Spain's Electoral Results Are a Perfect Illustration of the Pathology of Centralised Rule
Last Sunday’s election result in Spain makes it impossible for the leading party, PP (conservatives), to form a government; and makes it rather tricky for the second largest party, PSOE (socialists), to do so. The only way a stable government can be formed is if PSOE wins over a string of leftist parties, including independence parties. This means that the political future of Spain is in the hands of tiny parties with opinions that deviate dramatically from the majority of Spanish citizens, such as the idea that Catalonia should break away from Spain and leftist values that are opposed by large segments of the population.
If you have not done so already, please consider upgrading to a paid subscription. This will support my work in defence of freedom, and unlock access to subscriber-exclusive content.
This is a perfect illustration of the pathology of large-scale, centralised democratic States. Even in a country with significant elements of devolved power (e.g. Navarra has its own taxation system and its own health system), much power remains concentrated in a national parliament. Under these circumstances, policy and public spending are bound to be completely out of touch with the wishes and interests of a huge number of citizens and groups. It is simply not possible to accurately represent the interests and wishes of a culturally, morally and religiously diverse country in the policies of a single national government.
If PSOE had 51% of the parliament, they could control legislation and policy for four years, even if 49% of the population had a very different politicla vision. This particular election presents an even worse scenario: a frankensteinean, cobbled-together majority in which tiny parties are the "tail that wags the dog" does not even reflect the mainstream socialist constituency. It is an extreme expression of the pathology of centralised rule.
But the fundamental situation, in which the ruling party is opposed by a very large chunk of the citizenry, is the norm in many countries, including Spain. In this particular case, the leader of a party (PSOE) that came in second in the general elections, if he succeeds in bringing life to a Frankensteinean coalition of leftist parties, will be able to make decisions about public spending, educational policy, and many other matters that are antithetical to the wishes of a large chunk of Spanish citizens.
For example, if Sánchez wished, he could deny public funding to single-sex schools; he could could use the resources of the State to promote transgender ideology; and he could impose prohibitively high taxes on citizens and businesses, in the name of “social justice.” These sorts of policies may win him votes on the left, but they will make many Spanish citizens, especially those who voted in large numbers for a conservative party, feel alienated from their government, and deeply disappointed with the way their hard-earned income is being spent.
People will throw their hands in the air and say, "that's democracy in action." But this is not just any democracy in action: it is actually centralised, Statist democracy in action. As long as there are highly centralised democratic States, you will see dysfunctional, maladjusted national policies. The only way to break this cycle, in which first one party, then another, dominate spending and public policy at the cost of large sections of the citizenry, is to dramatically reduce the power and finances of the central state, so that local governments can better reflect local interests.
Devolved government and devolved finances is a large part of the solution. It can greatly reduce social and political conflict, by reducing the number and range of stakeholders that need to be served by public policies. It can create a less burdensome taxation system, by generating tax competition between different regional governments.
Devolved government can also increase political accountability, by making the effects of public policies more visible to citizens on the ground, and making the political process more accessible to ordinary citizens. And last but not least, a highly decentralised political system allows public policy and spending to adapt itself to the needs of citizens more effectively.
A highly decentralised political system would not automatically create a vibrant and responsible citizenry, or bring an end to political corruption. But it would create more opportunities for civic participation, reduce opportunities for large-scale corruption, and permit policies that are more satisfactory to a larger number of citizens. Not a panacea, but a hell of a lot better than what we have now.