Source: https://www.demopunk.net/en/direct/ddsp2002_en.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 16:23:03+00:00

Document:
In July/2002 the Human Development Report was launched, published yearly by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP); this report, born in 1990, is documentary reference for a significative part of socoeconomical activism. This year it submits an evolution, qualitatively important, that has been reflected in the own subtitle of the report: "Deepening democracy in a fragmented world".
Despite the severe methodological defects of the report when estimating "grade of democratic development" of every country, despite to admit no having found statistical correlation between democratization and human development, its reading passes persistently on critical outline against actual Regime that since decades endures and grows as for popular level. The novelty is a platform as the UNDP shares criticism and hope that people, or at least the collective subconscious, uphold about democratic utopia.
Daily experience makes again and again more evident the cultural process by which elite replace Force by Deception. In contrast to Regime's self-glorification from its propaganda media, popular deception and rejection is growing against hegemonic model, which most clear proofs are progressive increase in electoral abstention and popular rejection of supposed means of political participation.
Organic intelligentsia studies the matter in terms of "representation crisis", but deliberately it does not cope with the central aspect of design of liberal democracy. Because our hegemonic regime is characterized by publicizing a wide range of civil rights, while keeping political freedoms under a minimum, and suffocating every warranty of popular Constituent Power. This replacement of Force by Deception is a cultural process that has required over a century to reach actual maturing. But nowadays, its efficiency on control of people is showing inevitable fissures, being unable to keep eternally virtual reality of a supposed popular soverignty, where actually elite take turns in office, where transformations arise unexpectedly as so-called "globalization" (with an uncontrollable nature for supposed will of the people). Popular distrust is slowly growing, may be subconciously, to a regime which shouts its democratic nature from the rooftops by means of powerful speakers, but takes up decades without increasing the miserly political freedoms.
In contrast to civil rights, when we talk about political freedoms, we are refering to freedoms of exercise of popular sovereignty: improvement of Representative Democracy (electoral system, imperative mandate on representatives, ...), set of freedoms related to Direct Democracy, and especially related to warranties of permanent exercise of popular Constituent Power. Civil rights are mere grantings which, in absence of political freedoms, are prone to suffer from deformations and contractions in the service of spurious interests (examples arise everywhere these days). Dialectic confusion between civil rights and political freedoms, is one of the errors deliberately spreaded by Regime trying to legitimize its model.
Since the sixties, this crisis is having many intellectual responses that do not get to form a front capable of breaking up the regime and its propaganda media. But it is quite positive that democratic utopia survives within assorted "political habitats". On the one side, democratic activism within capitalist left and right, main beneficiaries of liberal democracy, is quite rare but still existing. On the other side, anarchist view of consent is usually expressed in terms of absolute democracy. And despite violent preconception binding liberal democracy and capitalism (Spain/1936, Guatemala/1954, Chile/1973, Nicaragua/1986, Algeria/1991, Serbia/1999 and may be Venezuela soon) an increasing minority within non-capitalist left is observing revolutionary nature of radical democracy; indeed criticism of classic concept of Revolution has generated new models as "autonomous zones" and first of all radical democracy.
Direct Democracy is one the most significative foundation of democratic activism; it exhibits an important development in terms of research and political technology (formal procedures, legal articles, ...), at a world level it shows an embryonic but hopeful practice, and it is a concept moderately known by people. Its political status resembles suffragism early 20th century. And maybe, its political weight is only overcome by the urgent need for breaking Regime's propaganda media up; political urgency derived from the macabre and futuristic scene where political freedoms are enjoyed within Virtual Reality.
Direct Democracy gathers a suggestive set of political freedoms characterized by being exercised without institutional veto, from its initiative to its soverign culmination. The most classic freedoms are the legislative popular initiative and its binding referendum, but there is an increasing demand and political pressure for other popular initiatives and their referendums: as initiative for legislative abrogation, for ratification of laws and international treaties, for revoking posts and appeals of constitutionality. Other pioneering experiences as municipal Participative Budget has reached high levels of maduration in any regions as Latin America.
But political weight of Direct Democracy does not lie in its design but in its scope. Because when Direct Democracy is applied to constitutional environment we are settling, from point of view of political technology, some warranties of popular Constituent Power. The popular initiative for constitutional amendment and calling for constituent assembly, together with their referenda, are political freedoms almost unknown but with an unquestionable The so-named "self-determination right" is lain also within this scope, which formal development and practice have a state so embryonic that it could be viewed as non-existent (due mainly to democratic burden provoked by nationalist passions, as hegemonic ones as postulant ones).
Indeed, the majority of political freedoms of Direct Democracy exhibits now a certain formal research, and even an incipient legal existence. But we stay in the first steps: formal defects are very frequent (usually they are premeditated faulty designs) and popular political culture about such freedoms is weak and volatile. We have historical proofs already about negative effect from exercising freedoms of Direct Democracy formally defective. Because paradoxically popular deception and distrust is focused on the own concept of Direct Democracy while elite, guilty of its defective design, remain outside and unpunished.
Therefore, critical reports on development and practice of political freedoms of Direct Democracy has a high practical value. They help to protect Direct Democracy, clarifying the actual formal defects, reporting banned freedoms in evey country and filling the documentary vacuum imposed by propaganda media and academic insitutions.
Demopunk Net copes with publishing a status report about Direct Democracy, doing it about spanish realities. We encourage democrat activists from another countries to cope with similar reports, offering them our scarce resources. Also Demopunk Net has collaborated gladly translating to spanish the report on 32 european countries "Country Index on Citizien Lawmaking" of year 2002, published by the IRI-Europe institute.
This annual report contains likely the most exhaustive data set about Direct Democracy in Spain. It is designed as tool of political research, particularly oriented to people and institutions seeking for information being essential and verifiable; therefore reader has available, within the document, almost all of legal references for checking.
Report will be yearly reissued, making up with new collected data or with political news about Direct Democracy through year. Report is simultaneously published in spanish and english.
Firstly a detailed listing is delivered about actual state of manifold political freedoms usually associated with Direct Democracy, pointing to their development grade, or if they are explicitly forbidden, or if they are political technology unknown by Regime.
Next an analysis is accomplished on those existing freedoms, estimating their efficiency, limitations and throughput in terms of popular sovereignty. Analysis covers national, regional and local scopes.
Report goes on offering detailed data, likely incomplete, about practice of existing freedoms as national, regional and local scopes. Also non-governmental events of Direct Democracy are detailed.
Finally, a short revision is carried out about historical background of Direct Democracy in Spain.
Within this introduction we want to specify terminology used through report. Direct Democracy has unequal development around the world, a good token of mentioned variability is revealed in the report "Country Index on Citizien Lawmaking" (over 32 european countries), published yearly by the institute IRI-Europe. A few terms cannot describe adequately actual development of every political freedom; therefore applicable terminology must be precisely settled. Terminological accuracy is not an academic whim; at least if it is trying to reflect what degree of popular sovereignty is involved within a specific political freedom.
Most common meaning applied to term "popular initiative" comes from swiss constitutional scene. There, this term has a meaning eminently legislative: applied to constitutional amendment and ratification of laws, where every event lead up to binding referendum. However, this use is limited, it does not show power of term, by ignoring popular initiative has to be also applicable for another areas of sovereingty as: revocation of elected posts, initiative to abrogate laws, collective petition for appeal of unconstitutionality, and so on.
Many regimen and their constitutions make an incorrect and propagandist use of term "popular initiative" when describing their sickly political freedoms, damaged by significative defects. When formal defects avoid fulfilling popular sovereignty, we reduce term to expression "collective petition".
Similar deviations arise around term "referendum". Main feature required by referendum is to be binding. Therefore, we must keep from using terms as "consultative referendums", which offends own sovereign essence of this political freedom. In this case we cut down term to expression "plebiscite", despite some persons prefer to reserve this term for political masquerades of some dictatorships.
Finally, it is needed to define a matter more closely. As for popular sovereignty it has not got the same weight when political freedoms are applied to constitutional scene than to common legislative activity or regulation's scope. Therefore, we will reserve term of political freedoms of warranty of "constituent power" for those ones implementing popular initiative for constitutional amendments or constituent processes.
A detailed account of actual political freedoms of Direct Democracy in Spain is offered. Next a political analysis and assesment of its practice will be undertaken.
Political Freedoms of warranty of Constituent Power.
Political Freedoms related to Popular Initiative.
Political Freedoms of holding Referendum.
Initiative to constitutional amendment: Forbidden to popular initiative by the Art.166. Only Goverment and legislative assemblies (national and regional) have got such a right. No other institution can exercise it.
Popular initiative to Constituent Assembly or Process: Forbidden. Political freedom unknown by the constitution.
Self-determination Right: Forbidden. Political freedom unknown by the constitution.
Popular initiative to the referendum: Forbidden, according to the Art.92 only President of the Government enjoys this right. No person, group or institution can start such a legal process leading up to a national referendum. On the other side, every institution (regional powers, local powers, ...) pretending to hold a referendum on any regional or local issue, requires mandatory authorization of State (Art. 149.1.32).
Popular initiative to revoke elected official: Forbidden. Political freedom unknown by the constitution.
Popular initiative to legislative abrogation: Forbidden. Political freedom unknown by the constitution.
Popular initiative to legislative process: Forbidden. The constitution contains a right for legislative collective petition in its Art.87, which will be analysed separately.
Popular initiative to ratify international treaties: Forbidden expressly by the Art.87.
Collective petition for appeal of unconstitutionality: Forbidden expressly by the Art.162.1a.
Binding referendum: Forbidden, according to the Art.92 it can be only consultative plebiscite.
Referendum of ratification to constitutional amendments: Applicable only to very significative reform according to the Art.168, in the rest it will be held if required by one tenth of Congress or Senate, Art.167.
Participative Budget: Forbidden. Political freedom unknown by the constitution.
Popular control of war: Forbidden. Political freedom unknown by the constitution.
Referendum for revoking syndical representatives: According to the Art.67.3 of Statute of Workers is possible to held a referendum, by initiative of one third of workers, on revoking any syndical elected representative.
Above account about state of Direct Democracy in Spain does not admit of many readings. Vast majority of political freedoms are unknown by the constitution, or are explicitly forbidden. Next analysis is focused on existing freedoms, but main conclusion of this analysis is the significative lack of freedoms of Direct Democracy. In a word, state of Direct Democracy in Spain is painful; optimistic reader can be only able to get some consolation in the precarious worlwide development of this kind of political freedoms.
The own lack of freedoms admits few additional analysis. But we wish to emphasize that absolute wilderness of political freedoms shielding Constituent Power. The constitution sprung up Fascist Transition (1975-1980) makes up an armoured regime, spanish people has not got any chance to modify it. Only elites have got this effective power, and seemingly there is no volition to improve democratic quality of Regimen, neither in political establishment, nor their propaganda media.
Stated by the Art.87 of the constitution, and regulated by the Organic Law for Legislative Popular Initiative, this political freedom shows up in propaganda media usually as ILP (Legislative Popular Initiative), and within the own constitution as "popular initiative".
It does not lead up to a referendum. Merely, it introduces a bill into the Congress. This failure of popular sovereignty usually put a stop to majority of initiatives, that in the presence of referendum could culminate in a law.
It is expressly forbidden by the Art. 87.3 of the constitution for amendments of electoral law and any other organic law, as well international issues.
Every parliamentary ratification of international treaties and agreements.
Parlamientary presentation of the bill does not provoke a counterproposal, and any discussion either. Legally, Promoter Committe of the petition has not even right to be heared in the Congress to defend its proposal.
It is feasible that a popular legislative petition were amended and approved by the Parliament with a contrary sense of its initial nature. Promoter Committe cannot even ask for withdrawing.
Bill is processed as another one, without leading up to a referendum. Until now, most common end of legislative popular petitions is to be rejected as a whole.
Required number of signs (500.000, roughly a 2% of electoral body) is moderated (Art.87.3 of the constitution).
Term to collect signs (6 months) ought to be upper, but it may be estimated as moderate (Art. 7 of its specific law).
To collect signs, feasibility to use also jurymen appointed by Promoter Committe is a very positive aspect (Art. 10 of its specific law).
Refund of costs (with limit of 180.000 euros) for Promoter Committe is a positive aspect (Art. 15 of its specific law).
In March/2002 Izquierda Unida (non-capitalist left) has proposed in the Congress some formal improvements, though they do not try to convert this legislative petition into a real legislative popular initiative. They propose to reduce in 25% the required 500.000 signs, to introduce multilinguism in sheets of signs, ability of Promoter Committe to defend its proposal and to withdraw if they estimate impairment by parliamentary process. The Congress has already rejected the reduction of signs "because it is contrary to the Constitution" (sic); we hope these minimal reforms were approved, and traditional arrogance of spanish Regime does not prevail.
This kind of referendum cannot be considered strictly a political freedom, it is rather a warranty. Warranty of the constitution -at least part of it- cannot be modified by a procedure outside to people at all. It is certainly a sovereign right, and in the case of Spain it is the unique right of Direct Democracy that cannot be discredited as a whole.
It is not applicable to any constitutional amendment. It is only applicable to the more significative amendments, described in the Art.168 of the constitution. In the rest of reforms (Art.167) the referemdum is only held if it is required by one tenth of Congress and Senate.
Duration of informative campaign of referendum (20 days maximum) is extremely short, Art.15 of its specific law.
Only political parties have got right of masive information (television, radio, mailing) proportionally to their parliamentary representation, Art. 14 of its specific law. This design, besides of very short duration of campaign, leads up to plebiscitary nature.
Only the President of Government can call it, with parliamentary authorization (Art.92 of the constitution and Art.161 of Regulations of Congress). No person, group or institution can start such a legal process leading up to a national referendum.
It is consultative. It has not got binding nature, nor any legal duty. Art.92 of the constitution.
As former referendum of ratification, it has got the same deficiencias about duration of campaign and right of masive information to people.
Almost world-wide, it is common to find some elements of Direct Democracy when syndical landscape is free, particularly around the initiative excersized by assemblies of workers.
It is proper to show up the existence in Spain of a kind of referendum and its initiative for revoking syndical elected representatives, Art.67.3 of Statute of Workers.
The 33.3% porcentage of the initiative for referendum is a figure disproportionately high. Compare closeness of this figure with the majority of 50% required for eventual revokation by referendum.
Spanish economical system is markedly capitalist, therefore planification and management of means of production are a full right of owners. This referendum of revoking is certainly sovereign, but exclusively over syndical representation sphere, not over means of production.
For last 15 years, assemblies of workers have been obstructed by changes within enterprise structure. Proliferation of companies of personnel subcontracting provokes workers do not know among themself, organization of assemblies of workers is only feasible for the own enterprise. Indeed, vast majority of such companies lacks syndical representation because it is not feasible to convoke the assembly (it requires one third of workers, Art.77) which could call for syndical elections.
Popular control of war is perhaps the most utopian and desirable political freedom of Direct Democracy. To be described sometimes as an extravagant freedom is proof until what extent people are very far from having control of the most grave sociocultural event. Logically, spanish people has a control of war as non-existent as the very vast majority of world-wide people has.
About so significative events as peace and war, the actual spanish constitution exhibits a worrying frugality. The Art.63 of the constitution reserves initiative to declare war and peace only for the King (!!!), who requires parliamentary ratificación. Spanish democrat people live ashamed by such a situation, where a hereditary post in his masculine descendants has got such a constitutional competency of initiative. To avoid international embarrasment, it is not hardly surprising Regime failed to observe the own constitution giving to war the shape of peace-keeping missions (Irak, Serbia, ...), without need of royal initiative, without need of parliamentary ratification.
Definitively, we feel melancholy by redaction of the Art.6 of the constitution of the II Republic (1931): "Spain gives up to war as tool of national policy", and by its development in the Art.77.
The 17 Autonomous Communities have got same poor degree of Direct Democracy than national scene.
Independently who have right to initiative for regional referendum, according to the Art.149.1.32 mandatory authorization concerns State (sic, we do not know what institution is addressed by the constitution when using term "State").
Above restriction could also affect process of statutorial reform. According to the Art.147.3 final authorization concerns national legislative organ, that must go with authorization for regional referendum of ratification.
Statutes of Autonomy can be only amended every five years (Art.148.2). There is a constitutional procedure (Art.151) with a kind of regional referendum to circumvent this restriction.
In February/2002, a proposal of regional power of Catalonia was rejected by the Congress about being transferred the competence of authorization of popular consultations stated by the Art.149.1.32. A real example how elite in Spain understand political freedoms of Direct Democracy: instead of improving the poor catalan legislation of Direct Democracy, or proposing to remove authorization for popular consultation, catalan elite prefer to claim such a privilege for themself.
In relation to amendments of Statutes of Autonomy, only some (4 from 17) Autonomous Communities exhibit a popular referendum as final step of statutorial reform: Basque Country, Catalonia, Galicia and Andalusia.
According to the Art.147.3 of the constitution and the Art.145 of Regulations of Congress this referendum is not protected, statutorial reform elaborated by the regional assembly is merely processed as another organic law. Indeed, this referéndum is a warranty recognized regionally by each statute, but if such a referendum exists then it must be authorized by national power (Art.149.1.32).
The constitution does not warrant the existence of this referendum, and if this referendum exists the constitution does not warrant as last step of statutorial reform either. To achieve the referendum were last step of statutorial reform, statutes of mentioned Autonomous Community establish the organic law approved by the national power will include authorization for the referendum.
This intricate legal scheme is derived from nationalist conflict existing in Spain. Paradox is double. On the one hand, national power does not constitutionally protect referendum of ratification for statutorial reform, but in the event of existing it wants to maintain its chance of veto over a referendum (Art.149.1.32). On the other hand, if national power approves the statutorial reform, then it shoud authorizate the referendum; but... could other thing happen else?, perhaps to approve the reform but not to authorize subsequent referendum?
In the communities of Aragon, Balearic Islands, Canary Islands and Galicia, Promoter Commite can defend its legislative petition before the regional chamber. There is not such a right as national scope.
In the community of Aragon, Promoter Committe can withdraw (subject to parliamentary consent) its petition if it estimates the petition is been distorted by the parliamentary process. There is not such a right as national scope.
In the community of Catalonia there is the absurd ban on deputies to belong to the Promoter Committe, what permits to make sure of utmost lack of representation of Promoter Committe during parliamentary process of petition.
In some Autonomous Communities, legislative petition can be exercised by groups of municipalities.
There is no viable procedure within actual legislation and logically there is no specific regulation; therefore it is a political freedom forbidden in Spain.
Hegemonic nationalism (Spain supporters) denies even the own existence of such a freedom. There is no volition to articulate democratic ways in the future: neither in political establishment, nor in the own society.
Majority of postulant nationalism (Basque supporters, Catalonia supporters) holds permanent claim for this freedom. But always with imprecise terms, without clarifying their proposed formal procedures. There are only information about proposals so puerile as the sole referendum of self-determination.
Some years since Demopunk pages offer to democrat population of Spain a example of political technology: the document "Formal Procedures of Self-determination Right" is unfortunately a real exception in the spanish society; it does not seem democrat motivation generates political solutions.
There is not a constitutional framework protecting political freedoms as for municipal scope. Practically, no spanish municipality have developed regulations of Direct Democracy, there are rather a colourful collection of regulations of Citizen Participation, mainly oriented to neighbouring associations (i.e, a house without doors, without windows and without chimney).
Therefore, Demopunk pages have published a draft of guidelines on rights of Direct Democracy as for municipal scope. It defines and regulates rights of binding referendum and popular initiatives. In a few cities is being introduced within electoral programmes for municipal elections. If you are interested in developing Direct Democracy in Spain (although there are several collaborations from Latin America) and you are related with making municipal electoral programmes, may be you must know the proposal.
In the town of Leganes (Madrid, in center of Spain) is feasible referendum and its initiative from people. Terms of the regulation are not precisely known.
In the town of Mieres (Asturias, in the north of Spain) the Regulation of Citizen Participation (June/2001) states shortly consultative plebiscite and its initiative from people. The sincere and picturesque redaction of its article 31.2 is a real example of municipal development of Direct Democracy in Spain: Art.31.2 [...] Never popular consultations will have binding nature, because it is not about referendum.
We have imprecise reports on some towns in Catalonia have developed regulations.
In Las Cabezas de San Juan exists the most mature project. It is a town with 16000 inhabitants in the province of Seville (in the south of Spain), that has developed the political fredoom known as "The Distribution". Municipal budget of year 2002 has been made by means of "The Distribution".
In the town of Rubí (Barcelona, in the north-east of Spain) there is in progress a political process that likely will culminate in the municipal budget of year 2003 generated by the political freedom of Participative Budget.
There is certainty of IU has proposed to Diputation of province of Valladolid (in the center of Spain) to elaborate a Participative Budget for the year 2003 shared by all of its municipalities. Since the actual proportion of political forces, this proposal is no much viable.
Some few of the 17 Autonomous Communities have regulated a procedure of plebiscite applicable to all of its municipalities (Catalonia/1996, Andalusia/2001). Other communities (Navarra y Asturias) are in legislative process. And other communities (Galicia) has some kind of short regulation.
All of them suffer from the jacobian restriction that authorization of any popular consultation concerns the own national power (Art.149.1.32 of the constitution). An absurd restriction derived from nationalist conflict, and therefore with an unaccountable function within Direct Democracy.
Regional regulation is a minimum framework which can be extended by every municipality. Experience of being Autonomous Community who regulates popular consultation is producing bittersweet results.
On the one side, it is quite positive a regional norm make easy to all of its municipalities' people some resources of Direct Democracy. To this effect, spanish constitution had better protect local referendums than demand its authorization by national power.
Binding nature of referendum is never protected. We call on every municipality to surpass the masquerade of the plebiscite and to make easy for their inhabitants exercise of the political freedom of binding referendum; something that will be impossible in some communities (Navarra and Asturias) where explicit regulations for consultative nature are being introduced.
Autonomous Communities include themself in process of authorization of popular consultations. Therefore, on mentioned authorization will have a say not only national power, also regional power.
Porcentages of required signs are usually quite high (15% - 20%).
Informative campaigns are ridiculously short (10-15 days), while they ought to be between 3 and 6 months.
There is no economical return for the Promoter Committe.
Municipal referendum is NOT regulated by the Art.92 of the constitution which imposes the consultative plebiscite. Indeed specific national law about referendum, fortunately, excludes local referendum from its scope by its Additional Disposition. Legislation of Local Regime (Law 7/1985, articles 18 y 71) does not stated consultative nature either. Therefore, binding or consultative nature is exclusive responsibility of regional and local lawmaker.
As described in former section "Analysis of Direct Democracy in Spain", spanish legislation protecting political freedoms of Direct Democracy is almost no existent; the few existing regulations are so weak that become disappointing and ineffective. Statistics of spanish practice published by national and international organizations are out of focus by national and regional referendums happened during the Fascist Transition (1975-1980).
But real situation is different: elite responsible for our shortage of Direct Democracy, who are in charge of Regimen from the Fascist Transition, have not even done effort for practice of such sickly political freedoms were an act of popular hopefulness. Vast majority of legislative petitions are rejected and the unique consultative plebiscite happened is still today a scandalous memory (even under suspicion of electoral fraud).
Legislation of Direct Democracy is sickly, and its practice is disappointing. But the most negative aspect is absolute absence of political debate for setting-up political freedoms of Direct Democracy. To this effect, apathy of spanish society is total. Without palliatives. Propaganda media of Regime do not give one second, a squared centimeter either, to analysis of these freedoms (this datum is not mere words, rather it is a verifiable fact). Vast majority of people do not know the existence of these freedoms: the older ones because having been educated in the desert emerged from Franco's genocide, the younger ones victims of alienation by silence of propaganda media.
A significative example of remoteness of Direct Democracy in Spain is the own use of this term (rather, absence of its use). Term "Direct Democracy" is regularly subtituted by term "Citizen Participation". A semantic slip that degrades term in its more relevant aspect, it is degraded in underlying popular sovereignty.
On the other side, majority of european countries are provoking an increase (may be transitory) of Direct Democracy by means of referendums of integration into supra-national organizations as European Union and NATO. Also to his effect, Spain presents a disappointing example. Not only by lacking legislation to warrant such referendums, also because such decision have already been taken without popular ratification.
So far there have been no referendum of ratification for constitutional amendment. The unique constitutional amendment along near 25 years has been accomplished without popular ratification, derived from duties acquired by european integration, and relative to right of foreigners for active and passive suffrage in municipal elections.
Once rebel general Franco died, its successor the monarch Juan Carlos I (successor according to the Franco's plebiscite in 1966) convoked this plebiscite after achieving the Franco's legislative organ approved the law in November 18th of 1976.
Formally there is no difference with the Franco's plebiscites in 1947 and 1966: neither in democratic warranties, nor activity of propaganda media. But provided its result and it led up to the transition to a liberal predemocracy, historians insist on presenting as part of curriculum of Direct Democracy in Spain. 77% of electoral body voted, and the "yes" got a 94%..
The legislative assembly elected by former Law of Political Reform took on constituent functions. A referendum of ratification was held on the final text of the Constitution. Turnover was (67%) quite modest being about so signficative referendum, positive votes were a 87%.
In the Basque Country happened an odd circumstance: almost all of parties of vasque nationalism called for abstention, and positive votes (34.93% over whole electoral body) were not enough to overcome the sum of negative votes (10.93% over whole electoral body) and abstention (50.49%). This combination has allowed everyone claim its own interpretation of result.
Referendums of ratification (simultaneously in all of its provinces) for initiative to set up the Autonomous Community, by virtue of the Art.151.2.3.
Referendums of ratification (simultaneously in all of its provinces) for initiative to set up the Autonomous Community. In the province of Almeria majority was not reached, and the Art.151.2.3 was not fulfilled. Referendum was repeated in October 20th of 1981, this time reaching majority in all of its provinces.
It is proper to clarify an error that sometimes appears. Above regional referendums did not ratify article sets of statutes of autonomy; indeed no statute of autonomy in Spain exhibits popular ratification. In 4 from the 17 autonomous communities this kind of referendum ratified the initiative of Diputations to set up autonomous communities; on the others had not been any kind of popular ratification: neither the article set, nor the own initiative to set up the autonomous community.
Jano On-line y agencies (12/June/2002). The plenum of Congress rejected unanimously to take in consideration a proposal of law, put forward by means of a legislative popular initiative supported by Association of Pharmacists of Valencia [in the east of Spain] with more than 1,3 millions of signs, trying to grant to chemist's shops and pharmaceutical services of hospitals the sole right to distribute medicines and pharmaceutical-sanitation products.
Deputies think, generally speaking, the initiative implies a "reiteration" of in force regulations, and when it brings innovation, it encroachs upon autonomic competences and without contributing any improvement for citizen. The proposal of law would have had nature of basic law if not having been rejected its taking of consideration by 288 votes against, none for and 2 abstentions.
The initiative was also rejected even by Parliamentary Group of Izquierda Unida [non-capitalist left], who usually support this kind of initiatives "expressing will of the people to maintain actual system of distribution of medicines", subject of proposed text. So Marisa Castro, its spokeswoman in the Lower House, stated, "regretting" to have to reject the proposal by estimating that, though a "few" proposed innovations are "positive", many ones do not conform to in force european directives.
Daily El Mundo (12/November/1999). The Plenum of Congress rejected, by 161 against 145 votes for, chance to debate reduction of working week to 35 hours, without decrease of wages.
The proposal was from a Popular Legislative Initiative supported by 700.000 signs of citizens, collected during six months by social groups, trade unions and associations and promoved by Izquierda Unida.
All of this effort finished by votes of Partido Popular, of CiU and of Coalición Canaria. Deputies of IU, PSOE, PNV and Mixed Group voted for proceeding with the initiative.
The initiative proposed to modify an article of Statute of Workers to set working week to 35 hours, without decrease wages. It also included a transitory disposition to put into effect reduction of working hours, by collective negotiation.
In defence of the initiative, the general coordinator of IU, Julio Anguita, refered to four reasons to take its consideration: progress of science and technique that reduces workers needed to make a task; search for society of full employment; promotion of social rights and, above all, "the march to utopia".
Who were more actively opposed to the initiative was the Popular Group, which, through Gerardo Camps, considered a "mock to democratic system" having to accept a initiative because it was supported by the signs of hundreds of thousands of citizens (sic). The popular deputy used also figures of creation of employment during last years to reject the proposal.
Daily El Mundo (19/March/1999). First time from the birth of the Constitution (1978), spanish Parliament has approved a law promoted by the popular initiative.
From September of 1994, when agents of properties started the use of this right, 832.000 spaniards have signed for modification of a law afecting 29 millions of persons.
Yesterday, after voting, president of General Council of Association of Agents of Properties, Manuel Roberto, was satisfied: "It is the most democratic law approved by the Courts until now, because it has been promoted by citizens".
All of parliamentary groups participating in the approval of law pointed up the "high degree of consensus reached among deputies".
In Pablo Castellano's opinion, deputy of IU, "strong popular petition has influenced a lot in positive attitude of parties". Besides, Castellano trusts in this experience "to be an incentive for another social sectors become more participating in legislative activity".
Luis Ortiz, deputy of Popular Party pointed up "great maturity exhibited by the Parliament before the popular initiative", and marked "the big step taken for horizontal regime of property in order to cope with reality of present".
Daily El Mundo (11/December/97). School books are not going to be free in mandatory education as asking for parents of pupils. Yesterday, the Plenum of Congress rejected by 161 votes against, 130 for and an abstention to debate in the Chamber the proposal of law that had been presented by the Spanish Confereration of Associations of Parents of Pupils (CEAPA) and was supported by 600.000 signs.
The legislative popular initiative presented by the CEAPA asked for cost-free status of school books in mandatory education, from 6 to 16 years.
The party PP and the nationalist parties, CiU and PNV, voted against the proposal arguing total cost-free status produces inequality by treating in the same way families with resources and the most unfavoured ones. Besides, representatives of this political groups argued that total cost-free status would have negative effects, provoking two kinds of pupils: those ones using new books and those would have to conform to used books, because pupils should return their books when finishing the course.
Promoters of the initiative sent a letter to parliamentary groups to delay the debate, by estimating that now, in open educative conflict, its debate is not suitable.
However, the proposal was rejected and yesterday the parliamentary group of PP refused in the plenum of Congress of Deputies to take on consideration the popular legislative initiative asking for a setting law of regulation financing of Education.
The so-named "Law of Financing" of the LOGSE (Law of General Regulation of Educative System) is, according to its supporters (IU, CC.OO, UGT and since this course PSOE), the procedure to assure permanent financing of education regardless of ruling political party.
According to the deputy Luis de Grandes, party PP respects the legislative popular initiative, but it estimates now it is obsolete, then his group will vote against acceptance, and he pinpoints the position of PP coincides with the former socialist Goverment's one.
It is proper to emphasize the last and shameful experience (June/2002), when Congress rejected unanimoulsy to process a petition of over 1.300.000 citizens (almost three times of required signs). Following evidence could be denied only from institutional cynicsm: this amount of signs has a sovereign legitimacy cuantitatively upper than votes used to elect some existing parliamentary groups; purely, to grant more weight for votes applied to Representative Democracy is hypocritical.
But its sovereign legitimacy is also cualitatively upper to be popular expression on a specific issue; using a scientific comparison we could state "density of sovereign legitimacy" is maximum when aplication area is minimum. Talking about this legislative petition, if spanish Regime's elite were not blind by arrongance, they would have had political understanding to admit at least to proceedings the proposal of 1.300.000 citizens.
Reader will be able to estimate that if spanish legislative petition was really legislative popular initiative (that is to say, if it finished in referendum together with the parliamentary counterproposal), then today petition of June/2002 would be law.
Also reader could estimate if spanish Regime had not forbidden popular initiative for referendum of revocation of elected post (recognized freedom, for instance, in the actual venezolan constitution), likely today there would be an initiative of revocation for all of deputies signed by 1.300.000 citizens.
In general, all of these regrettable decisions not only unlegimitize representative democracy but also provoke a wave of citizen disappointment about political freedoms of Direct Democracy. An unfair disappointment because actually there are only scarce (0.2 petitions/year) and sickly political freedoms which are persistly shown by propaganda media as the procedures of "citizen participation" within Regime.
Due to amount and significance of restricted issues for the legislative petition, only a few groups of activism are being able to make use of this freedom: majority of regional legislative petitions have been about enviromental protection.
Practice of legislative petition as regional scope is quite scarce. We have not got enough resources to assure following list is exhaustive and includes all of legislative petitions happened as for regional scope. But surely, it is a very reasonable and representative aproximation.
The Platform in Defence of the Malpaís of Güímar and Track of El Socorro handed over, in October 15th of 2001, the signs of 23.024 people supporting its legislative petition in the Parliament of Canary Isles, asking for extension of protection of the Malpaís of Güímar up to include the Track of El Socorro.
In 1998 37.000 signs was released (while being needed 15.000) supporting a proposal of law for promotion of energy saving and renewable energies. However, after over three years(!!) of parliamentary process the Promoter Committe asked for its withdrawal by estimating final text approved by Parliament was substantially diverted from initial nature. The legislative assembly did not object to withdrawal. Despite understandable unrest of promoters, they must find consolation from thinking right of proposal of withdrawal is an aragonese singularity. No other community, as for national scope either, enjoys this small warranty.
Promoted by Izquierda Verde of the Vega Baja with support over twice the required 50.000 signs. It had aim of safeguarding virtues of valencian huerta, bringing together measures to warrant its preservation and survival. It was rejected by regional legislative assembly.
The legislative petition of the Chart of Social Rights against unemployment and poverty, was inspired by the social movement in Europe by Basic Income. It was presented when a vivid debate within movement was happening, what even led up to promoters tried to induce modifications once parliamentary process had started. On the other side, the own political groups interpreted and amended the petition, generating some complaints about distorting original nature.
Generally, this petition has been involved in non-related political negotiations. Initial text was supported by 30.000 signs and took over three years to be processed.
This legislative petition has been marked by denunciation and unrest of its promoters. Presented in March/1998 with the sign of 107.000 people, it proposed ban of this activity and promotion of alternative systems. What initally was proposed in terms of ban was imparied up to an unacceptable level for its promoters, who publicly reported its desire of breaking with the approved law.
The Council of Protection of Nature was from a proposal of the Environmentalist Coordinating Comitte of Aragon (CEA) to create an organ of citizen participation in environment. Required 15.000 signs were collected to present before the regional legislative house the proposal. The Law 2/1992 created the Council of Protection of Nature, though quite decreased and cutted by parliamentary groups, remaining finally as consultative organ.
As national practice, regional practice is very scarce (0.3 petitions/year) and with some petitions actually disappointing. Eclectic reader could still find consolation because described practice allows to estimate clearly how some petitions would have ended up if they were real popular initiatives, that is to say if they had reached a binding referendum on their legislative proposals together with their parliamentary counterproposal.
This plebiscite was NOT called as a specific constitutional warranty, as another countries can hold on decisions about integration into supranational organizations. Spaniards do NOT enjoy such warranties. It was held in virtue of the Art.92 of the constitution, it is to say as a mere consultative plebiscite on an matter of "special significance".
This plebiscite did NOT consult population about integration into NATO; the matter of "special significance" about people were consulted in 1986 was integration into civil structure of the NATO (Art. 1 and 2 of its call decree), that is to say a similar status to french one: membership of NATO's Council, standarization agreements, and so on. Indeed, integration into militar structure of NATO happened in 1997 (of course, without plebiscite).
Historical context of this plebiscite was the radical change of position of spanish socialdemocrat party, PSOE. During first years of Fascist Transition, the party PSOE held positions more typically left-oriented than communist party PCE; among these positions was a strong activism against the NATO. In October/1981 the spanish congress decided (without plebiscite) integration into the NATO, and negotiations of integration were started; spanish socilademocrats (PSOE) exploited politically popular rejection against mentioned decision. Once PSOE got its first absolute parliamentary majority, they began an acute change of position culminating in calling the mentioned plebiscite.
President of the Government, Felipe Gonzalez, presented in consultative plebiscite an intricate question (Art. 1 y 2), that together with the very short duration of campaign (Art. 4), provoked deliberately uncertainty among people.
All of parties, except for communist one, supported (by means of several ways) integration into the NATO, but vast majority of people was against. Campaign took 14 days, during this term propaganda media of Regime published every day voting poll. First days reflected known opposition against the NATO, but little by little "supposed" support for the PSOE's proposal was growing. All of propaganda media did their utmost in a blatant campaign in favour of positive vote.
Last day of the campaing, the socialdemocrat leader Felipe Gonzalez, as president of the Government (caller of plebiscite), appeared in TV proclaiming that he refused to manage a negative result. This public appearance provoked a real wave of fear among people (reader must try to understand that five years before Spain had suffer from a violent coup, and political opposition was -and is still- plenty of persons come from or educated in former dictatorship).
There also are reports of unusual troubles in mail voting, mainly used by young voters (students and soldiers of mandatory service). By all of these reasons, there are reasonable doubts in some circles perhaps Regime dared to electoral fraud.
The official result of plebiscite was: a turnout of 59% of electoral body, and a 56% of voters approved integration into civil structure of the NATO.
Memory of NATO plebiscite is a nightmare for spanish democrats. Formally its an infamous happening under suspicion, but besides it continues provoking among people discredit of political freedoms of Direct Democracy.
Felipe González: "I felt bad. I think it is the most dificult decision in my whole life, the hardest moment during my term of office. I felt bad then and also later. I was perfectly aware of, despite having won the referendum, and because having won it, I would have to pay a very high price in terms of attachment, not to mention of votes. And of course we paid: in 1986 and also in 1987, certainly, and it happened so because it was entrusted to citizens moral responsability that did not concern them.
This was the reason to pay and no another thing.... Imagine that a referendum was held on breaking up war. Citizens have not to decide!, They do not get paid for it!, they do to be citizens!, they do not get paid to decide of a militar pact is suitable or not, sheet! For such a decision they have their representatives, who they trust more or less in, but they are there for such a decision".
Lack of political freedoms of Direct Democracy legitimizes to people for stating Constituent Power by all of means within their reach. The own spanish constituion is armoured, being forbidden popular initiative for constituional amendment.
Under these painful conditions it is hardly surprising that people arrange non-governmental events of Direct Democracy, acts that Regime ignores systematically, or even represses.
Following there is an account of non-governmental events of Direct Democracy known for us. Likely there are unknown instances, unknown due to harsh behaviour of propaganda media of Regime.
September 29th of 2001. Non-governmental referendum on urbanization of Square Of the Castle in town of Pamplona (Navarra).
People were obliged to ignore legal procedures of regime to be able to express their opinion. National authorities forbidden the popular act, thanks for one fast judicial sentence policial repression was avoided. Local authorities boycotted the act denying resources and sites. In broad street 19.639 people voted, 94% of them were against municipal project. Authorities do not respect results.
Despite massive repression and numerous incidents, this consulation was a great organizational and participation outcome. 1.087.792 people voted in the consultation (estimating urns where had not repression, participation would have reached 2.224.714 people). 97% of voters answered in the affirmative to questions.
This one has been the bigger non-governmental event of Direct Democracy. It is painful to report Regime did not only repress it actively, also has ignore its results.
Even worse, RCADE is an organization harshly punished. The brutal repression of a pacific "non-authorized" demostration near to spanish Congress can be verified in the report International Amnesty/2001; as colophon of those thrashing Regimen has sentenced in July/2002 one of victims to two years in jail by "disobedience".
This incident was not strictly a non-governmental event of Direct Democracy, but it reflects to until what extent arrogance of Regime ignores every popular decision.
According to directives of educative authorities, in June 1999 a lot of public schools in the East of Madrid (capital of Spain) voted by referendum on the educative project of next year. Authorities order that if a change of school timetable is pretended (for instance, non-split school day) then referendum must be supported by a qualified majority of 80% (!!!). Once referendums were held, mentioned majority of 80% was reached in 106 schools (53000 children in all).
Incidentally, next month educative competences were transfered to regional government of Madrid, and new authorities refused to recognize electoral results, forcing to start school year using old school timetable against will of over 80% of affected people.
Parents of children mobilized themself and protested against aggression, many teachers tried to help parents offering balanced solutions, however they were threatened with reprisals and Regime sent political commissars (educative inspectors) to assure completion of its arrogant decision.
8/March/1998. People of County of Trevino vote in non-governmental referendum its segregation of province of Burgos.
For long time social collectives, as well several institutions (towns of the county, Diputation of Alava, legislative assembly of Basque Country) are asking national government for calling a referendum on eventual segregation; national government rejects continously the petition. (More information).
It made people to ignore legal procedures of Regime in order to be able to express their opinion. 76% of people of County of Trevino voted, and 68% of them for segregation of province of Burgos.
Regime did not repress celebration of referendum, but it does not respect results. Circumstance of segregation were between Castile and Basque Country provokes whole weight of conflict among nationalists prevent from a reasonable solution.
Antecedents of Direct Democracy in Spain are rare, outstanding political freedoms protected by the Constitution of spanish II Republic (1931). We have not got information about practice of these freedoms, likely the short live of the spanish II Republic avoided their practice. We have not got information either about regulation and practice of Direct Democracy as for regional and local scope.
Art.66. Referendum for law abrogation could be held on by initiative of 15% of electoral body. However, applicable scopes were very restricted. This political freedom is non-existent within the actual spanish constitution.
Art.66. It was enabled legislative popular initiative by 15% of electoral body. Althought required porcentaje was very high, seemingly its scope had got no restriction, leading up to a more powerful political freedom than legislative collective petition within the actual constitution.
Information are not available if specific law about referendum and popular initiative mentioned in Art.66 was eventually written and approved.
There was not referendum of ratification for constitutional amendment. A painful absence.
Art.22. There was a referendum of ratification for segregation of a province from its autonomous community, by initiative of majority of its town councils.
Art.123. Appeal before Court of Constitutional Warranties was enabled to people (single and collectively) as equal than institutions. It is unknown if the law (Art.124) regulating its functions introduced eventually discriminations. In this sense, actual spanish Regime states severe discriminations (its Art.162 distinguish between appeal of unconstitutionality and appeal of protection).
Above minimum experience does not lead up to an historical background of political culture for actual spanish society. Franco's genocide and decades of dictatorship erased every historical memory.
Present report has been development trying to warrant scientific minimum for our research. Motivated reader will be able to verify on the own legislation conclusions (sometimes conclusions of distressing harshness) which are arisen from formal study of political freedom of Direct Democracy.
Any province constituting an autonomous region or as part of it will be able to resign its regimen and to return as province bound to Central Power. To take this decision needs the initiative of majority of its town councils and the ratification of, at least, two thirds of electors registered in the roll of province.
People can force to have a say holding a "referendum" on laws approved by the Courts. It will be enough, to be requested by a 15% of electoral body.
This resource will not be applicable to: the Constitution, its complementary laws, laws about ratification of international convenants registered in the Society of Nations, regional Estatutes, and tax laws either.
People will be also able, exercising right of initiative, to introduce a bill into the Courts, if it is required by at least a 15% of electors.
A special law will regulate procedure and warranties of "referendum" and popular initiative.
Every single or collective person, even if they had been directly affected.
A special organic law, approved by these Courts, will establish immunities and prerogatives of members of the Court and the extent and effects of appeals mentioned in art. 121.
1. The King accredits ambassadors and another diplomatic representatives. Foreign representatives in Spain are accredited before him.
2. To express consent of State to bind internationally by means of treaties, in accordance with the Constitution and laws, concerns the King.
3. Prior authorisation of the Courts, to break out war and peace concerns the King.
2. Approval, amendment and repeal of organic laws need absolute majority of the Congress, during a final voting over the whole of the proposal.
1. Legislative initiative concerns to the Government, the Congress and the Senate, according to Constitution and the Regulations of the chambers.
2. Assemblies of Autonomous Communities will be able to ask the Government for adopting a law draft or to send a law proposal to the Board of Congress, delegating before mentioned chamber at the most three members of the Assembly in charge of its defence.
3. An organic law will regulate practice and requirements of popular initiative to formulate law proposals. In any case, at least 500.000 verified signs will be needed. Mentioned initiative will not applicable to matters owing by organic laws, tributary laws or with international character, nor related to prerogative of grant.
1. Political decisions with special transcendence will be able voted in consultative referendum by all of citiziens.
2. Referendum will be convoked by the King, by means of proposal of President of the Government, previously authorized by the Congress of Deputies.
3. An organic law will regulate conditions and procedure of several kinds of referendum covered by this Constitution.
1. According to present Constitution, Statutes will be the basic institutional norm within each Autonomous Community and the State will recognize and protect them as an integral part of its juridic framework.
a. The best denomination of the Community describing its historical identity.
b. Delimitation of its territory.
c. Denomination, organization and location of the own autonomous institutions.
d. Assumed accountabilities within framework stated by the Constitution and bases for transfering associated services.
3. Reform of Statutes will comply with procedure stated by themself, and will require, in any way, approval of the [national] Legislative Houses, by an organic law.
2. Five years later, Autonomous Communities will be able to extend their competences successively according to article 149, by means of amendment of their Statutes.
a. To formulate appeal of unconstitutionality: President of the Government, the Ombusdman, 50 Deputies, 50 Senators, executive collective organs of Autonomous Communities and their Legislative Assemblies.
b. To formulate appeal of protection, every natural or juridical person invoking a legimitate interest, as well as the Ombusdman and attorney function.
2. In the other cases, the organic law will establish legitimized persons and organs.
Initiative of constitutional amendment will be exercised in the terms stated by items 1 and 2 of article 87.
1. Proposals of constitutional amendment must be approved by a majority of three one-fifth of every chamber. If there not were agreement between them, it will be tried creating a committee with equal number of deputies and senators which will offer a text that will be voted by the Congress and the Senate.
2. If approval is not possible by means of above procedure, and in the case of the text had obtained positive vote of absolute majority of the Senate, the Congress will be able to approve the amendment by two one-third.
3. Once amendment was approved by the legislative houses, will be voted in referendum to ratify it when be requested, before fifteen days since its approval, by one-tenth of members of any chamber.
1. When have being proposed complete revision of the Constitution or partial one affecting to the Preliminary Heading, to 2nd Chapter, 1st Section of Heading I or to Heading II, will be needed approval by majority of two one-third of both chambers, and immediate dissolution of the legislative houses.
2. The elect chambers must ratify the decision and to begin study of the new constitutional text, which must be approved by two one-third of both chambers.
3. Once approved the amendment by the legislative houses, it will be voted in referendum for ratification.
Amendment of a Statute of Autonomy, processed according norms stated by itself, will require be approved by Organic Law.
1. It [the consultive referendum] will require mandatory authorization of the Congress of Deputies, after proposal by Decree of the President of Government before the King calling on consultive referendum about any political issue of significative nature.
2. Message or communication addressed by President of the Government to the Congress will be debated by the Plenum of the Chamber. Debate will conform to norms reserved for totality one.
3. Decision of the Congress will be notified by President of the Chamber to President of the Government.
3. Duration of term of delegates of personnel and members of committe of company will be four years, holding in exercise of their competences and warranties while new elections had not been promoted and held.
During their term of office, delegates of personnel and members of committe of company could be only revoked by decision of workers who elected them, by means of an assembly called for this decision by at least one third of electors. It is needed absolute majority of them, by personal, free, direct and secret suffrage. Nevertheless, this revocation could not happen during negotiation of a collective bargain, and to raise again either until six months had at least passed.
1. Once proposal is admited, the Board of Congress informs it to Central Electoral Council, which will guarantee regularity of procedure of collection of signs.
2. Central Electoral Council will notify admision of proposal to Promoter Committe, in order to begin collection of required signs.
3. Procedure of collection of signs will have to finish giving collected signs to Provincial Electoral Councils, within the term of six months starting at notification mentioned in the former paragraph. This term could be prorogued by three months when a weighted reason exists, estimated by Board of the Congress. Exhausted the term without delivering collected signs, initiative will expire.
1. Without prejudice to procedure stated in former article, signs could be also authenticated by special jurymen appointed by Promoter Committe.
2. Special jurymen can be spanish citizens, with all of their political and civi rights and without penal antecedents, which swear or promise before Provincial Electoral Councils to bear witness to authenticity of signs of supporters of the bill.
3. Special jurymen will fall into, in the case of falseness, the penal responsibilities provided by law.
1. The State will compesate incured spending of Promoter Committe derived from spreading proposal and collection of signs when parliamentary process is reached.
2. Spending will have to be justified formally by Promoter Committe. State compensation will be never greater than 180.000 euros. This amount will be revised periodically by the Courts.
a) When consultation is along the whole territory of the State, slots with national coverage will be granted. In this case political groups with representation in the Courts will be beneficiary, proportionally to number of deputies got in last general elections.
b) In the other kinds of referendum regulated in this law, slots will be granted within emissions, during prime time, or publications covering the provinces where the referendum will be held. In this case beneficiaries will be political groups proportionally to representation in the Congress of Deputies, got in any province where referendum will be held, and in legislative assembly of Autonomous Community or, if in default, within any provincial deputation included by territory where referendum will be held.
2. Mailing of propaganda about referendum will have exemption and special service according to a specific regulation.
1. Duration of campaign cannot be lower than ten, nor upper than twenty days, and it will end at 00:00 hours of day before to voting day.
2. During five days before is forbidden publishing, total or partial spread or comment of elements or results of any survery or public-opinion poll, as well operations of estimation of voting from public-opinion poll, related direct or indirectly with consultation held by referendum.
Dispositions of present law do not cover with its regulation popular consultations that can be held by Municipal Councils, related to significative matters within municipal scope, in their own territories, according to legislation of Local Regime, and always maintaining exclusive competence of State for its authorization.
1.º Participation of Spain in the Atlantic Alliance will not include its involvement into integrated militar structure.
2.º Prohibition of installing, storing or entering nuclear weapons in Spain will be kept.
3.º Progressive reduction of militar presence of the United States will be started."
"Do you estimate suitable for Spain to remain within the Atlantic Alliance in terms accorded by the Government of the Nation?"
Electoral campaign will take fourteen days, and will finish at zero hours of day 11 of March of 1986.
TAZ-Copyright: "These pages (TAZ) can be freely copied, totally o partially, as pristine kernel of other people's production or with another aim. It is no needed to quote source nor any requirement, except for keeping visible, translated and aplicable this TAZ-Copyright"

References: Art.166
 Art.92
 Art.87
 Art.87
 Art.162
 Art.92
 Art.168
 Art.167
 Art.67
 Art.87
 Art. 87
 Art.168
 Art.15
 Art. 14
 Art.161
 Art.92
 Art.67
 Art.77
 Art.63
 Art.6
 Art.77
 Art.149
 Art.147
 Art.149
 Art.147
 Art.145
 Art.31
 Art.92
 Art.151
 Art.151
 Art.92

Art.66

Art.66
 Art.66

Art.22

Art.123
 Art.162
 art. 121