I just finished watching the film The Great Ambition, based on the political gamble of the leader of the Italian Communist Party between 1972 and 1984, Enrico Belinguer, for the so-called "historic compromise." It was an agreement between the Italian communists and the Christian democracy of Aldo Moro that revolved around the need for confluence between both ideological spaces to, according to Belinguer, surpass the electoral capacity of the communists and advance in the socialist reformist model in which he believed. A broad and transversal pact that sought to deactivate the influence of extremism in Italian political life and ensure democratic pillars.
Great ambition brought me to the Canary Islands, both because of their differences from the politics of three decades ago, and because of their similarities to the current historical context.
In 1993, our own "historic compromise" took place in the Canary Islands. In the political field of the parties known as "Canarian obedience," a particular process of confluence occurred to carry out a motion of censure against the then president of the Government of the Canary Islands, the socialist Jerónimo Saavedra.
The main parties promoting that motion were the Independent Groups of the Canary Islands (AIC) of Manuel Hermoso from Tenerife, a conglomerate of insularist parties of a liberal and conservative nature with a prominent presence of former mayors of the extinct UCD; and Iniciativa Canaria (ICAN), a party that brought together the Canarian left, from classic post-communists and self-determinationists, as well as important sectors originating in progressive Christianity.
What happened afterwards is widely known. The motion of censure that ousted Saavedra was approved, and Coalición Canaria was formed, with a marked nationalist and interclass profile, monopolizing power from 1995 to the present (except during the period of the progress pact) and with a presence in the Cortes Generales that has gradually decreased over time.
This “historical commitment” between the AIC and ICAN (together with Asamblea Majorera, Agrupación Herreña Independiente, the PIL, and the Centro Canario Independiente de Lorenzo Olarte) occurred largely thanks to a specific historical context. The last decade of the 20th century was marked by the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the consequent dissolution of the USSR regime. As theorized by authors such as Fukuyama in his "end of history," or before by Daniel Bell with the "end of ideologies," the advance of the liberal political model and the collapse of Marxist theses gave the capitalist system a cultural and political hegemony that forced the historical ideological blocs and, therefore, the political parties, to move towards the center, moderation, and the market economy. There were no longer two economic and political models, but a hegemony of the liberal model.
In the Canary Islands, this historical context was decisive in allowing historically opposed political forces to converge. But the context alone is not enough, and a conflict and an antagonist were needed. This was visualized in the Spanish State (or Madrid) in relation to the treatment that the Canary Islands received in matters ranging from the REF and regional financing to investments in roads on the islands, among others.
Furthermore, there was a demand among the population for greater self-government, given that autonomy was failing to take off and many problems inherited from decades of poverty, illiteracy, and economic backwardness persisted. In other words, the spark that ignited the Canarian "historic compromise" was fundamentally materialistic and utilitarian, and this was later confirmed in the political culture that was built around the so-called modern nationalism, which remains in force in all its aspects, both right and left.
CC's victory in 1995 not only ushered in a centripetal political system with a simplified range of parties (essentially three major parties: PSOE, PP, and CC), but also a kind of culture of consensus and moderation, sometimes distorted by the typical motions of censure and local squabbles, but fundamentally with a predictable and stable order: CC as the pivot between the two ideological blocs thanks to its moderate position and its cross-class nature, oscillating in its support for conservatives or socialists in Madrid depending on the context, and ensuring they were essential for the governability of Spain while maintaining power in the Canary Islands.
Neither the breakup of CC in 2005 and the birth of Nueva Canarias; nor the change in the party system in 2015 with the emergence of Podemos and Ciudadanos; nor even with the progressive pact between PSOE, NC, Podemos and ASG (2019-2023), which broke with 26 years of CC governments, managed to reverse that unwritten pact of moderation, centrism, and political and economic stability. This accounts for the success of the Canarian "historic compromise" that emerged in 1993 compared to Belinguer's Italian one. This ability to endure over time and resist cyclical changes occurred while liberal hegemony remained alive.
Currently, a debate is beginning around a supposed return to the "spirit of '93" promoted precisely by its hitherto defender, CC itself, together with the deserters of the Canarian left. A bet that is anachronistic in the historical context we are experiencing. Let me explain.
Some theorists have agreed that we are facing the collapse of the liberal and capitalist system as we knew it. This collapse, or extreme mutation, is rooted in the ecological crisis, in the digital evolution that transforms habits and human relationships, in the Western capitalist economic stagnation and Chinese supremacy, and, fundamentally, in the dispute between democracy and authoritarianism.
If, as political scientist Samuel P. Huntington said, a "wave of democratization" is followed by a "wave of regression," it is more than evident that the third "wave of democratization" of the late 20th century is being replaced by antiliberal and authoritarian postulates. The main consensuses established during decades of liberal democracy—political pluralism, separation of powers, and globalization—clash with political and social polarization, lawfare, and the reactionary and populist ethno-nationalism of the extreme right.
One of the consequences of this new era is the emergence of markedly authoritarian political parties, reminiscent of the old fascist parties of the 20th century. There are several examples, but to give some specific cases, we are talking about the Brothers of Italy, of Prime Minister Georgia Meloni; Alternative for Germany; National Rally, in France; and Vox, in Spain. They all share an illiberal, xenophobic, and authoritarian agenda. We saw it, for example, with the outrageous statement by Santiago Abascal that the humanitarian ship Open Arms should be sunk.
In the Canary Islands, the break with the previous model of moderation and the realization that we are facing a new political grammar is evident in the fact that CC has facilitated the entry of fascism—that is, Vox—into institutions as relevant for their population and economic weight as the city councils of Teguise, Arona, and Granadilla de Abona. For some, this fact may seem anecdotal due to its local nature, but in my opinion, it suggests a turning point that breaks with the consensus and ideological balance that CC itself has carried as a flag.
Can anyone imagine Aldo Moro opening the doors of the institutions to the neo-fascist Italian MSI of the time? ICAN agreeing to a "historic compromise" in 1993 if the AIC had relied on Fuerza Nueva? Why do you think that the PNV, a historic Christian democratic and liberal party, has ruled out an agreement with the PP as long as it continues to rely on Abascal?
I have no doubt that CC has interpreted the changing times and has done so in two phases. On the one hand, whitewashing Vox by allowing them entry into local institutions in order to, in the medium term, strengthen the right-wing bloc in 2027. Thus, they have tried to normalize the idea that fascism can be a government partner at the local level—without ruling out, in any way, that it could be extended to other areas.
The second phase involves promoting the breakup of NC-bc and creating a soft version of a supposed progressive nationalism, precisely to construct a false narrative of a return to the "spirit of '93." I say false narrative because the union of the deserters from the Canarian left with CC has nothing to do with the "historical commitment" of the '90s. First, because the deserting leaders have interpreted this historical context in the same terms as CC, towards conservatism and pragmatism, and they will not provide any ideological balance—or why else would a mayor of Roque Aguayro be allowed to say that they are "neither left nor right," or incorporate into their ranks a family clan like Ciuca, which governs the city of Telde with Vox? And, secondly, because their priority is power at all costs, above ideas and the social transformation that a commitment like this is supposed to entail.
With all the contradictions of politics, NC-bc has preserved part of the spirit of the Canarian nationalist left around values and principles, understanding that there are historical moments when it is necessary to take a stand. In '93, many of our colleagues did so by betting on a "compromise" that they never separated from their progressive ideas, like Berlinguer himself, and that they abandoned when CC took a turn to the right and ceded its political action to the Canarian oligarchy.
Today, this new generation that I am part of must also imagine its own "grand ambition." It will not be like Berlinguer's, nor like the one from 1993. It will be in line with the context we have had to live in, with its virtues and defects, but making it clear that democracy and the social majority of the Canarian people come first. That we must fight against authoritarianism, fascism, and the oligarchy. That we are clear about which side of history we want to be on. Let us make it possible among the forces that call ourselves progressive, leftist, and of Canarian obedience. Those of us who do not give in to blackmail or siren songs.
Ayoze Corujo Hernández, National Secretary of Organization of Nueva Canarias-Bloque Canarista.