition parties do something about it?

The government’s bill was submitted to the same Constitutional Court that it sought to reform. Normally this is a formality, but the court ruled on Monday, five against six appointed by the PP, that it was unconstitutional to attach an amendment to a bill that had nothing to do with it.

Coalition party Podemos asked the court’s two judges to abstain from voting because they would decide on their own jobs. They refused.

7 Is it normal for a court to dismiss a bill at such an early stage?

No. It was the first time in the history of the court – established in 1978 – that it had blocked a bill before it was approved.

8 How did Prime Minister Sanchez respond?

Sanchez’s reaction was twofold. On the one hand, he said he respects the court’s decision. But the Prime Minister responded angrily to the opposition parties. He spoke of “unprecedented events in the history of democracy”, lack of respect for the law and the will of the people and the “unjustified blockade” of his bill. He also warned that right-wing parties and conservative judges are trampling democracy and trying to silence Congress. According to Sanchez, his opponents want to keep the court’s old system because that system is favorable to them.

9 What did the judges think of this?

Eight conservative judges branded the prime minister’s comments “irresponsible” and an attack on the institution’s legitimacy.

10 What now?

In the short term, Sanchez will make another attempt to force a breakthrough by sealing the amendment in a separate bill. But the damage to Spain’s democratic constitutional government was real. Polarization between camps is getting more and more out of hand. Spain will hold general elections by December next year. This latest crisis suggests that the election campaign will be very heated.