Article 2 of the Constitution is not a rhetorical flourish nor an ornamental clause that only serves for empty institutional speeches. It is one of the structural foundations of the autonomous State: inter-territorial solidarity. It is not a historical sentimental slogan, but a legal, political, and moral principle that obliges the State to articulate redistribution mechanisms to guarantee that it does not matter where you live to have access to the social well-being that we all deserve as equal and free citizens.
The idea is simple and classic within political theory: those who have more contribute more to sustaining the system as a whole. It is not about charity, but about justice and social cohesion, or so the left has always called it. Precisely for this reason, it is grotesque that a government that defines itself as progressive presents a new model of regional financing as beneficial for everyone when it is not.
Solidarity obliges everyone. Including the State. Even when political calculation advises otherwise. However, the message this reform leaves us with is that solidarity is only enforceable on those who are not decisive in parliamentary arithmetic. And therein lies the crux of the matter, as the debate ceases to be technical and becomes political in its most stark sense: securing parliamentary majorities even if the cost is straining one of the pillars of the system ‒as if we didn't have enough with everything that is under strain in this country‒.
The current model, approved in 2009, places Madrid, the Balearic Islands, and Catalonia as net contributors. With the proposed reform, according to various economic and technical analyses, the map is altered circumstantially: communities that until now did not contribute net would become so ‒Extremadura, Castilla y León, Aragón, La Rioja, Cantabria, Asturias, and Galicia‒, while Catalonia would improve its relative position to become the first in per capita adjusted funding, ceasing to be a net contributor. This is not an assertion made without thought; it is a conclusion derived from studies such as the review carried out by Ángel de la Fuente, and published in January 2026 in Fedea.
The problem is not just distributive—the direct exclusion of the Basque Country and Navarre system is another issue to analyze—. The problem is ideological. The left has historically maintained that redistribution must operate from top to bottom, that territorial cohesion demands correcting structural imbalances, and that material equality is social justice. If one of the communities with the highest per capita income improves its relative position while others assume greater effort, the question is the following: where does the redistributive principle that is proclaimed morally superior stand?
It is not about demonizing the reform, every system is improvable. It is about pointing out discursive incoherencies when they are used to attack the opponent. When redistribution adapts to the need to consolidate parliamentary support, it ceases to be a principle to become a card. It is about commodifying the rights derived from the Constitution. And when this happens, the credibility of the system erodes. Has no one thought that tomorrow the right could come in and carry out a reform in the opposite direction, which is precisely one of the issues they ponder in relation to the system of autonomies?
Spanish politics is already accustomed to changes of position under this government. What is relevant is not the constant ideological mutation of the left, but its transformation towards political pragmatism, thus demonstrating that ideas are not important, what is important is to maintain power. The famous irony of Groucho Marx ‒"These are my principles, and if you don't like them, I have others"‒ seems to have found an echo in the state PSOE.
In 2018, Ignacio Sánchez-Cuenca published La superioridad moral de la izquierda, arguing that certain progressive ideas possess an intrinsic ethical primacy over the right. It is legitimate to believe that one's ideas are superior to another's. This was the thinking of European colonizers towards the inhabitants of the African continent; or, the Germans of the III Reich themselves towards other ideological positions. What is not legitimate is that the coherence between discourse and practice does not exist. When a basic social principle like redistribution singularly benefits certain territories while maintaining a narrative of equality and social justice, the distance between ideals and reality widens. It is here that the voter should pay attention, because they would no longer be voting for ideas, they would be voting for hollow acronyms without any content or value.
The underlying issue is to find out if from now on, and thanks to the Government, the constitutional principle of inter-territorial solidarity will continue to be a fundamental axis of the State's structure, or if it has become a political commodity. Because if solidarity becomes dependent on parliamentary weight and not on objective need, it is no longer solidarity: it is a commodity.