Learning from Spain

I know that the elections in Spain might seem like old news to you. After all, they took place over two weeks ago and by now everyone is familiar with its results. However, it is worth our time to carefully analyze the significant implications of Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero's victory. The U.S. public should also learn from Spain's courageous exercise in democracy and its intolerance of government manipulation.

Before we go into the analysis, let us go over what happened in Spain. The first thing to know here is that Zapatero's victory was completely unexpected. All polls indicated that Jose Maria Aznar's handpicked successor, Mariano Rajoy, was well on his way to become Spain's next leader. By choosing Rajoy, the people of Spain were rewarding Aznar and his Partido Popular (PP) for a job well done. During eight years in power, Aznar's government revitalized the Spanish economy and made Spain a player in international politics. And while most people in Spain rejected Aznar's decision to back President Bush and send troops to Iraq, they did not consider this issue to be infuriating enough to vote the PP out of office. Aznar was a happy man; his legacy would be left untarnished and he would be able to retire comfortably into the private world.

But then March 11 happened. Spain experienced its most devastating terrorist attack in history, abruptly altering the political landscape only three days before the election. The Spanish people were in shock. Unlike the United States before 9/11, Spain had long been acquainted with terrorism, but the scale of this act had no precedents. The Basque separatist group E.T.A. has a long and bloody history of terrorism in Spain, but their attacks paled in comparison to what happened that morning in Madrid. The explosion of the commuter train in Madrid's Atocha station just didn't seem to be E.T.A.'s style. Furthermore, the Basque terrorist organization neither issued a warning nor claimed responsibility for the attack, two staples of their modus operandi.

It became increasingly clear that E.T.A. was not behind the death of those 200 people. If not E.T.A. then who was behind this sinister and cowardly act? Could it be that Al-Qaida or another Islamic terrorist group decided to hit Spain in reprisal for its involvement in the war against Iraq? Aznar and his Partido Popular panicked. If Al-Qaida were behind the attacks, would the electorate blame Aznar for the unnecessary loss of Spanish lives? After all, the Spain had no dog in that fight. Why get involved and be exposed to attacks like this one? Aznar thought that if the Spanish people found out that Al-Qaida was behind the train bombings, his party would lose the elections. So he and his government lied to the public and blamed the usual suspect for this atrocious act of terrorism.

But the evidence pointing to Al-Qaida was overwhelming, and no government manipulation would be enough to keep the truth from reaching the public. By the time of the election, the Spanish people knew two things: Al-Qaida was responsible for the attack, and Aznar's government had lied about it. That mix of factors determined Zapatero's victory.

Now, many people in the United States say that the Spanish people gave in to the terrorists. That Zapatero's victory is a victory for Osama bin Laden. They also say that the terrorists will now be emboldened and will benefit from a softer stance against them. All three accusations, apart from being base and insidious, are completely false. What we saw in Spain was a perfectly legitimate and courageous exercise in democracy. No people should ever tolerate manipulation and lies from public servants. Those public servants who engage in it should be punished at the ballots. Aznar was punished for lying to the Spanish people.

Zapatero wants to pull Spanish troops out of Iraq. If he does, will that signify a victory for bin Laden? Hardly. It will be a victory for the Spanish people, who did not want this war in the first place. And finally, the biggest mistake of all is to say that by pulling out of Iraq Spain is abandoning the fight against terror. Nothing could be further from the truth. Zapatero is committed to fighting terror, and he has said so several times. He just doesn't think that invading Iraq was the best way to fight Al-Qaida.

He is not alone in that judgment. In his testimony before the 9/11 commission here in the US, former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke said: "by invading Iraq, the president of the United States has greatly undermined the war on terrorism." It is now clear that Bush was fixated on Iraq immediately after 9/11 and that he pressed his aides to look for connections between bin Laden and Hussein. No one came up with any links, so eventually the administration had to manufacture the notorious WMD lie.

There are at least two things that the people of the United States have to learn from the people of Spain. One is that a country can be committed to fighting terrorism without occupying Iraq. The other one is that leaders should be accountable and lies should not be tolerated.

Rodrigo De Haro is a senior majoring in International Relations. He can be reached at deharo@tuftsdaily.com.