Spain is divided between those who believe that Pedro Sánchez reflected for five days and came to the conclusion that democracy needs to be regenerated, and those who claim that it was all a story. For both sides, the president is now obliged to concretize this plan of democratic regeneration with an ambition befitting the unprecedented moment we are living in. The crisis of democracy and the identification of regeneration measures have been favorite topics of social sciences for decades, as the history of democracy is the history of its crises. We wonder how our generation’s crisis is characterized and try to identify how to address it.
President Sánchez’s announcement to promote a plan of democratic regeneration that signifies a new beginning in this legislature has elevated this discussion to the public debate. What should this plan entail? Firstly, it is important to specify the scope on which we want to act, as a wide range of aspects can be considered under democratic regeneration, none of which should be seen as a weapon to destroy the other. One of the most significant challenges to democratic systems is the loss of trust of citizens in institutions and intermediaries such as the media, political parties, or civil society organizations. Restoring this trust should be the primary objective.
The principles of Open Government identified by President Barack Obama in 2009 are still a good guideline for this, emphasizing transparency to promote accountability, citizen participation to enhance decision-making, and collaboration to engage people in public affairs. Other scholars, like Pierre Rosanvallon and Daniel Innerarity, have also highlighted the importance of a complex and anticipatory democracy. These issues are already being addressed by the Council of Transparency and the Open Government Forum, but their importance, resources, and projection across all levels of administration need to be elevated.
However, if the regeneration project is focused more on combating polarization or a plan for democratic integrity, the focus should be on the behavior of political leaders and the role of the media. Both can become agents of polarization, especially in today’s digital environment that increases tension and misinformation. Regulation of politicians’ behavior can be addressed through the reform of parliamentary regulations, the establishment of ethical codes, sanctions for ethical breaches, and enforcement of conflict of interest rules. Similarly, self-regulation mechanisms for the media, observer councils, and financing issues need to be considered.
In addition to technological and social changes, other institutional design failures pose threats to democracy, with a glaring absence of effective accountability mechanisms for judges and prosecutors. Comparative law provides alternative approaches to start a meaningful debate. The crucial question now is whether major parties can come to an agreement to achieve the desired transversality in a plan of this nature, as strong partisanship and weak parties hinder consensus-building. In contrast, civil society spaces offer opportunities for building consensus, as demonstrated by successful initiatives driven by diverse organizations from various ideological spectrums.
Collective action by civil society organizations and citizens helps to strengthen democracy, moving away from scapegoating policies and legitimizing criticism when necessary. By engaging in initiatives like legislative petitions or constitutional reforms, citizens can influence the political agenda and contribute to building better democratic quality. It is essential for the government to create spaces and procedures for civil society to participate in this debate, while also considering and implementing proposals from academia, politics, and civil society to enhance democracy. Ultimately, the question posed by the president, “Is it worth it?”, should serve as a catalyst for meaningful change towards a more robust democracy.
