Motion of censure

When a government does not have parliamentary support in the lower house (Congress) or at least falters; it seems appropriate to propose within the institution itself, an alternative to replace it without the need for elections. This initiative is the Motion of No Confidence, regulated in article 113 of our Constitution. It requires the support of 10% of the deputies (35) for its presentation. In it, a candidate for the presidency of the government is proposed, and for the change in the executive to occur, it must be approved, after its presentation and debate, by a majority of deputies. So far, a total of six motions of no confidence have been presented, of which only one has succeeded, that of the Socialist group against the Popular Party in 2018, with which Pedro Sánchez replaced Mariano Rajoy as president of the government.

Parliamentary arithmetic, which would give the majority to the censurer, is of utmost importance. It is difficult to secure support to approve the motion before the vote, there is always a factor of uncertainty. It is said that if the no confidence motion fails, it strengthens the government and weakens the censurer. However, in 1980 the first no confidence motion occurred, it was from the socialists against Adolfo Suárez's UCD. It failed and the same government continued, but the censurers had the opportunity to present their political project in detail, which contributed to winning the following elections. Sometimes you win by losing.

The current numerical relationship of forces in parliament, facing majority support, offers few doubts. As the no confidence motion would come from the right-wing parties, it would hardly garner the vote of the progressive forces. On the other hand, the nationalist votes of the PNV and Junts are also not easy to obtain. The former because they govern in the Basque Country with the socialists and without this support they have it difficult. The latter, because they have a privileged situation: with just a handful of votes (7) they can make and unmake governments. Furthermore, they cannot embark on this with those who want to outlaw them.

But beyond the arithmetic question, there is another very important reason. The censor must present their project for the country and convince a majority of deputies. In this regard, substantial issues arise: Will healthcare and education continue to be privatized? What will be done with pensions? Will they remain linked to the CPI or will they return to the model of the last right-wing government when they depended on a sustainability factor, a euphemism to say that they will rise as much as possible. What measures will be taken regarding immigration? What is their regional financing model? Will they repeal the state laws that oppose the national priority agreed with VOX? It is essential to clear up these and other unknowns.

There is one year left until the elections and possibly we will not have censorship. Party interests prevail. Everyone wants to be well positioned for the next electoral rounds. Nor should the current government, if it does not have parliamentary support, remain at all costs. It is up to them to regain the political initiative and demonstrate that they can govern or, if they cannot, withdraw. This is the loyalty owed to all citizens.