May 22nd has left winners, losers, and those greatly punished, that is evident. However, trying to find other "messages", "mandates" or voices from beyond in the polls is still an exercise in free...
May 22nd has left winners, losers, and those greatly punished, that is evident. However, trying to find other "messages", "mandates" or voices from beyond in the polls is still an exercise in free interpretation of the will of "the citizens". Especially considering that half of the population did not even go to vote and that of the other half, 7 percent voted blank or cast null votes, in protest against the political class.
That does not take away, in any way, legitimacy from the representatives elected in the past elections. But the concrete thing is that only in Tinajo and Haría can we speak of governments elected by the voters, because they are the only places where absolute majorities have been achieved. In the rest, whoever manages to add half plus one of the councilors, advisors or parliamentarians elected by the voters will govern, from whatever party they may be. And it is that no matter how much you try to decipher the message of the polls now, the truth is that a vote implies support for a candidate or a party, but not for a specific pact.
If even within the formations themselves they do not agree on what is the best option to govern, how are conclusions going to be drawn about the alliance that voters want? For that, it would be necessary for the parties to launch an unequivocal message before the elections, explaining with whom they are willing to agree and with whom they would not form alliances under any concept. And they should also clarify before the elections if, when forming a government, they will respect the most voted force in each institution or not, as those affected now demand, after the fact.
Until the panorama is definitively clarified in all the institutions of Lanzarote, in the coming days there will continue to be talk of "listening to the will of the citizens", of "negotiating government programs" and similar things. But reality is always much harsher. In the end, the numerical distribution that has remained in each institution and the strategies of each party are what end up marking the alliances. Here and in China. And many times, what is said publicly until a pact is closed is the opposite of what is intended.
These days, the news is filled with trial balloons and messages to the party opposite. And it is that when a formation publicly recognizes that it has "started" to negotiate with another and even takes the photo, it almost always means that the pact is already closed, and with all the ends tied and well tied. And if the citizens like it or not, they will have the opportunity to say so, in any case, in the next elections.
For too many years, Lanzarote has been an authentic laboratory of pacts, with a black history of experiments of all kinds. And precisely for that reason, no one is free from guilt to throw the first stone now. Pacts of three and even four forces to dethrone the winner, alliances in which the third or fourth most voted reached the presidency or the mayor's office, far-fetched motions of censure? Everyone, absolutely everyone, has participated in that dangerous game for years, and with that they have lost the legitimacy to complain now about what may happen.
But precisely for that reason, once the majorities are formed, it is vital to break with that dynamic. Beyond whether a CC-PP pact or a CC-PSOE pact is finally closed (which are presented as the most probable and "logical" pacts in most institutions), the really important thing is to avoid repeating history, because Lanzarote cannot bear another legislature of instability.
However, the tone that the possible partners are maintaining in their public statements already makes one fear the opposite. And if the "imposition" of a cascade pact on the force could be dangerous, no less risky would be the independent pacts in each institution. And it is that if at least within the island global agreements are not reached, it will mean that there has really been no understanding between the partners, and a latent danger will remain.
The island cannot afford more lost legislatures, focused on disputes between parties and even within the formations. And to avoid it, it is necessary to close an agreement without open wounds, without impositions difficult to assume and without resentment that could leave cracks for future ruptures at the first change. May those who close an agreement manage to maintain loyalty during the next four years, not only with their partners, but with Lanzarote.
