Since the bombings in Madrid on March 11th and the subsequent removal of the government in Spain, consumers of mainstream media have become used to references to `the Spanish capitulation to terror' and `votes for appeasement'. Within the UK, the Daily Telegraph has been particularly vociferous in its condemnation of the Spanish electorate's decision to oust Aznar's government, but they have certainly not been the only ones.
It is interesting to analyze what exactly is happening here. It is not enough to dismiss the accusations of the Telegraph et al, by saying that people were simply voting against the Spanish government's policy of war on Iraq, massively unpopular as that was. This was undoubtedly a factor but still does not explain the sudden shift away from the Aznar government in the last days of the campaign. Somewhat more compelling is the ananalysis of the Aznar government's response to the bombing and their apparently cynical attempt to blame ETA, with a view to the potential electoral windfall that would cause. However even this may not be the whole story. Rather I would suggest that, in one very particular sense, the Telegraph is right - the bombings in Madrid did play an important causal role in the removal of a government from office in Spain. The question is, is this anything new?
Let us examine another election in another part of the world... In November 2001, The conservative coalition of the Liberal and National Parties, under Prime Minister John Howard, was re-elected as the government of Australia. Only two months earlier, on 10 September 2001, this outcome had seemed highly unlikely. The intervening months saw two important events that many commentators believe decisively changed the course of Australian politics.
The first event was a stand-off that developed from August 2001 between the Australian government and a Norwegian tanker, the Tampa, which had come to the rescue of a sinking boat, on board which some 400 asylum seekers had been making their way to Australia. The Australian government refused to allow the Tampa permission to land on Australian territory and the asylum seekers were eventually redirected to the island of Naura and to Papua New Guinea `pending the determination of their refugee status'.
The second event was the terrorist actions of 11 September 2001 in New York. The Australian government immediately endorsed the war on terror and became a vigorous participant in that campaign. This participation eventually led to Australian military involvement in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
John Howard called the election in October 2001 - in the immediate aftermath of both these events. The rhetoric of the government was fierce both with respect to the war on terror and to what they dubbed `illegal immigration'. In many respects their strategy with regard to both issues was aimed at creating fear in the electorate and impressing on the Australian people the need for the government to fight against both `illegal immigrants' and terror. Their strategy paid off and they were victorious at the polls.
While many commentators found the actions of the Australian government entirely cynical and opportunist there was no mention of `capitulation' to terror, nor any suggestion that somehow the terrorists had won out of this situation. Even those commentators who rejoiced in the victory of the Howard government would not necessarily have argued with the assertion that, were it not for the events of September 2001, albeit in concert with other factors, Australia may have a Labor government at this moment.
What is the difference between the Spanish and Australian situations? The most significant element in the different analysis of election results is that the Australian government is not seen to have `capitulated' because their reaction to terror was one of combat and retaliation. Certainly no one suggested that the Australian government had `appeased' the terrorists; how could they, when the government had reacted by joining the war on terror? In contrast, it was the losing party in the Spanish elections which had committed troops to the campaign in Iraq, and withdrawal from that position was seen as some kind of appeasement.
An examination of these facts leads one to various observations. Firstly let us note the possibility that commentators and media alike are simply generally in favour of the war on terror. If this is the general consensus amongst the editors of mainstream media then their criticisms are likely to be more frequently directed at any person or party who dissents from this view. Now this is undoubtedly true in some cases, where editorials have campaigned for a vigorous prosecution of the war on terror; in other cases it is less clear but is a question worthy of further study.
Secondly it is worth simply observing the phenomenon that significant world events routinely lead to the passing of governments, democratic and non-democratic alike. That the events of 11 September 2001 should have effects on governments in various parts of the world is hardly surprising. George Bush's popularity, for instance was directly and significantly affected by the events of that day. Furthermore, the fact that terrorist attacks receive such concentrated, even hysterical, attention in the mainstream media reinforces the principle that any terrorist attack is likely to have significant leverage on the politics of a country. In a way which, for example, poverty does not.
Thirdly, we should note an assumption which underpins analysis within the mainstream media of the terrorist phenomenon. Namely, that the `war on terror' is bad for terrorism. By which I mean that the `war on terror' is not what the terrorists want. The Howard government in Australia and the Aznar government in Spain have both been praised for refusing to give in to the terrorists' attack on democracy/ western society/ freedom. What isn't acknowledged however is that this is, potentially, precisely what the terrorists are campaigning for. There has been significant comment in the media suggesting that the war on Iraq will `create more terrorists' within the Arab world. In addition, the `war on terror' is popularizing the belief, in all parts of the world, that war and the military solution are the only way to achieve change in the modern world. This belief is certainly one held by the terrorists (and, one could argue, by many of the governing elites in countries round the world) - both terrorism and the violent response of the `war on terror' perpetuate and reinforce this belief.
The possibility remains then that, contrary to the belief of the editor of The Daily Telegraph, the people of Spain dealt a significant blow to terrorism when they ousted the Aznar government. By electing a government with less enthusiasm for a violent solution, it is conceivable that the future may be less violent.
Let us examine another election in another part of the world... In November 2001, The conservative coalition of the Liberal and National Parties, under Prime Minister John Howard, was re-elected as the government of Australia. Only two months earlier, on 10 September 2001, this outcome had seemed highly unlikely. The intervening months saw two important events that many commentators believe decisively changed the course of Australian politics.
The first event was a stand-off that developed from August 2001 between the Australian government and a Norwegian tanker, the Tampa, which had come to the rescue of a sinking boat, on board which some 400 asylum seekers had been making their way to Australia. The Australian government refused to allow the Tampa permission to land on Australian territory and the asylum seekers were eventually redirected to the island of Naura and to Papua New Guinea `pending the determination of their refugee status'.
The second event was the terrorist actions of 11 September 2001 in New York. The Australian government immediately endorsed the war on terror and became a vigorous participant in that campaign. This participation eventually led to Australian military involvement in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
John Howard called the election in October 2001 - in the immediate aftermath of both these events. The rhetoric of the government was fierce both with respect to the war on terror and to what they dubbed `illegal immigration'. In many respects their strategy with regard to both issues was aimed at creating fear in the electorate and impressing on the Australian people the need for the government to fight against both `illegal immigrants' and terror. Their strategy paid off and they were victorious at the polls.
While many commentators found the actions of the Australian government entirely cynical and opportunist there was no mention of `capitulation' to terror, nor any suggestion that somehow the terrorists had won out of this situation. Even those commentators who rejoiced in the victory of the Howard government would not necessarily have argued with the assertion that, were it not for the events of September 2001, albeit in concert with other factors, Australia may have a Labor government at this moment.
What is the difference between the Spanish and Australian situations? The most significant element in the different analysis of election results is that the Australian government is not seen to have `capitulated' because their reaction to terror was one of combat and retaliation. Certainly no one suggested that the Australian government had `appeased' the terrorists; how could they, when the government had reacted by joining the war on terror? In contrast, it was the losing party in the Spanish elections which had committed troops to the campaign in Iraq, and withdrawal from that position was seen as some kind of appeasement.
An examination of these facts leads one to various observations. Firstly let us note the possibility that commentators and media alike are simply generally in favour of the war on terror. If this is the general consensus amongst the editors of mainstream media then their criticisms are likely to be more frequently directed at any person or party who dissents from this view. Now this is undoubtedly true in some cases, where editorials have campaigned for a vigorous prosecution of the war on terror; in other cases it is less clear but is a question worthy of further study.
Secondly it is worth simply observing the phenomenon that significant world events routinely lead to the passing of governments, democratic and non-democratic alike. That the events of 11 September 2001 should have effects on governments in various parts of the world is hardly surprising. George Bush's popularity, for instance was directly and significantly affected by the events of that day. Furthermore, the fact that terrorist attacks receive such concentrated, even hysterical, attention in the mainstream media reinforces the principle that any terrorist attack is likely to have significant leverage on the politics of a country. In a way which, for example, poverty does not.
Thirdly, we should note an assumption which underpins analysis within the mainstream media of the terrorist phenomenon. Namely, that the `war on terror' is bad for terrorism. By which I mean that the `war on terror' is not what the terrorists want. The Howard government in Australia and the Aznar government in Spain have both been praised for refusing to give in to the terrorists' attack on democracy/ western society/ freedom. What isn't acknowledged however is that this is, potentially, precisely what the terrorists are campaigning for. There has been significant comment in the media suggesting that the war on Iraq will `create more terrorists' within the Arab world. In addition, the `war on terror' is popularizing the belief, in all parts of the world, that war and the military solution are the only way to achieve change in the modern world. This belief is certainly one held by the terrorists (and, one could argue, by many of the governing elites in countries round the world) - both terrorism and the violent response of the `war on terror' perpetuate and reinforce this belief.
The possibility remains then that, contrary to the belief of the editor of The Daily Telegraph, the people of Spain dealt a significant blow to terrorism when they ousted the Aznar government. By electing a government with less enthusiasm for a violent solution, it is conceivable that the future may be less violent.
e-mail: