Spain after Franco

From the editorial office. For Russia, 2011 is the year of the 20th anniversary of the collapse of the USSR and the democratic transformations followed. For modern Spain, this year is also not ordinary. 30 years ago, a military rebellion was prevented, the purpose of which was the restoration of the francist regime. The Spanish people made their choice - the putsch failed. The scars of the national split are mutually recognized. Aleksey Ustinov correspondent, Aleksey Ustinov, talked about the problems of civil reconciliation in Spain with Dr. Seville University Miguel Vasquez , a teacher of theory and history of propaganda and social history of communications, the editor -in -chief of the journal "Information and Communication" ( IC , Revista Ceentífica de Informaci Comunicación).

* * *

Russian magazine: Was Franco inevitable?

Miguel Vasquez: I'm not sure that this is so. Indeed, Spain did not have enough democratic experience. There were periods of authoritarian board of various kinds: dictatorship and even the so-called “dictabland”, that is, “soft dictatorship” (the period of the reign of General Berenger in 1930-31), the monarchy, also not particularly encouraging the participation of the people in political life. And the republican government (1931-1936) failed to avoid serious political mistakes and even manifestations of authoritarianism. Nevertheless, I think that in the political sense of the republic - it was one of the most fruitful periods in the history of Spain of the twentieth century. It was at this time that a serious attempt to modernize the country is made by rather radical reforms. This entailed certain social conflicts, the fundamental mismatch of political trends. The coup led by Franco and the victory of his supporters in the civil war put an end to the modernization process.

RG: Then, in 1936, was democracy doomed?

MV: No, in no way. The fact that in the 70s Spain returned to democracy is superfluous proof of this. The Republicans began to modernize the army, trying to reduce the number of officers and the general, which set up a significant part of the highest command staff against themselves, which in those years was one of the main pillars of Spanish traditionalism. The civil war began, the victory in which the Francists won. They had significant support: in addition to military assistance from Germany and Italy, they relied, in particular, on the highest clergy and large landowners within the country. In a word, conservatism prevailed.

RSA : a low standard of living , the disunity of society , a decrease in the authority of the Catholic Church , communist ideals , anarchism, riots in the provinces, the resignation of the ruling monarchy of the bourds, unsuccessful wars in Morocco, and next to the fascists of Germany and Italy ... what a deliberate cocktail! What is wrong with the fact that Franco stopped all this? After all, Spain remained a single state, escaped participation in the Second World War.

MV: There is nothing bad in the unity of the state, but it is not a dogma, something unconditionally positive. In any case, it is not worth all spilled blood. Franco did not stop the civil war, but on the contrary, provoked it. If we talk about the loss of authority of the Catholic Church, then the reasons most likely should be sought in the position of the Church itself. In addition, Spain nevertheless participated in the world war - on the side of Germany on the Eastern Front from 1941 to 43, the Blue Division acted. To say that Franco saved Spain from all hardships of the 20th century, means to prove the effectiveness of his propaganda. The whole rhetoric of the regime was aimed at creating a myth about the “calm” Spain, living in accordance with its traditions, according to Catholic laws, far from world shocks and the threat of Soviet communism.

Spain could not be any “quiet harbor”. Political repressions have been the norm for forty years of the Frankist regime. Their peak fell on the 40s and 50s, but even after the persecution did not stop. Just a few months before the death of Franco, the latest death sentences were carried out.

RG: What was uniting for the Spanish society of the times of Franco?

MV: Franco's regime relied mainly on three forces: traditionalism, authoritarianism and Catholicism. In addition, the cult of the personality of Kaudillo was planted, who considered himself an exemplary Spanish Catholic.

An essential element of francoist propaganda was family, family values. In this system, a woman played a special role, very peculiar. The woman had limited access to education, career, public life, was not able to become a completely independent person. For example, a woman could only open a bank account with the consent of her husband. And it was until Franco’s death, until the legislation was significantly liberalized. The main tool for the embodiment of Francsky values ​​was violence against a person. The church was included in the state control mechanisms over a citizen, controlling a significant part of the educational system, while at the same time a guide for francistic propaganda in the field of morality.

RG: Was there a society under Franco a close -knit monolith?

MV: Probably, Franco wanted to see the Spanish society so close -knit, it was the image of Spain, created by Francoist propaganda. Undoubtedly, the support of the regime was numerous. But there was an internal opposition, part of which was radical and did not disdain terrorism. The most famous of the then terrorist organizations created by then is the still founded in the late 50s and still this (Euskadi Ta Askatasuna - “Country of Basque and Freedom”, bases. - approx. RSA). In 1973, Luis Carrero Blanco, who was considered the successor to Kaudillo, was killed in one of the organized terrorist attacks. At that moment, many took it without regret, mentally applauding the radicals. After all, Franco was very “successfully” solved by the national issue, destroying autonomy and actually prohibiting the use of local languages.

At the same time, Franco very skillfully manipulated his entourage. All political elites were divided into fractions that competed with each other: military bureaucracy, church, state, phalangists. There were even media that supported certain groups. But there was no question of any serious public discussion. In the center, the inviolable Caudillo remained.

Yes, and the privileged groups themselves were not devoid of internal disagreements. Even the Catholic Church was forced to suppress manifestations of dissent among the clergy. These, for example, are the so -called “red priests” who departed from the official church, but at the same time retained spiritual authority in their environment.

Spain did not pass the 1968th year. Of course, he was much softer and restrained than in the rest of Europe, but the events of the end of the 60s did not go unnoticed-this is for sure. By the mid-70s, new students appeared, new teachers, whose views went against official dogmas. Representatives of this new current were the bards of Raymon and Joan Manuel Serrat, public figure Enrique Terno Galvan, the edition of Trunfo and the Coaderma couple El Dialogue. To some extent, this period can be called Spanish "perestroika." Active opposition to the system in those years has been significantly strengthened. Society began to understand that Franco’s policy was leading the country.

RG: Did Franco's death appear unexpected?

MV: No. He was seriously ill, everyone understood that the end was close. And still, when King Juan Carlos I came to power, it was not clear where the scales would swing. The parties legalized, preparations for the first free elections began. And after that the society came into motion. People felt that the time had come to participate in the fate of their country, although no one knew what it would be. It was an unusually saturated in the political and emotional sense. The Spaniards again felt like those on whom something depends.

RG: Is this the rise of civil self -awareness?

MV: I think yes. When people take responsibility for their fate in their own hands, with a clear intention of all the risks to take on and change the failed system, without allowing bloodshed.

RG: Was a new civil war?

MV: Not only was possible, but also flared up almost again - in 1981, when the tension in society again approached a critical point. The organizers of the 1981 coup, undoubtedly, were going to stop democratic reforms and restore the old orders.

RG: What prevented new shocks?

MV: The people and its cohesion around the idea of ​​free Spain. A large role belongs to individual outstanding personalities, for example, Adolfo Suarez, the first head of the government after the elections, or Santiago Carrillo, the Secretary of the Spanish Communist Party. The role of King Juan Carlos is undeniable. It is difficult to say what his decisions were dictated by then: democratic beliefs or the desire to restore the Bourbons dynasty. Maybe both. It must be taken into account that he was met with great distrust in society. The Francists considered him an outcast, which betrays the idea of ​​Franco. The opposition considered him a protege Franco and also did not accept him. After all, the monarchy fell in the 30s, not leaving a pleasant memoirs about itself.

In addition, stability in the country was also achieved because the leaders of the main parties found the strength to sit at the negotiating table and find a compromise.

RG: What was the main idea of ​​the formation of democracy of the late 70s?

MV: Update as such. And also readiness for political concessions. The Communists and Socialists accepted the monarchy as the state system, and the most reformist part of the Francists agreed with the legalization of political parties. A minimum consensus was achieved, which led to the first democratic elections and to the creation of the 1978 Constitution. Probably, this process made all the Spanish society much more tolerant.

Democracy was not established quickly. She may still not be as strong as it might seem from the outside. The transition period left, moreover, many unresolved issues, some of which were considered in the new “Law on Historical Memory” from 2007. But this law is not 1977, not 1987, but 2007. Only 30 years after the creation of the Constitution, we received such a law. He involves the rehabilitation of those who fought for democratic ideals during the civil war and during the dictatorship. He recognizes invalid all political sentences issued by the Franco regime, and guarantees access to archival documents of the war and dictatorship. This is an achievement. According to this law, at the administrative level it is necessary to provide assistance to everyone who is looking for their relatives. And we have a huge number of nameless mass graves. Recently, in Malaga they found such a burial, counted about 4 thousand victims. This is in a 25 millionth country-it was a population-burial grounds of several thousand people. And they must be restored, identified. By the way, the right ones did not vote, but still the law was adopted.

RG: emigrants returned to the country. How did they meet?

MV: I must say that there were several types of emigration. On the one hand, these are military refugees, Republicans and members of their families who had no place in the new Franco Span. The political emigration, which began at the end of the civil war, continued, with greater or less intensity, throughout the entire period of francism. On the other hand, there were many those who left the country from poverty, in search of a better life.

And when all these people, especially political emigrants, began to return, they were met very wary. Yesterday, the communist and socialist was an enemy of the people, and today the portraits of their leaders were on election posters. When the leader of the Communists Santiago Carrillo arrived in the country, he was immediately arrested. He stayed in prison in the center of Madrid for some time. And all this time, rallies took place at the gates of the prison - both opponents and supporters.

RJ: And the francists? They haven't gone anywhere?

MV: I have not yet gone anywhere in politics. Not them - the age is not the same - so their political "children". The Minister, according to information and tourism in the government of Franco, Manuel Frag, met his old age as the head of the Autonomous Region of Galicia, - there are many such examples. The leadership of the People’s Party also includes the descendants of the "former." For all surveys, by the way, it is this party that will win the elections of this year. And then her leader Maryano Rahoy will become the new chairman of the government.

RG: How are the processes of civil reconciliation reflected in the media?

MV: This is a very interesting process. There is a very active mythologization of the period of transition to democracy. A certain raid of romance appears, as in films about spies. Many series are removed on the topic of the family, continuity and conflicts of generations. For example, the series "Tell me how it was." It began to show it in 2001 and it is still going on. It tells about the everyday life of the Helkantar family, an ordinary family belonging to the middle class, in the Spain of recent years of francism (the described events begin in 1968) and the beginning of the transition period.

RG: Today's Spain will be able to protect yourself from new shocks? Economic problems sooner or later develop into political.

MV: The crisis revealed a lot of problems. Unemployment, political and economic corruption, the inability of the elites flexibly respond to the challenges of time, excessive dependence on financial markets, etc. Democracy is more than a game between political parties and elections every four years. I think that many Spaniards no longer trust political parties, although they continue to vote for them. In the spring, a new movement was born, which was called "May 15th movement." And it is very numerous. We can say that this is the movement of people rational and concerned about the fate of the country of people. They require strengthening democracy and the participation of the people in political life. Some suggest establishing new rules of the game and even create a new constitution. Let's see how events will develop, but I want to think that we are on the threshold of a new “transition to democracy”.

RJ : That There is , Spain on Crossroads - continue to move towards democracy or stop again?

MV: Not quite so. There is no threat of returning francism. There is a risk of some democratic "stagnation". There is a risk of calling a democracy a system in which citizens do not have a voice, do not have the opportunity to influence the country's political life. The Spanish society is again experiencing a very ambiguous point. Of course, it is necessary to continue to defend the memory of those who fought for democracy in Spain, but even here there is some “danger”. Now being an anti -fascist, protecting the anti -fascism of the past is very easy. And it is no less easy to be an anti -francist. The danger is that there is a temptation to refuse to realize what is happening. Authoritarian practices, human rights violations take place today in many countries of the world. To remain in anti -fascism of the thirties and forties and turn a blind eye to what is happening today is a too simple way to feel comfortable.

Talked by Alexei Ustinov