Political science accurately describes the term “filibuster”. Spanish politicians often use it, although almost never in its original meaning. Filibusters were pirates of the Caribbean Sea who attacked coastal cities, but at some point in the 19th century, … XIX, the word came to designate a very specific tactic of parliamentary obstructionism.
This adjective was used to describe American congressmen who made very long speeches to prevent or delay the approval of a law. Since they had no time limit, they would sometimes read a novel while speaking and no one would stop them until they were out of breath or the session was adjourned. The happiest representation of a noble act of filibustering was given to us by Frank Capra in the film ‘Mr. Smith Goes to Washington’: that memorable James Stewart speaking in Congress for hours and hours, at the point of exhaustion!
In the Parliament of La Rioja there are no filibusters – the rules forbid it – but there are tiresome people. We don’t know if this word, preferably pronounced with a triple N (cannnso), will end up in political science textbooks, but it deserves at least a footnote: it is said of a deputy (male or female) who, instead of getting to the point, uses up all his available time saying nonsense with great emphasis and pomp. There are those who, when asked how many youth camps had been organized this year, have spent three minutes making eclogues about the benefits of the sun, youth camaraderie and outdoor exercise.
The emphatic support of your honorable Members may be annoying and turns the plenary sessions into a bore as you laugh at the flat stages of the Tour, but it is not completely undemocratic. This sad, third division filibustering fails to obstruct anything. These are the hairs that fall into the shower and go down the drain without causing plumbing damage.
Standard political science pays less attention to a very common phenomenon, at least in Spain. It is the habit of governments – there is no room to distinguish between colors – of sneaking in issues that would deserve in-depth and monographic debates. This is the case of the ‘omnibus laws’: catch-alls without normative coherence or logical development, through which they modify the Law of the Game and turn UNIR into a face-to-face university.
The funny thing is that all legislators think this is very bad, except when their party is in power. Then they become necessary, impeccable mechanisms, with a Nico Williams-like agility. The Parliament of La Rioja approved such a law last Thursday, after nine hours of plenary session. It was a patchwork law, made from scraps, to modify fifteen current rules and repeal some others. If we listen to the PP, they were minor things, simple adjustments, a few injections of legislative botox. Among these trifles was not only the UNIR, but also the change in the codes of conduct in schools or the possibility of the Executive extending the teaching hours of the Religion class. And that’s just to mention the educational sections. Wouldn’t they have deserved more debate, some calm, interventions by experts, a headline for each thing? It gives the impression that this was precisely what was wanted to be avoided.
The socialist spokesperson, Javier García, said resounding and very well-argued words: “We have the feeling that we are experiencing a certain legislative and parliamentary outrage,” he rightly claimed. The shame is that minutes later he would not have called Ferraz to disgrace Sánchez for having sneakily slipped into the anti-crisis measures decree the elimination of an article from the Criminal Procedure Law that was especially annoying for Puigdemont. In the same way, the popular Cristina Maiso, who defended the Rioja ‘omnibus law’ as a prodigy of “surgical” precision, should have telephoned her colleague from the La Mancha PP, who, as Ángel Alda (Vox) recalled, in March had put to give birth to García Page for doing the same thing that Capellán has done here.
We therefore come to the conclusion that ‘omnibus laws’ are only bad if they are made by the other side, just as for the fanatic there are only penalties in the opponent’s area. If we apply the VAR, however, we will probably discover that this is a constitutional legislative technique, yes, but it is deceitful, crooked and very weak. Perhaps there are no filibusters here, but there are plenty of raiders, a very singular endemic species that would also deserve a chapter in political science textbooks.
