Patriotism, the monarchy, and the almost forgotten Article 64 of the Constitution

Like other loves, patriotism is something beautiful and uncomfortable at the same time, because it requires you to remember that there are things more important than you.

Against the King, the Army, the Constitution and the 'boomers': who benefits from this crazy drift?
The elements that are missing from the frequent criticisms of the 'Regime of '78'

Like millions of Spaniards, I celebrated Christmas Eve with my family on December 24th, this time with a huge void in my home. A void impossible to fill, and for which I preferred to focus my attention on my loved ones rather than current events, because for me, family is far more important than any political matter.

I didn't listen to King Felipe VI's speech this year. Honestly, I'm at a point in my life where I find much more peace with the television off. However, I read the speech on the Royal Household's website and, like many Spaniards, I missed some things, including an explicit mention of corruption. I was disappointed, why lie? Yesterday, even a media outlet as judicious and serene as El Debate recalled that the King was more demanding on other occasions when speaking about corruption.

The news report from El Debate also pointed out something that many of us, myself included, overlooked about the King's messages: "Although the King's Christmas Messages are written at the Zarzuela Palace and are the most personal of King Felipe's speeches, they are also supervised and edited by Moncloa. It is never revealed what parts the Government has added or censored." Thus, we have an unscrupulous government with the power to remove or add things to a King's speech, a speech for which Felipe VI subsequently bears the brunt of the criticism, as has been seen in recent hours on social media.

Yesterday I called a friend who, like me, has much better things to think about than politics, due to family matters. He's a friend I met in school, who's always there for me in tough times, someone I can talk to about anything (something especially valuable in today's society, where it's common for almost everyone to get offended by something), and with whom I agree on almost everything important. I say "almost" because he's a Star Trek fan and I'm a Star Wars fan, a huge difference —no, what am I saying? It's a galactic difference— but one we never argue about.

After addressing other more important topics (because there are some), we talked about the King's speech. I told him about my disappointment with Felipe VI's speech and, like a good friend, he had the honesty to disagree with me, reminding me of one of those almost forgotten parts of the Spanish Constitution, those parts that almost never come up in debates, despite their importance. I'm referring to Article 64:

1. The acts of the King shall be countersigned by the President of the Government and, where appropriate, by the competent ministers. The nomination and appointment of the President of the Government and the dissolution provided under Article 99, shall be countersigned by the Speaker of Congress.

2. Those countersigning the acts of the King shall be liable for them.

My friend aptly pointed out that the Spaniards could have chosen a King with more power and decision-making authority, but they chose this. Personally, I don't think they made a bad choice. In fact, despite all its flaws, Spain's transition to democracy remains something to be admired, especially for its capacity to reconcile Spaniards after the deep wounds left by a brutal civil war. The alternative would have been a King who intervened much more in public affairs, with its advantages and disadvantages. The vast majority of parliamentary monarchies in Europe chose the same path as Spain. The monarchies that fell were precisely the others, those in which the monarch held extensive powers: Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia...

Today, many people question the existence of the monarchy. I won't delve into the merits or flaws of each person's argument, but I will point out that among the monarchy's most vehement detractors are the far left and separatist movements, and not by chance. After all, and although some right-wingers may overlook this, the monarchy is an essentially conservative institution in the strictest sense of the word. It represents traditional values ​​and the permanence of Spain as a nation, which explains the hatred between the far left and separatist movements. Article 56 of the Constitution makes this clear: "The King is the Head of State, the symbol of its unity and permanence."

Right now, there are right-wing people who believe we would be better off with a republic. Some people think that a republic in Spain could be like Poland, Finland, or Switzerland, countries that, despite their flaws, enjoy remarkable institutional stability. However, Spain has had two short-lived republics, and both were very turbulent periods. The last one ended in a bloodbath—the aforementioned civil war—largely caused by the very same people who tried to transform that democratic republic—with its many shortcomings—into a Soviet-style dictatorship.

Of course, everyone is free to defend what they believe is best; that is one of the great things about democracy. However, I dare to remind you that patriotism demands that we remember there are things more important than our more or less changing opinions: things like the Fatherland and Liberty, two great pillars of our society that should not be shaken by the shifting opinions of Spaniards. Historically, the monarchy has been a very important institution as the mortar of Spain's unity, and it is no coincidence that those who want a red Spain or a broken Spain feel a particular hatred for the monarchy. The problem is that often the enemies of Spain and Liberty have a longer-term vision than the defenders of both.

Obviously, believing that the monarchy is an important institution and deserves to be preserved doesn't mean always agreeing with the monarch. Spain has had magnificent kings and also disastrous ones. I don't know if Felipe VI will be among the magnificent ones (we'll have time to judge that later), but for now, I don't think he's even remotely among the disastrous ones. The problem arises when criticism of the King descends into insults and becomes part of the campaign against the monarchy, a campaign that has been waged by the far left and separatist movements for many years, slowly but surely.

Perhaps some think that Spain would be much better off with a conservative president who championed all their ideas. That's a nice dream, but reality could be very different. If Spain were to have a republic, the King's place would likely be taken by someone like Pedro Sánchez or Alberto Núñez Feijóo. I wonder if that's what some people would want for their country. Currently, Spain has all the necessary characteristics for the disastrous experience of France to be repeated here, a country with a presidential republic teetering on the brink of institutional collapse.

I can't help but recall the warning a great patriot issued in October 2019 about the left's plan to "delegitimize the monarchy" and "overthrow Felipe VI," as part of a plan to "destroy the reconciliation of the Spanish people." That great patriot is Santiago Abascal, national president of Vox. Yesterday, someone who knows the inner workings of the left very well, Hermann Tertsch, a Vox MEP, published a very sensible message about the King's Christmas Eve speech:

Given the number of interpreters of King Felipe VI's speeches I see floating around, I'll join in for a moment.
I think his talk of exemplary conduct in public service amounts to a resounding "cut it down a bit, you socialist thieves, stop robbing the Spanish people like you do."
And regarding extremism and its disastrous effects, which we have already witnessed in our history, I believe that it can only refer to the only extremists in Spain today: the PSOE/ETA alliance and various coup plotters, all of them pro-terrorists, and their constant evocations and calls to emulate the murderers of the Red Terror during the Civil War.

In another comment, Hermann added:

"I believe that, faced with a message that is certainly so open to interpretation, the only option is to emphasize and strongly present the interpretation that reflects the truth and the dignified positions that can be drawn from it, as opposed to the interpretations that respond to the vile and miserable interests of the current criminal rulers."

Well, I know this article won't win me many friends. For me, the easiest thing would be to join the wave of criticism of the King's speech, forgetting who has the power to censor and add to it. Years ago, I swore an oath to the Spanish flag, with a formula in which I pledged, by my conscience and honor, to uphold the Constitution as the fundamental law of the State, with loyalty to the King, and, if necessary, to give my life in defense of Spain. My Fatherland is very important to me, as is my family. It is much more important than my opinions, my criticisms, and my more or less accurate reactions to any current event. It is this order of priorities that has led me to write these lines. If you have read this far, I thank you from the bottom of my heart, whether we agree or not.