The coronavirus and two very different political blocs (left/right) starred yesterday in the debate of the candidates for the Presidency of the Community of Madrid. The debate focused strictly on the political situation in the Community, with hardly any reference to the national political situation. The recent fate of two of the candidates (Iglesias and Bal) or the possible extrapolation of the interventions as a lever by Isabel Díaz Ayuso to the national level could have placed the debate incorrectly in other coordinates. The electoral debate was not raised to the level of what could be the pilot project for the next general elections, and at this point it was a wise approach on the part of all the participants.
The division into the two predictable right-wing and left-wing blocs was very present throughout the speeches, generating a debate in which the left-wing bloc focused, as was to be expected, on attacking Isabel Díaz Ayuso, given that she is the President of the Community of Madrid and the top favourite in all the polls. In fact, in all the candidates of the left-wing bloc, criticism prevailed over the presentation of proposals, on the basis that greater electoral profit could be obtained from the dialectic of confrontation as opposed to the rhetoric of proposals, especially at a time when politics is being played out on highly emotional and even sociologically morbid margins.
Ayuso, the night's big winner
The incumbent president emerged unscathed from a debate aimed entirely at questioning her administration so far. In itself, in a debate of this format, if the favourite candidate comes out unscathed, it is a guaranteed success. And so it was. Moreover, Ayuso avoided victimisation and, on the contrary, stood up to the candidates by reacting and going dialectically on the attack in each of the fights she had with them.
The concentration of the attack on the figure of the favourite candidate meant that the VOX candidate, Rocío Monasterio, had an open field to express her opinions and engage in verbal confrontations with other political contenders, with the exception of Ayuso. Monasterio rightly understood that she could not be her direct rival in the debate. He placed special emphasis on security as an element of reference in the search for the electorate, mainly in the south of Madrid. In that sense, Monasterio's speech focused on issues that arouse the sensibilities of a good part of his electorate (mines, gender, public spending) even though he sometimes shows very simplistic ideas regarding complex problems. Nonetheless, Monasterio was able to focus on those issues that are important in determining the position of his potential voters.
Más Madrid shines in opposition to the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party (PSOE)
Another aspect of yesterday's debate was that it was not a suitable format for a candidate like Ángel Gabilondo, who is used to other political practices and more relaxed styles of debate. The socialist candidate's discomfort in the debate was all too visible. Even from an aesthetic point of view (older candidate with a tired look, only candidate with a tie), the difference caused by the generation gap and the agility shown by other candidates in a debate that is not prepared for their political forms was notorious. Otherwise, Gabilondo came to represent a way of doing and expressing politics very different from the way political debate now takes place in Spain.
For its part, the left-wing bloc was surprised by Mónica García's speech. Her knowledge of Madrid's political reality, her dynamic and shock dialectic with a direct speech, with certain impostures in any case, was a surprise, especially in view of the weak staging of the rest of the candidates of the left-wing bloc.
The losers of the night
The de-escalation of Iglesias and Bal from national politics to regional politics and how they fit in was one of the most anticipated aspects of the evening. In the end, the result was not positive for either of them, showing their weaknesses as newcomers, a factor that the other parties took advantage of to demonstrate their better approach and knowledge of Madrid's regional politics.
Iglesias's position was particularly paradoxical, given that he had had political responsibilities in some of the public policies that were being analysed during the pandemic (housing, dependency, social rights). His complex position led him to have to defend himself or even to disown the functions he had been attributed. Particularly disappointing was his final minute closing the debate, which he squandered with an incomprehensibly superficial speech.
Bal was another of the night's losers. It was very clear that he never found his place, even with certain over-acting. Ciudadanos' own current position of weakness led him to talk insistently about himself and his professional career as a state lawyer, a very obvious symptom of weakness as a party. His final minute was an autobiography of his life as a civil servant, a textbook mistake for a political candidate.