Article published by José Alberto León Alonso in Diario de Avisos on 07/06/14.
In the book “Why Nations Fail,” by Acemoglu and Robinson, the authors conclude that countries grow economically if they are able to create “well-designed institutions that, politically, guarantee participation and pluralism.” Otherwise they end up stagnating, hence the economic importance of the analysis of institutions. The voices calling for regeneration and changes in the political system have long become the majority in Spain. Citizens feel that political parties govern for themselves and not for the citizens.
And that clamor is beginning to permeate the leadership of the most representative parties. The President of the Government indicated a few days ago that it was time to talk about certain issues such as the direct election of the Mayor, although this sudden interest in the democratic regeneration of the municipalities does not escape suspicions that what he really fears is that his party will suffer coalitions against it that will evict it from a good part of the mayoralties it controls.
Even if I am suspicious of their hidden intentions, I would not reject a good idea just because it could benefit one party or another, since the most important thing is that it benefits the citizen. And at the end of the day, both the PP, the PSOE, and the UPyD have supported in their electoral programs the direct election of mayors at one point or another. Why do I think the direct election of Mayors is a good idea?
Firstly, because it promotes a breaking of the monopoly exercised by the parties when imposing their candidates, and allows the recovery, by citizens, of spaces free from partisan influence, reinforcing the power of the citizen.
Second, it eliminates the poor transparency of electoral, or rather post-electoral, pacts, which leave many citizens with the feeling that the parties reach agreements outside the will of the voters.
Third, it reinforces the legitimacy of the Mayors, who will respond to the majority will of the voters and not of the parties that “place” them on their list, allowing them to lead the management of their municipalities without party restrictions.
Fourth, it puts an end to transfuguismo, since it eliminates the possibility of turncoats determining changes in the mayor's office, by eliminating motions of censure, since the Mayor has been elected by the people and not by the councilors, and only the people can remove him.
A good handful of reasons, as you see. Another thing is how this measure is implemented. From the PP proposal it seems to be understood that it is about “the list with the most votes governing”, this is a change from a proportional system to one with a “majority bonus”, granting more councilors to the list with the most votes so that it can govern without coalitions. If that is the proposal, it does not seem to me to be a great improvement over the current system, since a mayoralty could be achieved with a minority percentage of votes... just like now. In reality, for a proposal for direct election of the mayor to be an instrument of democratic regeneration, it has to be linked to other important changes in municipal institutions. In its 2011 electoral program, UPyD proposed a comprehensive reform with double-round voting to achieve a direct election system that is truly transparent and legitimizes the mayor. In this way, if no candidate has more than 50% of the votes in the first round, a second round would have to be held among the candidates with the most votes, eliminating those who had not obtained a relevant percentage of the votes in the first round. An effect similar to that of the double round would be feasible with the preferential vote in a single round, by which the voters on their ballot order the candidates for Mayor in order of preference, and the votes for the least voted candidates are granted in the second instance to the one of the “finalists” best placed in the preferences of their voters. Likewise, as in any presidential system that grants great power to the winner, the maximum number of mandates should be limited to two. The crucial point would be to redistribute powers between the Mayor and the Plenary of the Corporation, to avoid instability and institutional paralysis when both municipal bodies do not coincide. The executive function would correspond solely to the Mayor, and the regulatory, budgetary and control functions to the municipal plenary session.
Already in 2001, Javier García Fernández, professor of Constitutional Law, in his work “The direct election of mayors” considered it fully constitutional, since its article 140 contemplates the direct election of the Mayor by the neighbors. However, he concluded that the change in the Mayor's democratic legitimacy would require modulating his position within the City Council in such a way as to separate two functional blocks, one for control and political impulse and the second for government, execution and management. Likewise, for consistency with the political philosophy of direct election of the Mayor, the Plenary Session should not be able to remove from office the head of a body that it has not elected, so the motion of censure and the motion of confidence should be suppressed.
In practice, citizens in their local elections would have two ballot boxes, one to elect the Mayor and another for the councilors. It would thus be possible for several parties or groups of voters to support the same candidate for Mayor, making possible coalitions transparent “before” the elections, and not after with the usual compromises of benefits. The mayoral candidate must obtain more than 50% of the votes to be elected, holding a second round if necessary, or using preferential voting to avoid a second round. It would be more democratic and representative, since the councilor that the citizens had directly elected would effectively govern, making effective the real choice of the citizen and not obscure post-electoral pacts. It is not a bad idea to eliminate intermediaries (the parties) between the will of the citizens and their representatives. Finally, the Mayor democratically elected directly by the people should be able to freely choose the members of his government, without being constrained as now to choose only among the elected councilors. The councilors would exercise political control and the Mayor and his team, not necessarily professional politicians, would manage the city. It would be a breath of fresh air, free from partisan games, and the biggest change in our system of political representation since the approval of the Constitution in 1978. A change of this magnitude must be made with broad consensus, but let us not quickly discard it for short-term electoral interests. This way we will never change anything.
