The July 23 general elections briefly produced a tense and unsettled Parliament.
Most people dream of an outcome they trust when they cast their vote. At 10 pm, the mood in neighborhoods shifts as investigations begin to offer clearer conclusions about what will happen. In those moments, the public checks results against polls, noting gaps between expectations and the evolving reality on the ground. The coalition between the PP and Vox appeared to secure a strong showing, leaving some outcomes in doubt for others.
PSOE remained a major player in the discussion, often labeled the big loser by observers of these studies. As votes neared final tallies, PP supporters mourned their strength while PSOE supporters celebrated what they saw as a setback for their opponents.
After each election, analysts typically present a blend of careful reasoning and data-driven interpretation. The first critique often targets the polling industry itself. The author, while acknowledging a few solid surveys, argues that many other works appear driven by commissions and the urging of certain figures. Polls are sometimes used to mobilize political bases rather than to illuminate the citizen’s demands or the science behind voting behavior. This observation leads to the thesis of the piece: greater courtesy from the press and pollsters would benefit public discourse and accountability.
Leaders of the CHP expressed surprise at the divergence between expectations and results. It seems extraordinary that seasoned political readers could misread the landscape so drastically. Some surveys apparently carried a preferred outcome, and when reality diverged, anger followed.
As the initial shock wears off, strategy often shifts toward narrative building. The refrain becomes that the winning side must govern, even when the constitutional framework or the actual ballots do not straightforwardly support that claim. The text underscores that constitutional processes determine who can form a government, not slogans alone. Citing the example of the United States in 2016, where Hillary Clinton won more votes but did not take the presidency, the author notes that constitutional rules govern outcomes and that leaders should follow these norms rather than inflating early victories. The suggestion is for Feijóo to acknowledge the rules and act with decency.
The 1978 Constitution is presented as the legal and political framework guiding the nation. It is described as upholding freedom, justice, equality, and political pluralism as foundational values. Even without explicit statements, the text argues that these ideals require conduct worthy of the office they aspire to hold. The article calls for a clear understanding that decency accompanies any pursuit of governance.
Article 9.1 and Article 122.3 are cited to remind readers that public offices, including the General Council of the Judiciary, operate within a defined term. The author argues that failing to meet these standards is both immoral and unnecessary, highlighting the five-year term as a benchmark for accountability. The piece notes a long-standing delay in certain appointments and argues that this is a flaw in the system rather than a political tactic worth repeating.
The author acknowledges that not every conservative reader or PP supporter will share these views, yet believes that many inside the major party cabinets monitor online discourse closely. Given this, the writer offers a direct appeal to internal leadership. The call is for Alberto Núñez Feijóo to demonstrate courage, to publicly announce that an interim CGPJ will be dissolved once Parliament is formed, and to set the stage for new appointments under the constitutional five-year term. This is framed as the path to restore trust and demonstrate responsible leadership.
Morality remains a central concern in life, and it holds special gravity in politics. The piece closes with a reminder that ethical conduct should guide public life as much as policy outcomes.