Home News The election result changed

The election result changed

The election result changed

I start with the data: 11-M changed up to 30 seats, thus giving victory to the PSOE, which was unthinkable before the terrorist acts. It is evident that the emotional impact altered the citizens’ electoral decision. Not only the deaths contributed to this shock, but also the terrible reaction of the Government, the implementation carried out by the PSOE, the street mobilizations, and the fake news that increased fear and hatred.

The attacks achieved their purpose given the results of 14-M: to weaken the international coalition, causing the defeat of the PP and the victory of the PSOE. They were decisive. The demonstration is in the comparison with the polls and the local elections of 2003. Nothing announced a change of cycle.

The surveys agreed. La Razón gave 43% for Rajoy and 37% for Zapatero; and El País, for example, corrected that figure by lowering the PP by one point and raising the PSOE by another. The CIS corroborated: the popular party remained at 42% and ZP did not exceed 38%. The debate was whether there would be an absolute majority or not. Julián Santamaría (RIP), sociologist, former director of the CIS, and linked to the PSOE, declared that the PP would win the elections even if the socialists came close. Furthermore, the 2003 local elections had preserved the power of the PP with a slight rise of the PSOE. Only a cataclysm could turn the situation around.

The political objective of the attacks was to mobilize “anti-Aznar” opinion; That is, channeling criticism of the PP, through the Prestige or the “photo of the Azores”, made a vow of punishment. The intellectual authors of 11-M knew of the Spanish rejection of the war in Iraq. According to surveys, up to 90% repudiated this conflict even though Spain did not participate directly. Those who planned the attack also knew that the new voters, citizens aged 18 to 20, were highly mobilized against the war and Aznar. The rest, up to two million, only had to be brought out of abstention with an emotional impact.

The mobilization in the two days before 14-M conditioned the people as much as the clumsy reaction of the PP. The emotional drag was evident. Responsibility for the deaths was transferred from the murderer to the politician: Aznar’s decisions had caused the attacks. It was not possible to know then, but Fernando Reinares later pointed out that Iraq was not the cause of the attacks but rather the pretext because they were planned before the war. But then spirits were raised and emotions were played with. It wasn’t new. The ability of terrorism to influence the vote was demonstrated in the US: Bush swept the polls after the 9/11 attacks. The model was proven.

On 14-M participation increased 8 points, most of which went to the PSOE. In addition, there was a transfer of votes to the socialists from other parties. Thus, Zapatero obtained 3 million more votes in 2004 than in 2000.

Of course, sociologists linked to the PSOE denied the electoral influence of the attack. They said that days before there was a “technical tie.” Belén Barreiro, later awarded by ZP with the presidency of the CIS, stated that the main cause of the defeat of the PP was its “authoritarianism.” In this construction of the story, Enrique Gil Calvo, a Marxist, stated that the terrorists had promoted Aznar’s “recusal.” With this it seemed that the murderers had given us a democratic lesson. The socialist universe concluded that the attacks were not decisive, that the “change of cycle” was prior, and that 11-M only “woke up” the undecided. Man, two million “woke” votes is a lot.

The truth is that, as Haizam Amirah revealed in “Foreign Policy”, the Islamists needed a government that would break the international coalition by withdrawing troops. Spain was the “weakest link.” They thus attacked 11-M to influence the elections. ZP won, troops withdrew and terrorism had a triumph.