The protest movement in Spain drew hundreds of thousands into the streets this Sunday to oppose the amnesty bill headed for Congress this week. Alongside this bill, a package of measures reached an agreement among the Socialist Party and seven other parties, a combination that would support Pedro Sánchez’s third term access through a broader coalition. The motivation behind these demonstrations is clearly political, reflecting the moment’s parliamentary dynamics and the strategies each party employs as the process advances. After Alberto Núñez Feijóo failed to secure a necessary majority for his bid to lead, his party called for a fresh electoral round. In parliamentary terms, the path from candidate selection to presidency is intricate: the monarch may invite a candidate to attempt an investiture, Congress then votes or refrains, and another name can emerge that appears capable of gathering the requisite votes. This is the lived reality of Spain’s constitutional framework, where the president is chosen by Members of Parliament rather than direct popular confirmation.
Beyond partisan calculus, it makes sense that the PP seeks to articulate the frustrations of a broad citizenry. The agreements Sánchez struck with his so‑called investment partners have sharpened that discontent, reaching voters who might not align neatly with any given party. This includes PP supporters as well as those who backed other options, including some who previously backed PSOE, and independent, nonpartisan citizens. Governing through a new alliance is as legitimate as peaceful demonstrations directed at its contents. If the far-right or extreme voices join the mobilizations, they should not be read as a monolithic endorsement of their more radical agendas. Each group advances its own proposals, deserving democratic space and scrutiny. The social unrest seen today could have been avoided had the two largest parties in Congress engaged in earnest negotiations to secure broad support for the leading candidates, both in this case and in earlier rounds that produced alternative alignments, or if Congress had remained functional during this period. The second investment agreement was reached through those negotiations.
PSOE’s leadership has crossed lines that were widely regarded as red lines only a short time ago. The party’s leadership and its grassroots movement appeared to align with like‑minded factions, as has happened with Junts and the Sumar and Esquerra coalitions. Yet these alignments occurred without publicly debating the amnesty bill, which underpins the current agreement. This secrecy creates a disfigured narrative that risks confusing millions of voters when opposition parties seize on it. If the bill ultimately links the trajectory of Catalonia’s recent history to the concept of legality within the agreement with Junts, or if it hinges on the word legitimacy, PSOE and Sumar supporters may grow uneasy. While Sánchez’s candidacy stands on solid constitutional ground and the demonstrations reflect a broad spectrum of opinion, the onus remains on Congress, the ordinary courts, and the Constitutional Court to ensure that what becomes law truly adheres to constitutional standards. The leader must take careful account of public sentiment, and Feijóo must learn to defend his position within the institutional framework as well as in the streets.