Talk:Spanish transition to democracy

Citation sought
I don't have this one at hand, but I remember that Allard Lowenstein, who visited Spain as Franco lay dying, wrote something to the effect that the only way you could tell left from right in terms of their sentiments toward Juan Carlos was that the former were shouting "&iexcl;Viva el príncipe!" rather than "&iexcl;Arriba el príncipe!". If someone has the essay handy, could you please provide the exact quotation and citation? I'd like to get it into the article. And if no one responds, I guess I'll try to find it some time, but I'm a bit too busy for library research these days. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Press
This article needs something on the emergence of an uncensored press. Certainly El País in its early days made major contributions to the process of normalization. For that matter, there should also probably be a section about political ferment during the late years of the Franco regime, including mention of the satire magazine Hermano Lobo. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe other important example of the new free press was "Diario 16", founded before Franco's death and very independent from its beginning. MJGR 09:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, another excellent example. - Jmabel | Talk 05:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

"Counsel"
What is the Spanish original of the phrase translate here as "Counsel of the Kingdom"? I suspect that the word should be "Council" (concilio), but perhaps "Counsel" ("consejo") is correct. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Duh. Answered my own question by looking at the linked Spanish-language article, and yes, it is Consejo/ Counsel. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Beginning and end of the transition
The article states the transition started when Franco died and ended with the Socialist victory of 1982. But, is that view universally held? The TV series filmed by the Spanish Public Television about the transition started when Luis Carrero Blanco was killed in 1973 and ended when the first democratic election took place in 1977. And it was filmed in 1995, so it could have gone far beyond. I prefer the "definition" of the article but that of the TV series also makes sense. There were modernizing attemps within the dictatorship, as it was so evident change was inevitable. And 1977 makes sense as the end, as it was then when dictatorship was completely finished and its institutions had disappeared.

Because of this I believe that the article should analyze in depth the different views as the consensus isn't so universal. MJGR 08:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Certainly worth mentioning that it is variously defined, and could mention earliest and latest citable date for beginning and end. I wouldn't want to spend too much space on this issue, though. Precise starting and ending dates are a relatively minor (and ultimately undecidable) issue. The important issue is what changed. I have to say, though, I find a definition that says that the country had completed the transition to democracy before Tejero's attempted coup is a bit bizarre. Jeez, 1977? That would say they had completed the transition to democracy before they even had a constitution in place. - Jmabel | Talk 05:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Why not - a new constitution was not a pre-requisite to democracy. A democratic or any other form of constitution is not required.  Israel only recently adopted a consitution - was it not a democracy?  The Soviet Union had a democratic constitution, but who would say that was a democracy?

Law of Political Reform
The article implies that the Law of Political Reform was prepared by Suárez's government. However, I believe that it was really written by the then speaker of the Cortes Torcuato Fernández Miranda. He gave the draft to Suárez with these words: "Aquí te dejo esto que no tiene padre". MJGR 09:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Here there is a reference: "http://www.adurcal.com/iu/historia/historia_de_un_cambio.htm"

I believe the article must reflect this data. MJGR 09:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Go for it. - Jmabel | Talk 05:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Tribunal de Orden Público
The article says that "The Tribunal de Orden Público (TOP), a sort of Francoist secret police, was dissolved." I don't think the TOP was a secret police but simply a special court for a specific type of crimes. Could somebody explained what was the intended meaning of that paragraph? It seems it has to be changed. MJGR 09:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Extreme right wing newspapers
The article mentions "El Alcázar" as the radical mouthpiece. But, didn't "Arriba" play a similar role? Shouldn't it be also included as another element of instability? MJGR 09:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, mention it. - Jmabel | Talk 05:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Surely extreme leftwing newspapers are as much a threat to democracy as extreme right wing?

Western governments were not "headed by the United States" - only an arrogant American, sure of their God-given right to rule the world, would write that.

Possible no neutrality
This sentence reads quite sensible: "The forces of the Búnker benefited during this restless time, and announced that the country was on the brink of chaos.", but perhaps is not neutral enough. I believe it should be changed or removed. MJGR 09:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that removing this would be carrying neutrality to the point of a fetish. But if you want to suggest a rewording, I'd be interested in seeing what you suggest. - Jmabel | Talk 05:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps something like: "During this restless time, the Bunker affirmed that the country was on the brink of chaos." In my view, the possible non neutrality comes from implying that the best for the Bunker was the worst for the country. Those in favor of it claim that they wanted the best for Spain and that, if they opposed change, was because it was negative for their fatherland and so on. If it can be affirmed objectively that the Bunker's was benefitted from the bad situation, something I doubt as its popular support diminished constantly since Franco's death, I think it has to be sourced. MJGR 07:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think the sentence really makes the implication that what is best for Bunker is worst for the country. I think you're reading too much into it.  However, I agree it could be phrased differently.  Perhaps: "During the turbulent time, the Búnker capitalized on the instablity and declared that the country was on the brink of chaos."  I don't like the above verision because "affirmed" is POV since it supports the idea that Spain was on the edge of chaos.  I also think the sentence does not convey the basic idea that Bunker received a boost from those concerned with instability.--Bkwillwm 00:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Possibly "asserted" rather than "affirmed". - Jmabel | Talk 07:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I've introduced into the article Bkwillwm's suggestion. I think it solves the issue. MJGR 07:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Works for me... thanks.--Bkwillwm 03:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The suggestion that the transition to democracy only ended with the "electoral victory of the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party (PSOE) on 28 October 1982" suggests two things, both of which are wrong- that the government before 1982 was Francoist, and that Spain was not a democracy between 1977 and 1982. Only a fool would believe either. Spain was actually democratic from 1975.

language doubt
Not quite sure about the title for this article. Shouldn't it be Spain's transition to democracy? --Technopat 01:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think not. Historians almost always call it the "Spanish transition to democracy". And I just did the Google test: 16,400 G-hits vs. 705. But I'll add the other as a redirect, if it hasn't already been done. - Jmabel | Talk 21:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Tejero golpe.jpg
The image Image:Tejero golpe.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --06:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

A Misnomer
The very title of this article is misleading. Spain did NOT become a Democracy after the death of Franco. Rather, it became a Constitutional Monarchy. Democracy is a completely different system of government (look at Ancient Athens). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.211.234.238 (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Spain was a constitutional monarchy from 1947, if not before, my friend. In 1975 the Chief of State changed from Franco as Regent, to Juan Carlo as King. Little change.


 * I disagree: The current definition of democracy is not the same exact thing as the system that existed in ancient Athens; a monarchy can perfectly be a democratic system (see liberal democracy); the change of chief of state in 1975 was also accompanied by real changes to the political process that effectively turned a dictatorship into a free country. Leafcat (talk) 15:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

This is interesting. According to the rules of a democratic system (see liberal democracy) you need a separation of powers into different branches of government. But that doesn't happen in Spain. Yes, there is an legislative and there is an executive. Yes, the first one writes the laws and the second one applies it. But these are only different functions of the same power. They are the same power because the party who win the elections has control over legislative and executive. Take a look at the works of Antonio García-Trevijano (see []) and specially his essay "A Pure Theory of Democracy". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flinn Sorrow 88.73.11.152 (talk) 00:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

2008 to 2012
There is no mention of the fragile state of Spain under heavy debt and and cost of borrowing: what is expert assessment of the risk to democratic political structure in Spain ?

Please note that Canada and several other nations with stable democratic institutions are constitutional monarchies with a legal head of state who is not a President with executive powers and that membership in a Privy Council of the monarch has not undermined representative government anymore than, say, Canada's unelected Senate. Brief martial law in Canada starting in 1970 has been offset by a subsequent Bill of Rights. Emphasis should be placed on separation of Judiciary and protections of rights of assembly and expression of dissent. Imperfect, but 'democratic' and without violent revolutions or military dictatorship.

G. Robert Shiplett 10:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Moncloa Pact
This article contains a reference to a Wikipedia entry for the Moncloa Pact. However, that article doesn't exist and links through to this article. Unfortunately this article doesn't contain further information on this pact.83.85.50.92 (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)