The protests are not only because unemployment, in Spain the the two main political parties are at service of banks and corporations, the protest is also against the other big party not only the one in the government, people want a change and a real democracy. There are big problems of corruption and personal enrichment in both parties.
Reminds me of the 2001 protests here in Argentina(actually, december of 2000, but it's remembered as 2001). That ended up getting quite ugly. The sentiment was very similar: all political parties were equally hated, and there was a huge desire for a complete reform. The motto was "Qué se vayan todos", roughly translated as "Everybody leave"(targeted at the politicians).
The implication of "no real democracy" is not necessarily "rigged/fake elections", especially since the definition of "democracy" is vague at best, highly relative, and difficult to specify.
Say, for example, you have a traditional British parliamentary system (that's in use in many countries around the world). This imaginary country has 50 seats in government spread around geographically... there are some obvious issues that may arise here:
- Distribution of seats: should be it population-proportionate? Or should it account for land mass? Or economic output? There is already a huge point of contention here.
- Determination of seat: if Party A wins 51% of the popular vote in every single district, then will claim 100% governance of the entire country, despite the fact that 49% of the population voted for someone else. This problem is exacerbated in countries that have more than two major political parties, where the ruling party can be given the mandate despite having what would appear to be a shockingly small portion of the popular vote.
- Appointed vs. elected positions: many countries do not have elected posts throughout the government. Which roles should be appointed instead of elected, and if so by whom?
There are many legitimate claims that you don't have "real democracy" - i.e., the government does not accurately represent the will of the people, before you get into claims of illegitimate and rigged elections.
I am quite fond of the original intent of the US Constitution with upper house being territory-based and the lower house being population-based. I don't like the direct election of the Senators since it separates them too much from the concerns of the state. I guess I would prefer to have the state legislatures appoint them or else remove the 2 senators and substitute the state's governor (travel time / communication not being that big an issue).
Ahah, in most places that's 51% of governance - which will appease the macro-scale proportional-representation folk, but is not without issues.
Let's say you are in a rural district with a great deal of natural lumber resources. There's a party that's for clearcutting, and two parties adamantly against it. The party for clearcutting gets 35% of the vote and wins the election - is it democratic that governance power in the local district is handed to the minority vote?
Of course, the "easy" solution to this is to do things California-style - i.e. put every major controversial issue up to a popular vote, to remove the association of specific issues to party lines. That has its dangers also - here in Seattle it's resulted in deadlock on major issues and just a complete clogging of government.
Even if we ignore local governance, the drawing of district boundaries can also be used to disenfranchise certain demographics. In one city I used to live in, they redrew the districts to carve up the urban-center population and mixed them in with the suburban voter base. In this way, pro-urban issues didn't have a chance, and urban residents couldn't win representation effectively. Is that democracy?
etc etc. These issues never end - "democracy" is hard to define.
Elections in Spain are not rigged, but the quality of Spanish democracy is very low. There are three main points:
1. Electoral Law: In Spain votes are counted according to D'Hondt method in regional demarcations. It favours big parties while penalizing small parties. It makes votes in less densely populated regions more valuable. Both things are perceived as very unfair by many Spaniards. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Hondt_method)
2. Separation of Power: In Spain, Congress is very powerful while Senate is mostly decorative. People vote once every four years for Congress, then they elect the President. There is no separation between Executive and Legislative. In the U.S. or France you can have a Democrat President and a Republican Congress. That is not possible in Spain, Executive and Legislative are always in the hands of the same party by design. Judicial power is not independent as judges are appointed by the party in power. Older judges (some people may remember Garzon, the guy who tried to incarcerate Pinochet) are independent but younger ones ALWAYS vote whatever is decided by the party that granted them the seat.
3. Political regeneration: In Spain you cannot vote for a person for Congress, you can only vote for a party list. The party will put whoever they want in the list in whatever the order they want. This system has led to a progressive degeneration where only friends and family of powerful party members are listed. Many of the candidates in the upcoming elections (22nd of May) have been found guilty of corruption. Many more are awaiting trial. Almost all of them have no leadership qualities at all. Their only quality is to be a disciplined party member with connections. Parties in Spain are not democratic themselves. Primary elections within a party are almost unheard of. Candidates for any election are decided by the senior management.
In Spain, when a candidate loses, they just wait for the next election, or the next, or the next... until they finally grab power. It is a case of "waiting your turn".
In Spain we frequently use "partitocracy" (rule of parties) and "fingercracy" (rule of those who have been chosen by a powerful party member by pointing at them with his finger) to describe our political system.
Elections aren't the only requirement for democracy. The people who get elected also have to represent the interests of the people who elected them, not just the people who financed their campaign.
It's a problem that's widespread in the US, too. We just don't have the same level of rage about it because our political parties are good at using issues like abortion to differentiate themselves and distract from their shared support for things like reducing civil liberties and protecting corporate interests.
In theory, "real democracy" says that if the latter condition isn't met (i.e. people in power do not have public approval), then the former condition (rigged elections) must be true.
No one should be in power if the majority of the public doesn't approve of them. If they are, then the elections were rigged.
Yes, presenting this as a "youth protest" seems like an attempt by the establishment to distract people from the real issue, which is a political system that they created and voted for during the past 30 years. You reap what you sow.
You cannot change a fundamental law if you have a Democrat or Republican agenda. You need a broad consensus, only achievable if you focus on the big issues.
Say that you are trying to pass a new amendment to U.S. Constitution. You have to stay away from the most partisan issues like, say, gun control.
yes, it must be the government's fault that the people don't have jobs. it couldn't be that they have priced themselves out of the market with the prevailing wage in Spain vs. China. and, of course, they couldn't possibly start a company to employ themselves. it must be the government's fault. let's protest.
