Tensions and contradictions in political parties’ support for deliberation: the Las Palmeras case in Spain

Introduction

In recent decades, Spain has witnessed a significant rise in grassroots citizenship deliberative practices, reflecting a broader European trend toward more participatory forms of democracy (Font et al., 2014). These practices have been driven by a desire to enhance civic engagement, empower communities, and address local issues through collective decision-making. Key examples of these practices include participatory budgeting, where citizens are directly involved in deciding how municipal funds are allocated; citizen assemblies, which bring together residents to discuss and resolve community issues; and neighborhood councils, which serve as forums for local voices to influence policy development. These deliberative initiatives, often spearheaded by progressive political parties and grassroots movements like the 15-M Movement (Sampedro and Lobera, 2014), have become integral to the Spanish sociopolitical landscape (Janoschka and Mota, 2021).

In cities like Madrid and Barcelona, local governments have institutionalized these practices, integrating them into the fabric of urban governance (Blanco et al., 2014). These processes have been instrumental in addressing complex issues, from the preservation of cultural heritage to urban renewal in marginalized neighborhoods. The latter represents a shift toward more inclusive governance, where the voices of citizens, particularly those from historically underrepresented communities, are not always incorporated into the decision-making process (Gherghina et al., 2021).

This study analyses the factors that explain the positions of political parties toward deliberative practices in local contexts, taking as a case study the Las Palmeras neighborhood in Cordoba, Spain. It is embedded in the broader literature that examine the ways in which political parties use deliberation or support it rhetorically (Font and Rico Motos, 2023; Gherghina and Jacquet, 2023; Gherghina and Mitru, 2024). The study also builds on the recent accounts about deliberative practices in fragile contexts Curato and Calamba (2024). Through an approach of critical reflexivity (Finlay, 2002; Schön, 1983), we base our analysis on documents (reports, press, minutes) and interviews with four local leaders. Our aim is to understand how parties’ positions toward deliberative practices are relative to contextual elements and local political dynamics. It also examines how participatory deliberative processes in vulnerable neighborhoods can influence parties’ responses.

The Spanish party system and deliberation

Spain’s party system has experienced significant changes since its transition to democracy after the death of dictator Francisco Franco in 1975. The 1978 Constitution established a parliamentary monarchy and a multiparty system. However, it resulted in a political system dominated by two major parties: the Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party (PSOE) and the People’s Party (PP). More recently, this bipartisanship has been challenged by the rise of new parties like Podemos or Vox, (Rama et al., 2021), thus emerging coalition governments. Also, at the local level, autonomous communities and municipalities play a key role in governance, with grassroots deliberative processes shaped by national and regional party dynamics (Martín-Zamorano, 2017).

Regarding the approach to deliberation processes, the 1978 Constitution marked a significant step, as it was the product of intense deliberation among political elites. This process established a framework for democratic governance and set a precedent for consensus-building. However, during the 1980s and 1990s, deliberation was largely confined to parliamentary debates between the PSOE and the PP. In the 2000s, the rise of regional parties and demands for autonomy in regions like Catalonia and the Basque Country led to more polarized debates, often at the expense of consensus. The 2008 financial crisis and subsequent political fragmentation created new opportunities for deliberation, defining a turning point in Spanish politics. Dissatisfaction with the established parties gave rise to new movements such as Podemos and Ciudadanos (Orriols and Cordero, 2016). Podemos, born from the 15-M Movement, emphasized participatory democracy, while Ciudadanos pushed for institutional reforms to increase transparency and accountability (Lavezzolo and Ramiro, 2018).

Over the last decade, the fragmentation of the political landscape has consolidated into four main parties whose approaches to deliberation significantly diverge. PSOE favors deliberation to maintain political stability and promote progressive policies. Its commitment to these practices is related to the need to govern in fragmented contexts and to build consensus with key actors (Barberà and Rodríguez-Teruel, 2020). The PP has historically favored a hierarchical approach. Recently, it has resorted deliberation due to electoral competition and the need to form coalitions, seeking to present itself as a viable alternative to the PSOE government (Verge Mestre, 2007). Unidas Podemos, a coalition that includes Podemos and Izquierda Unida (IU), is one of the most committed parties to participatory democracy in Spain. With roots in grassroots activism, it promotes citizen participation through digital platforms and assemblies (Sampedro and Lobera, 2014). Vox, a far-right nationalist party, rejects traditional deliberative practices, prioritizing confrontation and appealing directly to voters’ sentiments. Its ideological rigidity on issues such as immigration and feminism undermines constructive dialogue (Rama et al., 2021).

Parties’ divergent approaches to deliberation influence how they interact with local initiatives. However, they must adapt their deliberative principles to local needs, which calls for further academic study of these practices (Blanco et al., 2018).

Political parties and deliberative practices in the neighborhood of Las Palmeras

Las Palmeras, a deprived neighborhood in Córdoba, Spain, has been struggling with poverty and social exclusion since its inception. In recent years, neighbors have self-organized to develop the so-called “Plan Integral de las Palmeras” (PIP). Launched by the “Asociación de Vecinos Unión Y Esperanza las Palmeras” (AVUYEP), it seeks to address socio-economic problems by involving residents in identifying the neighborhood’s needs. The PIP has facilitated decision-making for urban and social interventions through workshops, assemblies, and meetings with local associations, ensuring community input. Our analysis of the PIP case spans a decade, from 2015, when social consultation began, to 2025. To understand the involvement of each political party with the PIP, the decade is segmented into four distinct periods, reflecting changes in their governance and impact (Delgado-Baena and Sianes, 2024).

2015–2018: origins of the PIP

This period starts in 2015, when the neighborhood association AVUYEP began the participatory process. During this period there was not a formal deliberative space in the neighborhood. Instead, the AVUYEP managed door-to-door interviews and neighborhood meetings, applying deliberative mechanisms like discussion tables in squares. The period finishes in 2018 when all these efforts culminated with the City Council’s unanimous approval of the PIP.

Regarding the behavior of political parties, the PSOE was the ruling party in Córdoba throughout the period. Generally, the PSOE acknowledges the importance of addressing social inequalities and improving conditions in marginalized neighborhoods like Las Palmeras. However, their knowledge of this specific grassroots initiative was limited and inconsistent. Historically, the PSOE’s focus during the 1980s and 1990s was on the labor movement, leading to a concentration on working-class neighborhoods and rural towns, resulting in a lower presence in the most disadvantaged urban areas, particularly in Andalusia (Barberà and Rodríguez-Teruel, 2020; Harguindéguy and Cole, 2017). In Córdoba, the coalition with IU, which played a crucial role in fostering the city’s associative network, influenced the PSOE’s approach to Las Palmeras. IU centered its involvement in the PIP on ensuring that the voices of the most vulnerable were heard. The PSOE, aiming to appeal to IU-aligned citizens, saw the PIP as an opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to participatory governance in the city. Consequently, the PIP was presented to the City Council to be endorsed as a public policy.

2018–2020: rise and fall of the PIP as a public policy

This period spans from the approval of the PIP in January 2018 and extends until mid-2020. It is characterized by two main factors: a shift in political direction following the municipal elections in May 2019, which transitioned the government from a left-wing to a right-wing coalition, and the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, which restricted face-to-face participation and public gatherings (Osorio, 2020).

In relation to the conduct of political parties, although the PIP was unanimously approved by all parties in the City Council, the PSOE took control of the initiative, even sidelining the Neighborhood Association AVUYEP. The Council established a strong bureaucratic framework for the PIP’s development, including a political forum (chaired by the PSOE) and five roundtables with relevant city stakeholders. However, in the 15 months between the PIP’s approval and the local elections in May 2019, only two of these roundtables had been convened. Before the elections, the PSOE integrated all citizen proposals from the PIP into another existing policy, the ERACIS, but did so without further consultation and without ensuring any space for deliberation and participation (Delgado-Baena and Sianes, 2024). The change in government after the elections, followed shortly by the pandemic, further delayed the PIP’s implementation, negatively affecting its participatory nature. Meanwhile, AVUYEP and Loyola University conducted a participatory socioeconomic diagnosis of Las Palmeras, continuing their efforts in the background. However, the social process had already lost momentum and citizen support.

2020–2022: outsourcing of the PIP from the political arena

This period spans 2 years, from Autumn 2020 to Summer 2022. It begins with the lifting of most restrictions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic and concludes due to internal reasons, as AVUYEP, the promoters of the PIP, make a strategic decision regarding their relationship with political authorities.

During this period, the ruling party was the PP, in coalition with Ciudadanos, which progressively lost influence within the City Council. As the effects of the pandemic subsided, AVUYEP pushed for renewed political commitment from the PP. In Córdoba, the PP has been less engaged in promoting participatory processes compared to left-wing parties. This limited engagement stems from the PP’s political ideology, which prioritizes centralized decision-making. However, the PP occasionally supplements its top-down approach with expert involvement in community processes. In Las Palmeras, the City Council outsourced community action through two major projects: the EU-funded Horizon 2020 “In-Habit,” led by the University of Córdoba, and a Memorandum of Understanding with Loyola University to address vulnerable neighborhoods. Although neighborhood movements were included, the City Council shifted focus to these externally financed initiatives, reducing the direct influence of local entities. AVUYEP remained a relevant partner but with diminished influence. The PSOE and IU, which initially supported the PIP, rejected these major projects without offering significant alternatives. Consequently, the PIP, as a grassroots initiative, became diluted (Delgado-Baena and Sianes, 2024).

2022–2025: Back to basics

Despite the City Council’s efforts to outsource interventions, neighborhood protests revived the PIP, emphasizing civic participation. Since March 2022, AVUYEP, supported by technical guidance from Loyola University, has initiated a renewed deliberative space in Las Palmeras: the “Driving Team.” This team operates as a formalized group comprising 20–30 individuals. It convenes monthly to deliberate on the neighborhood’s circumstances and strategize collective action. The team is organized into working groups to advance specific proposals included in the PIP, such as a community kitchen and urban gardens.

In this period, the relation with political parties declined, as the behavior of political parties became more erratic. To try to reconnect with the political representatives, in May 2023, 2 weeks before the city elections, the Team held and conducted a neighborhood discussion with political candidates in the parochial halls of the neighborhood, a first-time in history. The PIP gained some momentum, but after the elections the PP won an absolute majority, and the formal political support to the PIP mostly halted. Today, the work of the Driving Team continues, focusing on community activities like recovering the history of the neighborhood or training local youth.

Conclusion

This study provides a nuanced understanding of how numerous factors influence the positions of political parties on citizen participation and deliberative democracy. While ideological leanings are a significant determinant, the analysis reveals that local factors and specific contextual elements play a crucial role in shaping these positions. Regarding the balance between national and local factors, it is evident that the ideological foundations of political parties significantly shape their stance on deliberation in local contexts. However, this influence is not uniform; local factors, including historical precedents and the socio-political environment, can either reinforce or counteract these ideological tendencies. In cities with a strong tradition of participatory governance, like Cordoba, even parties typically less inclined to support such processes may adopt more favorable positions.

The study also highlights the relevance of path dependence in parties’ support, where the historicity of a given participation process within a city creates a momentum that biases political parties toward maintaining or increasing their support. This established trajectory of participation becomes a normative expectation, making it difficult for any party to openly oppose such processes without facing significant backlash.

Another critical finding is the impact of coalition governments on parties’ support for deliberative practices. When in coalition, parties are more likely to endorse deliberative processes as a means of fostering consensus and managing the complexities of shared governance. Coalitions necessitate negotiation and compromise, making deliberative democracy a valuable tool for achieving stability and cooperation among diverse political actors.

The study also confirms the election cycle dependency. The timing of elections plays a crucial role in determining the level of support for citizen participation. As elections approach, parties across the political spectrum tend to increase their support for participatory and deliberative processes, often driven by the desire to engage voters and present a more democratic image, to maximize electoral gains.

Finally, the role of citizens in shaping party positions cannot be underestimated. Active citizen engagement and demand for participation can reignite or reinforce a party’s commitment to these processes. The responsiveness of parties to citizen expectations is a testament to the power of public opinion in a democratic society, where grassroots movements and civic activism can effectively influence political agendas.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

Edited by: Bill Gelfeld, Tecnologico de Monterrey, Mexico

Reviewed by: Manuel Rieiro-García, University of Santiago de Compostela, Spain