Only a few hours had passed before a large crowd occupied the headquarters of Brazil’s three branches of government. The scene echoed the turmoil seen in the United States some years earlier, as supporters of the defeated side pressed to overturn the newly chosen leadership. In Spain, Pedro Sánchez condemned the incident on social media, and shortly after, the PP spokesperson in Congress, Cuca Gamarra, offered a brief remark that shifted the debate toward reform in the Penal Code to address sedition. Legal experts consulted by El Periódico de Catalunya argued that the discussion is more political than legal in nature (citation).
“In Spain this amounts to simple public commotion”, echoed a remark attributed to Gamarra on social media. https://t.co/O75XlbB1kL
— Cuca Gamarra (@cucagamarra) January 8, 2023
Assorted voices in legal academia emphasize that Spanish institutions are protected, and the question remains whether the remark came from ignorance or intent. One criminal law expert notes that the presence of violence can shape the perception of rioting, with its aims guiding the classification of the act (citation).
Constitutional law scholars also point out that, even after sedition’s abolition, the Penal Code still contains instruments to safeguard the functioning of the main constitutional bodies. They argue against the notion that similar incidents in Spain should be punished only as aggravated public nuisances. The crime of riot is seen as a real tool to prevent obstructions to the Cortes Generales, which remains a live legal concept (citation).
Some compare the event to a historic threat to democracy, noting that revolt exists in varying degrees across constitutional orders to protect democratic principles. The viewpoint is that democracy must be preserved even when unrest surfaces (citation).
Rebellion and the Procés
According to a professor of criminal law, events aimed at disrupting public order may involve violence that seeks to achieve listed constitutional consequences, including interference with royal authority, dissolution of Parliament, or compelling government action. The actions described are judged in light of their intent and impact on the constitutional framework (citation).
Observers note the Supreme Court’s reluctance to convict Catalan leaders for rebellion, emphasizing that the required elements may be more nuanced than a straightforward riot. The Brazil situation raises questions about what constitutes an adequate legal threshold in such cases (citation).
Debate on political leadership and accountability intensified when state prosecutors refrained from pressing rebellion charges against Catalan figures. Critics accused the administration of political interference, while others argued that the legal criteria for rebellion did not apply cleanly. Debates about how to label such actions persisted, with some advocates pushing for broader definitions of riot to capture aggressive nondemocratic moves (citation).
Crime Against State Institutions
Legal experts highlight a plausible avenue for prosecution under crimes against state institutions, a charge that carries a potential prison term. Earlier cases involving the siege of the Catalan Parliament in 2011 illustrate how this category operates in practice. While some voices cautioned that such actions rarely reach the level of attacking the state, others argued that attempts to besiege courts reveal a daytime pattern of disobedience and obstruction (citation).
Critics argue that calls to minimize the seriousness of the Brazilian events risk normalizing violent disruption of constitutional order. A lawyer notes that downplaying such behavior sends a dangerous signal about the fragility of democratic institutions (citation).
As the debate evolved, far-right voices leaned on Gamarra’s framing, sparking questions about what mechanisms a state might deploy to counter similar upheavals. The abolition of sedition was cited by some as leaving authorities with fewer tools to respond to collective action aimed at destabilizing democratic processes (citation).
Despite these tensions, major political parties maintained that the situation in Brazil should not be echoed elsewhere. The discussion highlighted concerns about polarization and the spread of hostile rhetoric, while scholars warned about a sense of insecurity if such scenarios were to recur in other countries (citation).