The possibility of a name change of the Sumar Plurinational Parliamentary Group in Congress is receding, at least in the short term. The majority of the political formations that make it up have serious doubts about the relevance of undertaking this reform, although the doubts of each party are different.
The proposal to change the name was formally put on the table by Izquierda Unida. After the outbreak of Errejón casethe need arose in the group to appoint a new parliamentary spokesperson (a very important figure for the parties in institutional politics), and the initial idea was to undertake this quick change to close the crisis caused by the departure of the deputy (forced due to complaints against him from women for sexual assault) had originated.
However, the process took longer than originally planned for two reasons. The first, because the people who had the consensus of the majority of the group to be spokespersons had not yet made the decision to want to be; and the second, because IU asked to extend the changes in the group beyond the spokesperson and carry out a reorganization that, in general terms, would provide more horizontality to this space in Congress.
Among the changes that Antonio Maíllo’s team put on the table is also to modify the name of the group. The argument of Izquierda Unida lies in the need to eliminate “confusion” which in his opinion causes the name of this space in Congress (Add) is practically identical to that of the party created and led by Yolanda Díaz (Add Movement).
This confusion had not only been pointed out by IU, but other coalition parties They had also referred to it on several occasions during the legislature (especially when the spokespersons for the organization led by Díaz used the name “Sumar” interchangeably to refer to the parliamentary group, in which several organizations coexist, and to refer to their game).
Times and priorities
At the moment when Maíllo’s people put it on the table it seemed that the proposal had a relatively broad consensusand that, therefore, there could be a change to the group’s name sooner rather than later.
However, as of today, the proposal seems to have deflated and it is not expected that there will be a name change in the short term. The majority of organizations that make up the group claim to have important doubts on the suitability of carrying out this reform.
From Movimiento Sumar they assure that It is not among your priorities and that when they agreed to carry out the reorganization of the group they were essentially referring to rotating presidencies and positions on commissions.
Most of the group’s parties have serious doubts about the need to undertake the name change now
Above all, they convey, because the new parliamentary spokesperson, Verónica Martínez Barberohad a very technical profile within the group that included work in several commissions, so his abandonment of these tasks (to assume the first line required by the spokesperson) left him uncovered.
The Commons consider that Parliament is not the appropriate space to open this type of debates that they consider organic and more typical of the party table (the forum in which the coalition formations try to reach agreements on the political action of the space as a whole). Furthermore, the Catalan party defends the need to shield the parliamentary groupwhich they consider works very well and operationally, and isolate it from the tensions that the left has been suffering in other areas.
Nor is it among Más Madrid’s priorities to modify the name of the group, although those of Mónica García claim not to have a specific position on the suitability of undertaking this change. In Compromís they believe that this debate should have taken place when the configuration of the group was agreed upon, at the beginning of the legislature, and they state that, in their opinion, it is necessary differentiate well the electoral spaces of the parliamentarians in these types of debates.
Most organizations agree on the need to provide greater horizontality to the group
Other voices of the parliamentary group see behind the IU proposal an attempt to open a debate on the Sumar brand, which they consider a mistake at this time: “If what is sought is to finish sinking a brand that has already was affected after the electoral cycle, it is a mistake, because the key is that this brand, Sumar, is well defined so we can all relate to it. Sumar is another actor, different from us, and a brand is also measured based on the others, on the differences with the others,” they explain.
In any case, there is a very broad agreement between the different formations regarding the need to provide the group with greater horizontality in decision-making and rebalancing the weight of the different voices within it.
In fact, when IU put its proposals on the table (after the outbreak of the Errejón scandal), even in Movimiento Sumar they seemed to assume that it would have to happen a “democratization” in the group. We will have to wait to see what definitive changes are adopted and whether they meet the expectations of all parties.
#Sumars #parties #Congress #move #changing #groups #horizontality
