Cascade resignations were justified by talking about "personal problems". The harsh exchanges of accusations between prominent members of the party were described as "different sensitivities". It was assured that the strong ...
Cascade resignations were justified by talking about "personal problems". The harsh exchanges of accusations between prominent members of the party were described as "different sensitivities". It was assured that the strong internal differences were not such, and that there were only "3 or 4 dissidents" who did not accept the majorities. However, six months after the Canarian Coalition began the debate on how to deal with the policy of pacts after the breakdown of the PSOE-PIL government in most of the island's institutions, it has become clear that what lies behind it is much more than that.
The party has been at a crossroads for half a year and now, the motion of censure presented in Yaiza by the councilors of CC, PNL and PSOE has put on the table the need to find an urgent solution. For the moment, the Island Executive has rejected this motion of censure, but only by twelve votes to eight. That is, 60 percent versus 40 percent, which reflects that we are not talking about 3 or 4 people critical of the line that the island leadership of the party is following.
And if that were not enough, even more evident has been the fact that the debate in the Island Political Council was postponed, which was finally constituted this week, since after the last Congress it had not yet been formed, and which is the one that really has to decide the policy of pacts.
However, finally the planned issues were not addressed, in search of trying to reach an agreement before reaching the vote, as that could highlight a technical blockage in the party. On the one hand, because it was difficult for the "official" sector to achieve the 60 percent of votes needed to ratify a decision. On the other hand, because regardless of the numbers needed to obtain the majority, knowing the votes of all the members would have shown that the internal division is really deep.
Thus, in recent days we are seeing the reflection of what has been happening for six months in which, despite the determination of the island leadership of the party to carry out an agreement with the PIL, the PNL and the PP, they have only managed to make this alliance prosper in the Cabildo, where their partners are still waiting for the counterparts that they should receive in other municipalities.
And it is that although the "official" sector achieved a majority in the Island Executive, in the local committees of the party the situation is different. In fact, only two openly support the line of Jesús Machín (Tinajo and San Bartolomé), while the other four (Arrecife, Tías, Haría and Yaiza) are openly against it. And the other, Teguise, maintains divided opinions and, in addition, was the first to present a motion of censure against the PIL, although now it has been left in a dead end and governing in minority.
But the important thing is not only the numbers that are on each side. The important thing is also that among those who oppose this nationalist union with the PP, are the committees of the municipalities where this alliance could currently be carried out. That is, Arrecife, Tías and Yaiza.
And this scenario reflects that, evidently, the Canarian Coalition does have to address a deep internal debate. Because with a Political Council that until this Wednesday had not been constituted, and with the majority of the local committees against it, the decision of an Island Executive cannot pretend to impose on the councilors to join a government in which they do not believe.
Now, after having bet on the policy of fait accompli, the exit seems even more complicated. With an agreement already underway in the Cabildo, with commitments made with those partners for other municipalities, and with the staunch opposition of the councilors involved, it will be necessary that all the dialogue that has been lacking in the last six months prevails, and that CC reconsiders the course it wants to take.
The party must survive the casualties it has already had along the way in the form of resignations, but it cannot afford to lose more people throughout the island. Because one thing is to enforce the "party discipline", and another is to close your eyes to the evidence.
