A professor and his student: a professor of Sociology, a member of the PSOE, who was Minister of Education with Felipe González, and a political scientist who made the leap into politics with the founding of Podemos and who is today a deputy for Sumar. José María Maravall, 81, and Íñigo Errejón, 39, both from Madrid, reflect together on the current panorama in La Coproductora (audiovisual production company of Prisa, publishing company of EL PAÍS) for the November issue of the magazine InkFree.
The tension. There is more? Is it expressed differently?
Íñigo Errejón: “Optimistic neoliberalism promised that globalization would bring prosperity for everyone and proposed an optimistic future, which was later not fulfilled or was fulfilled only for some segments of the population. But current neoliberalism is pessimistic, angry, and assures that there is not something for everyone. This means that a very important reactionary wave is being seen throughout the world, also favored by a moment characterized by cynicism and nihilism. If nothing is worth caring about, not the institutions, not the planet, not your neighbor… everything is allowed. There is a certain use of social networks that is contributing to the fact that there is no minimum cultural terrain. Algorithms encourage you to always listen to what you are predisposed to hear and to interact with those who think like you. There is no minimum range of values. At the Spanish domestic level, the right has theorized that the nation has half of the people left over because they are not Spanish enough, they speak other languages, they have ideologies that they say are foreign and that is why from time to time they make an attempt at mutilation , so that the Spanish people fit well into the narrow mold of their idea of the Spanish nation.”
José María Maravall agrees with the approach: “Part of the frustration on the right is that the PSOE has already governed for twice as long. Tension strategies have to do with dividing the strength that the adversary may have, demobilizing their voters, blocking some policies that have been an obsession for them. The right is also very hypocritical, it has had no qualms about agreeing with Catalan nationalism when it has needed it, it has agreed with [Jordi] Pujol. There have been moments in the past that have been horrendous; A terrible campaign was unleashed against Felipe González: insult after insult. The same thing happened with Zapatero. I mean, this is not new.”
Dehumanization of the rival and distraction maneuvers
Errejón says: “I don’t like the term polarization, because it seems to me that it can slide dangerously into equidistance. Since 2017 or 2018, what there has been is an increase in the aggressiveness of reactionary forces that is expressed in public debate, on the street and in coexistence. But that is not polarization, because it is not occurring on both sides. What there has been is an emboldening on the streets, on social networks, in the media discussion of the reactionary sectors. I think that many pollsters were completely wrong for the July 23 elections because of the bubble effect that Madrid produces, because there are permanent sectors of the Spanish right that confuse what Madrid is going to vote for with what Spain is going to vote for, and because The climate on the street was ideological and cultural offensive. Very hard. I defend that you can clash and discuss thoroughly with your opponent. The difference is recognizing the right to exist.”
What affects the most is what happens closest. So you don’t miss anything, subscribe.
Subscribe
And Maravall thinks: “The tension serves as a veil, it is a way to hide the inequality that exists and to hide the relevance of some policies systematically boycotted by the right, such as those that reinforce Health or Public Education or redistributive fiscal policies. . These issues are hidden by polarization.”
The amnesty debate
Maravall argues: “Some people should be consistent with their past. For example, regarding the amnesty, in 1986, the González Government approved a royal decree on the extinction of responsibilities of officials where it indicated how one of the reasons why responsibilities could be extinguished was due to an amnesty law. That is, he recognized that amnesties could be constitutional. Things are very clear legally and whoever does not want to see it is because he wants to be blind.” Errejón believes: “I am fully convinced of the positive political effects that the amnesty will have. I think that when progressive forces defend it with small mouths, they do themselves a disservice. I think it is fair, I cannot understand how, in a country where people who entered Congress with weapons have been pardoned, someone would put their hands on their heads because an amnesty prevents someone from being able to face a process that could end up taking them to prison for opening a school to put ballot boxes. It’s a barbarity”.
Different visions
Errejón celebrates that today the two are “more in agreement” than they were a few years ago. What Maravall attributes, jokingly, to the “damages caused by old age.”
—I don’t know, but if we agree on the diagnosis that in recent decades power in the political system, in the State and in civil society has become very unbalanced towards the most conservative sectors, what didn’t those socialist governments do well? —says the Sumar deputy.
—That is a vision that I do not entirely share.
—Here we go back to class a little.
-Yeah. If I compare Spain at the beginning of the eighties with today, many things have improved. I would like us to be more like other more egalitarian countries, but we are going little by little,” concludes Maravall.
#José #María #Maravall #Íñigo #Errejón #dialogue #strategies #tension