Media Governance and Industries Lab Blog

*This blog post is part of the Jean Monnet Chair of European Media Governance and Integration series

By Jessica Izquierdo Castillo*

 After 10 months of interim government in Spain, two general elections in a year, and a failed attempt at investiture, Mariano Rajoy finally was named head of the government in Spain on Saturday 29 October, 2016.

This was the victory of the ‘establishment’ against ‘populism’, of ‘order’ against ‘chaos’, of ‘Europe’ against ‘Venezuela’. During the last year, the parties and the press have contributed to the maintenance of a permanent campaign. Together they have carried out crass attacks, been involved in conflicts of interests and taken little subtle turns in their internal and mutual support. The polarization between old and new politics has conditioned the public debate, cannibalizing the really necessary issues like the economic or social policies of the country. The political game has surpassed political function and the media have offered and encouraged the show.

The ratified prime minister announced his not-so-new government team to citizens on Thursday, 3 November. After a devastating four-year mandate for the welfare state, Rajoy debuted his second term facing one of the biggest changes in international politics, with an event that demonstrated the course that democracy in developed countries adopted long ago: Donald Trump arrived at the White House.

Reactions to Trump’s victory have come in from across the world, following the result, which has convulsed the international scene. In addition to the relevance of US policy to the rest of the world, these elections were worthy as a final of a worldwide television contest, in which candidates were finally faced with the decision of the jury after a tough, aggressive campaign, with great doses of media show.

The Spanish media, by then devoid of the national spectacle of the lack of government, turned on the coverage of the USA electoral night. During the previous days, the leading articles of different newspapers were postulating their more or less implied support for Clinton and their rejection of the Republican candidate. Once the results were confirmed, the unanimity of the populist approach stood out remarkably in the Spanish press – both progressive and conservative. And thus they were able to bring the USA case into the Spanish political context.

As an example, the newspaper El País said Trump, “like any populist, must learn that votes don’t justify everything”. One day before, the El Pais editor was asking for “a yes for Clinton“, highlighting the suitability of the Democratic candidate, based on her political experience. At the opposite ideology end, the newspaper ABC linked Trump to the triumph of populism. It asked: “What is really happening in the middle and lower strata of our developed societies so that populism is re-emerging as a solution to the lack of credibility, confidence, and certainty in classical politics”, noting it as a responsibility of society.

It is not a coincidence that the front pages of the main Spanish newspapers, progressive and conservative, all emphasised the association of Trump with populism. And they even contributed to the ridicule of the president-elect with the choice of their daily photographs to depict his victory in newspapers as different as El Periódico and La Razón.

Meanwhile the reactions of politicians came through Twitter. Mariano Rajoy was not the first to tweet, but he was the first, and almost only one, to congratulate: “Congratulations to Donald Trump for his victory. We will continue working to strengthen our relationship with the US, an indispensable partner. MR “.

Socialist Party Secretary-General Pedro Sánchez tweeted without direct references to the result of the presidential elections. He described the situation as chaotic and positioned himself as a defender of convictions and values. He then invited the construction of egalitarian societies that respect the dignity of people. More explicit was Susana Diaz, Sanchez’s inside rival, who branded  Trump’s victory as a threat to coexistence. The president of the PSOE in Andalusia did not refer to US military bases in the region, but to a Europe in need of greater strength and social values.

 Podemos’ approach was articulated against the establishment and the defence of human rights. Their leader, Pablo Iglesias, tweeted an image of Sanders, and criticising those who tagged him as “radical”, because he was someone who could have defeated Trump. Irene Montero blamed the Clinton establishment, which she said caused inequality and injustice.

One of the clearest in this regard was the leader of Ciudadanos, Albert Rivera, who noted “freedom loses today and protectionism gains; in the end, populism, whether left or right, is played”, clearly referring to Podemos.

In Catalonia, the leader of the PP, García Albiol, accused  the President of the Generalitat, Carles Puigdemont, in a direct response to his concern about the complexity and uncertainty of this new context, of being radicallly anti-system and responsible for the division of society and infringement of law.

On the other hand, the mayor of Barcelona, Ada Colau, called for the union of forces in the defence of democracy and human rights. She was the only one who published her tweet in English, although the approach was the same as the one of Podemos.

Spanish politicians initiated through Twitter the exchange of veiled accusations using the victory of Trump as a weapon. The big democratic changes do not seem to prompt them to initiate public debates, but to introduce them into their game bubble of crossing references and mutual disqualifications. One month after the US elections, Spanish congress still has to realize they must work through dialogue and public concern. The media have returned to focussing on the game-politics of congress’ diversity and division. And Trump is still trying to morph  from The Apprentice into The President.

*Universitat Jaume I