It will be difficult to establish consistent policy conclusions until the end of the current electoral cycle. We will have to wait, although the results of April 28 already raise many questions: about the continuity or transience in the preferences of the voters, the evolution of the party system, the redefinition of strategies, the composition of a future government majority, and so on.
There are still no clear answers, but more or less well-founded speculations are inevitable. It is possible to advance the probability of a socialist government alone, discarding for now the coalition with other political forces. Minority governments are not unusual in multi-party countries, but they are difficult to manage. They are based on the ability to establish a multilateral dialogue by tech.
They require a political culture accustomed to the integration in the public debate of the wide diversity of political and social positions, including minority ones. They are much less viable, however, when the dominant political culture is inclined towards the marginalization of minorities, establishing a confrontational dynamic in which the majority imposes itself without contemplation on the dissenters and even tends to deny them the status of political actors.
This denial punishes both actors with an institutional presence and other actors who move within the scope of social movements and outside the representative sphere. If they do not achieve an institutional presence or if this institutional presence is a minority, their chances of being admitted to the debate stage are very limited through technology.
This dynamic of exclusive confrontation has prevailed in Spain since the 1982 elections gave the PSOE the first absolute majority. Since then, the desire to identify a clear winner in each electoral contest has been imposed, attributing an unquestionable right to exercise the exclusive responsibility of the government.
From this point of view, the so-called “coalition of losers” has been reviled when the possibility was pointed out that the first party in the electoral results would be ousted by a parliamentary coalition majority as an alternative as legitimate as the one party. Following this same dynamic, the figure of the “leader of the opposition”, typical of the majority bipartisan, but without roots in the multi-party systems, was imported.
This dynamic of confrontation has been accompanied by remarkable governmental stability. Between 1982 and 2015, the duration of the legislatures and the corresponding governments exceeded a thousand days, a very notable mark in the European democracies as a whole.
But lasting is not synonymous with governing. Because it is not clear that this adversarial dynamic has served to develop and stabilize policies whose continuity requires the support of a broad political and social majority.
I point out, among them, some socio-economic policies, territorial policy or educational policy. They are policies that affect the present and the future of the whole society and in whose definition and application have interests and aspirations a plurality of political and social agents.
If they are not recognized and incorporated into the debate, the central issues of life together rarely get a sufficiently durable response. Using an exclusive procedure to deal with them also erodes the democratic quality of the result and delegitimizes the system as a whole.