The actions taken by the PSOE and Unidas Podemos government, under pressure from Esquerra Republicana de Catalunya, are viewed by some observers as legal missteps and political misjudgments. This assessment concerns both substantive content and formal procedure. Changes that redefine the crime of sedition as an aggravated form of public disorder risk conflating two distinct concepts. Sedition traditionally punishes breaches of the constitutional order, while public disorder offences protect civic peace. If the reform treats calls for illegal referendums, votes on disconnection laws, or declarations of regional independence as unpunished, yet punishes onlookers who applaud or briefly protest on the street, the reform narrows the rights to express, assemble, and demonstrate. The events in Catalonia in October 2017 are characterized as a major challenge to legitimate authority and the constitutional order, not merely a public order issue, and are seen as an aggravating factor in the broader political crisis. Critics argue that there should be accountability for actions that validate a constitutional breach and for those who cheer from the streets.
In cases of embezzlement where there is no personal gain, and public funds are used for purposes perceived as compromising territorial integrity, penalties are viewed as too lenient or as means to bolster political party coffers. Such outcomes fuel concerns about partisan corruption and political influence over the justice system. This has been a recurrent point of contention in recent years.
These are significant legal reforms, introduced with speed and without the anticipated input from top advisory bodies or thorough parliamentary debate. The haste has contributed to later consequences, such as criticisms of a narrowly tailored law that faced backlash for insufficient responsibility or clarity.
The claim that European partners prompted the reform is contested. Similar degrees of sedition-like offences exist in France, Germany, and Italy, where authorities do not equate sedition with a broader rebellion or public disorder. European practice often shows reluctance to negotiate with figures who would benefit from such reforms, preferring legislative changes that serve the general legal framework rather than tailored protections for specific individuals. Critics describe the current reform as potentially widening constitutional vulnerabilities rather than strengthening them.
Remarks attributed to George Orwell in Animal Farm are cited to emphasize perceived double standards: equality under law is expected, but some actors may receive preferential treatment. The discussion extends to possible reforms such as stricter electoral thresholds for parliamentary entry or the banning of parties that reject constitutional standards, as seen in other European contexts. The government maintains that the reform could weaken broad independence movements by dismantling a punitive framework, even as signs from Catalonia suggest ongoing disaffection with judicial and executive authorities. The central debate concerns whether the reform, rather than reinforcing constitutional safeguards, could open the door to repeated challenges to the constitution. The current political discourse notes the president’s public commitments to governance in alignment with constitutional obligations, while observers remain skeptical about credibility and consistency in practice.
When critics reflect on these developments, they emphasize the importance of processes that ensure accountability and legitimacy across all levels of government. The broader concern is that future referenda and political movements could gain increased momentum if the legal framework appears inconsistent or selectively applied. The discussion continues as Catalan voices call for renewed constitutional clarity, while national authorities consider the balance between safeguarding the constitution and allowing peaceful political expression.
Signatories and supporters have circulated manifestos through advocacy groups focused on transition values, underscoring a desire for principled governance anchored in constitutional norms. This movement seeks to shape public debate around the alignment between legal standards and political outcomes without sacrificing civil liberties or democratic legitimacy.