Reevaluation of Amnesty Debates in Spain: Venice Commission, Reconciliation, and Political Realities
It is evident that the People’s Party has never fully embraced the legitimacy of the 2017 no-confidence motion that toppled President Mariano Rajoy and allowed the PSOE to govern, with support from various minority groups in the lower house. That visceral rejection of a constitutional institution enshrined in the national charter later extended to the successive governments led by Pedro Sánchez. It helps explain not only the intense hostility of conservatives throughout this period but also the strategies aimed at preventing a stable majority by counting on votes from progressive and nationalist formations. The events show that the PP does not oppose reconciliation measures meant to ease and then cancel the conflict sparked by the Catalan process; rather, it rejects amnesty as such, just as it did with pardons, because these acts of clemency strengthen ties between the PSOE and the regionalist movements. During the Galician campaign, it was reported that Feijóo pursued a deal with Junts and with the Basque Nationalist Party after last year’s general elections. Such an arrangement would have to rest on reconciliation measures, but it collapsed not due to broad popular opposition to them, but because of the minorities’ deep distrust. It would have been perplexing if Junts, a post-Pujol-right faction, had aligned with a national conservative block that has already formed pacts with the far-right VOX in some autonomous communities and municipalities.
Thus, the drive by the People’s Party to block any path to amnesty rests not on clear moral or political grounds but on tactical calculations. To pursue its aim, the party has pressed every conceivable lever, including resorting to the Venice Commission, a consultative body of the Council of Europe that is officially called the European Commission for Democracy through Law. Created in 1990 after the fall of the Berlin Wall, its purpose is to assist legal and constitutional reform in countries transitioning to parliamentary democracies. Today, sixty-two nations participate in its work: the forty-seven members of the Council of Europe and an additional group spread across other continents. [Source: Venice Commission overview]
Yet the appeal to the Venice Commission, raised by the Senate which holds a conservative majority, has begun to backfire on its initiators. A draft opinion released early on appears to be favorable, though with logical and correctable objections, to those who favor resolving the Catalan dispute through reconciliation. The Commission notes that this path has been employed by various European democracies to reach parallel objectives.
At the heart of the document lies a central paragraph: “Amnesties must pursue a legitimate objective in the interest of the community; the more radical the amnesty, the more legitimate the objective must be. National unity and social and political reconciliation are legitimate aims of amnesty. In the Commission’s view, proportionality requires that the proposed amnesty be, in all cases, an appropriate means of ultimately achieving unity and reconciliation.” This formulation lays out expectations for restraint and proportionality while recognizing reconciliation as a legitimate policy goal. [Source: Venice Commission draft]
Objections or conditions are, in principle, easily addressable and do not undermine the decisive message. On one hand, a robust and peaceful debate is urged to ensure that any amnesty law garners broad consensus, discouraging hasty parliamentary procedures. On the other hand, it is proposed that, once enacted, the law should apply to generic beneficiaries and be administered by the courts. A third requirement aims to harmonize the rule of law with the law’s application to malversation and corruption offenses, advocating a tighter causal link between the applicable periods and the offences covered by the amnesty to avoid arbitrariness. Still, there is no real opposition, not even mild, to the measure.
According to the most modern and widely held legal opinion, amnesties become objectionable only in a single scenario: when they attempt to erase crimes against humanity—genocide, terrorism, or torture—which are inherently imprescriptible. Clearly this is not the case here, despite some individuals’ lamentable efforts to find terrorism where it is not present. The debate remains focused on how to balance justice, unity, and reconciliation within a constitutional framework that respects both the letter of the law and the social fabric of the country. [Source: comparative constitutional law discussions]
In sum, the discussion surrounding amnesty in the Spanish context is less about a singular moral verdict and more about how a deeply divided society can advance through measured, transparent, and democratically legitimate means. The Venice Commission’s cautious but often constructive stance reflects a broader international worry: can a country mend its fractures without erasing essential accountability? The answer, while contested, points to careful design, inclusive dialogue, and a steadfast commitment to the rule of law as the path toward enduring national reconciliation and political stability. [Citations: Venice Commission assessments and EU constitutional practice]