Why Spain's future will be decided in 2027

Après huit ans et deux mandats à la tête du gouvernement espagnol entre 1996 et 2004, le dirigeant du Parti populaire (PP, droite) José Maria Aznar quitte le pouvoir, renonçant à se représenter aux élections générales tenues cette année-là. Le Parti socialiste, avec à sa tête José Luis Zapatero, arrive alors au pouvoir et y demeure jusqu’en 2011. M. Aznar laisse Mariano Rajoy, le successeur qu’il a désigné, reconquérir patiemment le pouvoir, ce qui se produit en 2011 et se prolongera jusqu’en 2018. Il participe à des meetings pour soutenir les candidats de sa formation et donne son opinion, parfois discordante, sur les grandes orientations du PP. Depuis le retour des socialistes au pouvoir en 2018 (Pedro Sánchez), M. Aznar continue d’exercer son influence pour que le Parti populaire connaisse le succès aux prochaines élections générales, devant se tenir au plus tard en juillet 2027.

Dans son bureau madrilène à mi-chemin entre le Musée du Prado et le parc du Retiro, il conserve, en images, la trace des événements et des rencontres qu’il continue de juger déterminants. Avec, au mur de sa bibliothèque, les portraits complices des grands de ce monde qui sont, le plus souvent, ses meilleurs amis politiques, comme George W. Bush et Tony Blair, dont il a également fait encadrer deux lettres manuscrites qui datent du soutien espagnol à la guerre menée par les États-Unis en Irak. « Merci de votre leadership, de votre courage et de votre vision », lui écrit notamment le président américain. Un peu plus bas, un montage artisanal, presque kitsch, le place dans la continuité de trois dirigeants internationaux : Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher et le pape Jean-Paul II. Et plus loin, à droite, une photo qui rappelle le célébrissime cliché d’Iwo Jima montre des soldats espagnols déployer le drapeau rouge et jaune sur l’îlot Perejil. C’était en 2002, un épisode de fermeté nationale face à ce que l’Espagne avait perçu comme une provocation marocaine (1).

Avant Aznar, la droite était trop désunie et trop mal défranquisée pour séduire une majorité d’Espagnols. Après lui, et après la chute en 2018 de Mariano Rajoy, l’explosion du système bipartisan que dominaient le Parti socialiste ouvrier espagnol (PSOE) et le PP complique durablement la reconquête du pouvoir par la droite… et, même, l’exercice concret du gouvernement par quelque parti que ce soit, contraint de tisser des alliances improbables dans un Parlement éclaté.

Il y a bien un homme qui parvient à gouverner l’Espagne depuis huit ans malgré cette configuration parlementaire endiablée : le socialiste Pedro Sánchez. Mais ses adversaires, dont Aznar se montre dans notre entretien l’un des plus farouches, préfèrent dire qu’il occupe le pouvoir plutôt qu’il ne l’exerce. Chacun jugera. Le dernier budget adopté par le Parlement remonte à 2023. Le gouvernement a vu plusieurs de ses projets de loi les plus emblématiques, comme celui sur le logement, rejetés par le Congrès des Députés. Faute de majorité structurée, l’exécutif adopte par décrets tout ce qu’il est constitutionnellement possible d’adopter, comme la récente régularisation de quelque 500 000 migrants sans papiers.

Car la seule majorité possible aujourd’hui est celle qui a chassé Rajoy du pouvoir : un PSOE amaigri, une gauche radicale divisée en deux formations, Podemos (le parti jusqu’au-boutiste qui refuse désormais de participer au gouvernement) et Sumar (une coalition rivale de Podemos qui accepte de partager les responsabilités avec le PSOE), et des formations régionales catalanes, basques et galiciennes, dont certaines sont indépendantistes (ERC et Junts en Catalogne, Bildu au Pays basque), d’autres plus pragmatiques (PNV au Pays basque, BNG en Galice). Certaines sont de gauche (ERC, Bildu et BNG), d’autres de droite (Junts et PNV).

En face, c’est le président du PP, Alberto Núñez Feijóo, qui dirige l’opposition. Sa limite est la même : celle de l’arithmétique parlementaire. Les tensions territoriales l’empêchent de déposer une motion de censure qui ait la moindre chance d’aboutir. S’il veut se rapprocher de Vox, le parti nationaliste et populiste d’extrême droite, il s’interdit automatiquement d’engranger les voix de Junts et du PNV, qui ne peuvent voter aucun texte avec un parti qui défend la recentralisation de l’Espagne.

Aznar, lui, a sorti les mains du cambouis de la petite politique partisane. À la tête de la fondation FAES, qui nourrit la droite de ses idées sans épouser aucune formation, il nous dit « voyager beaucoup, expliquer beaucoup, essayer de comprendre les choses du monde pour aider les gens à les comprendre eux-mêmes ». En avant, donc, pour une heure d’explications.

After eight years and two terms at the helm of the Spanish government between 1996 and 2004, the leader of the People’s Party (PP, centre-right), José María Aznar, left office, deciding not to stand for re-election in the general election held that year. The Socialist Party, led by José Luis Zapatero, then came to power and remained there until 2011. Mr Aznar left it to Mariano Rajoy, the successor he had appointed, to patiently regain power, which happened in 2011 and continued until 2018. He takes part in rallies to support his party’s candidates and offers his views – sometimes dissenting – on the PP’s broad policy direction. Since the Socialists returned to power in 2018 (under Pedro Sánchez), Mr Aznar has continued to exert his influence to ensure the People’s Party’s success in the next general election, due to be held by July 2027 at the latest.

In his Madrid office, halfway between the Prado Museum and the Retiro Park, he keeps a visual record of the events and meetings he still considers pivotal. On the wall of his library hang the familiar portraits of world leaders who are, for the most part, his closest political allies, such as George W. Bush and Tony Blair, from whom he has also had two handwritten letters framed, dating from the time of Spain’s support for the US-led war in Iraq. ‘Thank you for your leadership, your courage and your vision,’ the US President wrote to him, among other things. A little further down, a homemade, almost kitsch collage places him in the lineage of three international leaders: Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II. And further on, to the right, a photograph reminiscent of the famous Iwo Jima image shows Spanish soldiers unfurling the red and yellow flag on the islet of Perejil. This was in 2002, an episode of national resolve in the face of what Spain perceived as a Moroccan provocation (1).

Before Aznar, the right was too divided and too entrenched in its Francoist past to win over a majority of Spaniards. After him, and following the fall of Mariano Rajoy in 2018, the collapse of the two-party system dominated by the Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party (PSOE) and the PP has made it a long-term challenge for the right to regain power… and indeed, for any party to govern effectively, as they are forced to forge unlikely alliances in a fragmented Parliament.

There is indeed one man who has managed to govern Spain for the past eight years despite this chaotic parliamentary landscape: the Socialist Pedro Sánchez. But his opponents—among whom Aznar emerges in our interview as one of the fiercest—prefer to say that he merely occupies power rather than exercising it. Everyone can judge for themselves. The last budget passed by Parliament dates back to 2023. The government has seen several of its most flagship bills, such as the housing bill, rejected by the Congress of Deputies. Lacking a stable majority, the executive is adopting by decree everything that is constitutionally possible to adopt, such as the recent regularisation of some 500,000 undocumented migrants.

For the only possible majority today is the one that ousted Rajoy from power: a weakened PSOE, a radical left split into two factions, Podemos (the hardline party that now refuses to participate in government) and Sumar (a rival coalition to Podemos that agrees to share responsibilities with the PSOE), and regional parties in Catalonia, the Basque Country and Galicia, some of which are pro-independence (ERC and Junts in Catalonia, Bildu in the Basque Country), others more pragmatic (PNV in the Basque Country, BNG in Galicia). Some are left-wing (ERC, Bildu and BNG), others right-wing (Junts and PNV).

On the other side, it is the leader of the PP, Alberto Núñez Feijóo, who heads the opposition. His limitation is the same: that of parliamentary arithmetic. Regional tensions prevent him from tabling a motion of no confidence that stands any chance of success. If he wishes to align himself with Vox, the far-right nationalist and populist party, he automatically forfeits the votes of Junts and the PNV, which cannot support any legislation with a party that advocates the recentralisation of Spain.

Aznar, for his part, has washed his hands of the grubby business of petty partisan politics. At the helm of the FAES foundation, which provides intellectual support to the Spanish rightwithout aligning itself with any particular party, he tells us “to travel a lot, explain a lot, try to understand the workings of the world to help people understand them for themselves”. So, let’s move on to an hour of explanations.

                                                                                                                                                                 M. de T.

Mathieu de Taillac — All Spaniards remember how, whilst in opposition, you delivered your famous speech to the Prime Minister in which you called on him to step down: “¡Váyase, señor González!” (“Go away, Mr González!”) (2). That was in 1994; two years later, you came to power. Is the current situation similar? Should the opposition be saying today: “Go away, Mr Sánchez!”? Do you recognise elements of 1994 in the politics of 2026?

José María Aznar — It’s far worse today.

M. de T. — In what way?

J. M. A. — The fundamental shift in Spanish politics occurred when the left transformed itself into a radical populist left that calls into question the Transition (3) and, consequently, calls into question the Constitution. The next step is a coalition with the forces that want to destroy the country: the separatists (4) and former terrorists (5). With these two steps, we are returning to a pattern of division and civil war (6). What the Transition had overcome is returning to Spanish politics.

M. de T. — What are you referring to when you speak of transforming the Constitution?

J. M. A. — They want to replace the constitutional system with a confederation of republics in Spain. They do not recognise the Transition when they adopt the Law on Democratic Memory (7), and they do not respect the spirit of the Constitution with the amnesty law granted to the 2017 coup plotters (8). All of this calls the Spanish constitutional system into question. And that is what sets us apart from the 1990s, whatever the political differences of the time may have been.

M. de T. — Who wants to change the Constitution? The radical left and the separatists, or the Socialist Party as well?

J. M. A. — The Socialist Party is no longer the party it was in the 1990s. The Socialist Party is Sánchez’s party. And it is no longer a party; it is a cult. A sect of followers of a populist. It is very difficult for a country to function normally when its government hands itself over to those who want to destroy it! They want to prevent the centre-right from returning to power in Spain. And to achieve this, they are allying themselves with separatists and former terrorists. So they are challenging the Constitution, they are challenging the Transition, they are challenging the rule of law, they are challenging the judges (9), they are challenging absolutely everything. Anything goes, provided there is no change of government. This is precisely what characterises populist regimes and illiberal democracies.

M. de T. — I was asking you about corruption, but, listening to you, it sounds as though you regard it almost as a by-product of the decline of Spanish democracy…

J. M. A. — Corruption is an expression of the fact that a group of criminals has seized control of the government and power in Spain. They have taken power and spread corruption as far as they possibly could. Corruption can be remedied, so to speak, but what worries me far more is the institutional damage inflicted on the country. Political damage, institutional damage and political crises are far more difficult to resolve. The upcoming elections in Spain will be constituent elections. Admittedly, they will not be called that, but if this governing coalition were to emerge from the polls with a majority, it would mean the end of the parliamentary monarchy (10), the end of the Constitution, the recognition of Spain’s national plurality (11) and the creation of a confederation of republics. Conversely, if the centre-right People’s Party wins, it will remain the constitutional pillar within a space of political centrality to face the country’s future and attempt to repair the institutional damage currently underway. The upcoming elections will therefore, without a doubt, be the most important and decisive in fifty years.

M. de T. — Who are you calling criminals? All the members of the government?

J. M. A. — All those under investigation; let’s call them ‘alleged offenders’. But none of this would have been possible without the head of government turning a blind eye to it. It was his inner circle. His wife (12), his brother (13), his trusted aides in government (14), his trusted aides in the Socialist Party (15). And it is he who should be held to account.

M. de T. — Those in power sometimes make poor choices when it comes to appointing particular individuals to positions of responsibility. Unfortunately, corruption is rife in many parties and countries. What makes the Spanish case unique?

J. M. A. — This group was formed to seize power and become a predatory gang. That is the difference. It is the very essence of radical left-wing populism. As there are no limits, no rules, no respect for the law or parliamentary conventions, it makes no difference whether there is a budget or not (16), nor whether the Attorney General has been convicted of a criminal offence or not (17).

M. de T. — Among the many legal cases, one stands out as more spectacular than the others: that of the former head of government, José Luis Zapatero (18). Some, perhaps more lenient towards Zapatero, argue for better regulation of the status of former heads of government. Do you consider such a reform necessary?

J. M. A. — I do not believe this is a matter of regulation but, rather, of political practice. As is always the case in Europe and in many countries, there is a tendency to say: ‘We must over-regulate.’ No, we must not over-regulate; we must behave in accordance with customary standards and in compliance with the law.

M. de T. — How would you describe Pedro Sánchez? What drives him? Do you recognise at least one positive quality in him?

J. M. A. — He is a radical left-wing populist whose sole ambition is to be in power. Power is the beginning and end of all his actions. And for that, he sacrifices absolutely everything. I believe he is the most harmful leader Spain has seen in many decades. No, I do not wish to acknowledge any of his qualities, for the harm he is doing to Spain outweighs everything else.

M. de T. — How do you view the role of the opposition in the face of this government which, as you point out, has not passed a budget for three years? Is it being sufficiently proactive?

J. M. A. — I believe the opposition will win the next elections. But beyond this expected victory, it is very important that a large majority of Spaniards wish to return to a centrist position, reject both the far right and the far left, and rally behind the People’s Party, which remains the main pillar of the Spanish constitution. This broad majority must produce a very strong, very serious, very energetic government. You will agree, in this regard, that the situation will be very different if the PP has 170 seats and Vox 30, or if the PP has 140 and Vox 60. And, thirdly, we need a very clear plan for the country’s recovery: the recovery of the nation, the State and the institutions, as well as a return to respect for the law and fundamental democratic principles, which were severely damaged under the socialist governments. The plan put forward must live up to expectations that are truly historic for the country – indeed, existential. It cannot be merely an administrative programme for day-to-day management.

M. de T. — Given the situation as you describe it, can the country and the opposition wait until the elections, scheduled for July 2027 at the latest?

J. M. A. — Politics is a long exercise in patience. We will show patience, which does not mean inaction. If you ask me whether a motion of no confidence is conceivable (19), even though there is much talk of it at the moment, I do not believe it will happen. It will not happen.

M. de T. — When Junts proposes talks with the PP in Belgium (20), is that a bluff?

J. M. A. — What the Catalan separatists want, what Bildu wants, what the former terrorists want, is not the governability of Spain, but the disappearance of Spain. If a government is their ally — as is the case with the Sánchez government in relation to Junts — they will have no interest in it ceasing to be so.

M. de T. — What is the opposition leader, Alberto Núñez Feijóo, lacking to become head of government? The patience you were talking about?

J. M. A. — All he lacks is the time remaining until the next general election. He has all the qualities needed to be an excellent head of government.

M. de T. — You mentioned the balance of power with Vox. Since Vox became involved in government, defining the relationship between the People’s Party and Vox has not been straightforward. Until recently, the PP leadership had not set out a strategy and had expressed the ambition to govern without them. Today, Vox supports the PP in several regions and a more realistic stance is being adopted: ‘The figures are what they are.’ If you were in power, how would you define the relationship with them? Is it possible to share part of the programme with Vox whilst setting limits on this rapprochement, and prevent voters from preferring the original to the copy?

J. M. A. — What is desirable, as I told you, is a large, very large majority for the PP. We will thus be able to have a solid government, with a parliamentary majority, capable of acting and supported by this broad majority of citizens.

Vox was originally a splinter group of the People’s Party (21), but it is now more than that. Vox is a party that wants to replace the People’s Party, like all parties that emerge to the right of a centre-right party. That is its purpose and it will continue along this path. That is why, if the result of the upcoming elections is less favourable than hoped for the PP, Vox will not be tempted to join the government but will likely leave the PP to its own devices and try to bring about early elections to replace it. Which, in my view, would further exacerbate the country’s crisis, turning left-wing populism and right-wing populism into objective allies.

M. de T. — At the moment, the PP in Spain seems to be faring much better than most traditional right-wing parties in the rest of Europe…

J. M. A. — It is the only major traditional and constitutional party remaining at the centre of the political spectrum, alongside Germany’s CDU. All the other parties have disappeared or are on the verge of disappearing, including the British Conservatives and Labour. This is a major advantage for the People’s Party, but also for Spain. And we must capitalise on it.

M. de T. — Vox has introduced the term ‘national priority’ into the national debate, a concept directly modelled on one of the key themes of the French National Rally… Can and should the PP incorporate this concept, redefine it in its own way within the constitutional framework, or distance itself from it as much as possible?

J. M. A. — First of all, someone would have to explain to me exactly what that means! As a liberal, I am committed to defending the idea that we are all equal before the law. That is the fundamental priority, and it is the sound foundation of healthy democracies, the proper functioning of institutions and freedom. If we start with national priorities, we might end up with local priorities! If you fall ill, in Huelva for example, as healthcare is the responsibility of the autonomous communities, someone from Huelva would be treated before someone from Valencia. That is unacceptable. Restoring the state’s presence also means restoring the proper functioning of the healthcare system.

M. de T. — In 2018 (22), we asked you how you would define Donald Trump politically. He was then serving his first term and you said he embodied a mix of nationalism, populism and protectionism. Do you stand by that assessment or would you like to refine it?

J. M. A. — He is protectionist, populist and nationalist. My assessment will therefore not change. What is happening is that he is now far more disruptive than he was during his first term. And, curiously, he is more disruptive towards his allies than towards his opponents!

M. de T. — What should the transatlantic relationship be today? Pedro Sánchez is pursuing a policy of asserting Spain’s position against that of Donald Trump, even if this can sometimes resemble a principled opposition to the United States as a nation (23). Is there a middle ground? Is it possible to assert one’s national sovereignty and an independent stance without risking a breakdown in the transatlantic relationship?

J. M. A. — I believe this relationship remains fundamental. For Europe and for Europeans, the European Union and NATO are more necessary than ever. Europe has relinquished its security and entrusted it to NATO, which amounts to placing it under American responsibility. This structure is now being called into question. This does not mean that the transatlantic relationship has disappeared, but that we must do everything we can to restore it to its former glory. Furthermore, certain populist policies focus solely on the internal market. As for Sánchez, he merely wishes to present himself to his voters as a sort of leader of the Global South, and is indifferent to everything else. If it means attacking the United States, if it means attacking Israel, if it means sidelining all sensible policies in Europe, he couldn’t care less. He is forgetting two things. One: the United States is essential to our security. Two: the United States is the world’s leading investor in Spain, and the United States is the top destination for Spanish investment abroad. Be that as it may, one of the Trump administration’s shortcomings is that it always thinks in commercial terms. Yet the value of alliances is highly positively so—for both the United States and Europeans. That is what we must defend. Throughout history, it has always been the great alliances that have triumphed.

M. de T. — Regarding the war in Iran, the parallel with the war in Iraq that you supported is striking, even if the situations differ. President George W. Bush had called on his European allies to try to convince them to help him. This time, there was no such appeal. What would you have done if you had been in government?

J. M. A. — I would not have done what many European leaders did, who said: ‘This war does not concern us.’ Excuse me, but how can anyone claim that this war does not concern us? Your main ally within NATO is involved in this war. This war involves one of your main allies in the Middle East, Israel. This war also involves a state that poses a threat to you: Iran. You need to review your energy policy; you may well run out of jet fuel in the coming weeks, energy prices are rising, inflation is picking up again… And you tell me that this war does not concern you? What on earth are you talking about?

It is one thing to be aware of the disruptive role the United States plays today in Europe, when it looks down on us and pays little heed to NATO… But when an ally tells me they need me, that’s a different matter altogether: I highlight the indispensable value of alliances, because alliances are honoured by both sides, and assistance can be sought from both sides. For Europe, it was the moment to emphasise the value of alliances, and we failed to do so.

M. de T. — Does that mean we should have sent planes?

J. M. A. — We should have committed to providing our support in exchange for the alliance being maintained and strengthened. If the answer to that proposal had been no, so be it. But at least we would have offered our support in a spirit of solidarity. What no one could say to us is that an ally needed us and we did not reach out to them because they had not called on us early enough! The Atlantic Alliance, as you know, is much more than a military pact: it is democracy, it is freedom, it is prosperity, it is tolerance, it is equality. What was the fundamental objective of the Soviet Union in its day? To divide NATO, to separate the United States from Europe. What is the fundamental objective of the Russians today, or of the Chinese? It is the same. This means that these alliances have a fundamental strategic value. If the American alliance system were of no importance, those who challenge the West’s position in the world would not be so determined to break it.

M. de T. — Do you share this view that Europe is a vegetarian in a world of carnivores?

J. M. A. — Whose fault is it that, fifteen years ago, Europe accounted for 25 per cent of global gross domestic product and now accounts for only 15 per cent? Who is responsible for missing out on the technological revolution? Who is responsible for a disastrous European energy policy, which is far more costly than the American one? Who is responsible for entrusting our security to the Americans? Who is responsible for a single market that sometimes involves more customs duties and internal barriers than those others seek to impose on us from outside? Why have the fundamental pillars of banking union not yet been completed? All these responsibilities lie with Europe. Moreover, countries that are essential to Europe are not in the best of shape. It is the responsibility of leaders to define policies that represent a European response commensurate with the challenges. Otherwise, Europe’s decline, even if slow, will continue gradually over the long term.

M. de T. — You are a keen observer of Latin America. In Venezuela, few people will miss the dictatorship of Nicolás Maduro, who is now in prison in the United States. But is a change in leadership, without free elections, acceptable for that reason?

J. M. A. — The United States has reverted to the Monroe Doctrine: ‘America for the Americans’… led by North Americans. In his inauguration speech, Trump cited two presidents: McKinley (24) and Theodore Roosevelt. He then expressed his admiration for President Polk (25). When Trump speaks of Panama, Greenland or Cuba, he has Polk, McKinley and Roosevelt in mind. Polk was the one who significantly expanded the United States’ territory, waged war on Mexico and annexed the whole of northern Mexico. McKinley was the one who established the American presence on the international stage, starting with the weakest link, the remnants of the Spanish empire: Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines. Theodore Roosevelt was responsible for the expansion into Panama, amongst other things.

What we have seen in Venezuela is a manifestation of all this. It is all very well that Maduro is in a New York prison, because he is a drug trafficker. But what I hope and wish for is that the will of the Venezuelan people is respected. There have been elections which the opposition won by a landslide (26). That is where the essential foundation must lie. The aim must be to help Venezuela transform itself into a democratic system.

M. de T. — What are your thoughts on the rumours of an intervention in Cuba?

J. M. A. — I have been fighting for Cuban democracy for a very long time. I am a defender of freedom and, consequently, I want freedom for Cuba. I believe that things will come to a head in Cuba in the coming months, probably before the November elections. If there is a well-defined plan for Cuba, it can only be this: that Cubans should have full and complete democracy.

M. de T. — Do you believe this will require US intervention?

J. M. A. — I am saying that it will be essential if freedom is to be achieved.

M. de T. — In Nicaragua, one gets the impression that the so-called Sandinista revolutionaries (27) have adopted the worst practices of the Somoza dictatorship (28). Yet the United States does not seem to be showing much interest in this small country. Has the world forgotten the Nicaraguans?

J. M. A. — There is a fundamentally predatory dimension to the political situation in Nicaragua. We haven’t forgotten them: Nicaragua’s turn will likely come as well. It’s simply that, strategically, Venezuela or Cuba make more sense today in US policy than Nicaragua.

M. de T. — The final question is a personal one. Are there any circumstances under which you might return to active politics, in Spain or at the head of a European, or even global, institution?

J. M. A. — I believe the best way to help is to do what I am doing now. Which is not to say that I couldn’t be better at what I am currently doing! But I have no desire to return to active politics. Absolutely none. Neither in Spain nor outside Spain.