Recent analysis suggests that deeply ingrained societal biases, rather than rational deliberation, are a primary driver of political outcomes in Spain.A new report from the Rafael del Pino Foundation, based on the work of Pompeu Fabra University professor Benito Arruñada, challenges conventional democratic theory and raises questions about voter behavior amidst rising populism both domestically and abroad. The study argues that Spain’s policy choices reflect the desires of its citizens,even if those desires ultimately prove detrimental-a dynamic exacerbated by a cultural preference for short-term gains and resistance too systemic change.
(…) when we approach the polls, we don’t usually choose with our heads. (…), our vote comes from our guts, from our inherited prejudices.
Spain’s political landscape is often shaped less by rational decision-making and more by deeply ingrained biases, according to recent analysis. This observation challenges the fundamental premise of democracy – that citizens carefully evaluate policies and choose what is best for the collective good. As political systems worldwide grapple with issues of populism and voter behavior, understanding the underlying motivations behind electoral choices is increasingly crucial.
The idea that voters are rational actors, weighing options and selecting the most beneficial path, is a cornerstone of democratic theory. However, the reality suggests a different story. When faced with a ballot, individuals often rely on instinct and inherited prejudices rather than careful consideration. This tendency stems from a desire to avoid complex thought and confront deeply held beliefs that are central to personal identity. The cost of becoming fully informed on political issues also often outweighs the perceived benefit of a single vote, leading many to vote without a comprehensive understanding of the issues.
According to Benito Arruñada, a Professor of Business Organization at Pompeu Fabra University, current policies in Spain aren’t accidental; they are a direct reflection of what citizens want. He argues that democracy functions precisely because it expresses popular desire. The problem, however, is that it delivers the results people have asked for, even if they later regret them – a sentiment echoed in the Chinese proverb: “Be careful what you wish for, as you might get it.”
Data reveals a key difference between Spanish voters and their counterparts in Northern Europe. In Sweden, a country renowned for its welfare state, citizens largely believe their well-being is self-determined. In Spain, however, there’s a prevailing expectation that the state should provide for their needs. This mindset, Arruñada suggests, aligns Spain more closely with countries like Morocco or Mexico than with nations like Germany or Finland, which are often cited as models for economic and social progress.
Adding to this is a strong preference for short-term gains over long-term sustainability. Spain has operated with a budget deficit for two centuries, leading to a continually growing public debt. This is because citizens prioritize present consumption, even if it means mortgaging the future. Consequently, serious pension reforms are rarely proposed, as voters are unwilling to accept present sacrifices for future stability – a tendency likened to wanting to eat the candy now.
A further challenge is a resistance to competition. The tax system illustrates this point: very low incomes are heavily taxed, while property taxes remain low, and transfer taxes penalize those who strive to improve their situation. Spaniards, it seems, are more concerned with the success of their neighbors than with the achievements of entrepreneurs like Amancio Ortega. This may be linked to the widely held belief that envy is a national characteristic. This aversion to competition is also reflected in the education system, which prioritizes equal outcomes over excellence and discourages individual effort.
Nobody wants to stand out unless it’s in terms of identity, which has become a consumer item.
The country’s autonomous communities also demonstrate this paradox. The autonomous system has been costly, justified by the promise of tailored solutions to diverse problems. However, when one community implements a different approach, it often sparks controversy. There’s a reluctance to compete or differentiate, except in terms of identity, which has become a commodity. The desire is to be distinct without actually doing anything different.
Why is change so difficult? Because acquiring information doesn’t pay. The benefits of understanding complex policies are shared among millions, while the cost of learning them falls on the individual. As a result, it’s rational to remain ignorant, and the political system understands this, often working to obscure the true costs of policies.
We don’t want the best; we want leaders who are one of us, as if we were all members of the same tribe, the one that must prevail over the others.
Ultimately, politicians are often blamed for the country’s problems, but they are also a reflection of the electorate. The Spanish political class, in this view, is a modern-day Dorian Gray, mirroring the flaws of society. Statistical trends suggest that voters prioritize emotional connection over competence when choosing leaders, resulting in a tendency to elect mediocre individuals. There’s a preference for leaders who are “one of us,” rather than the most qualified, as if everyone belongs to a tribe vying for dominance. A preference for ineffective leaders is often favored over enlightened ones.
Attempts at enlightened despotism have also failed. Liberalizations of rent and commerce in the 1980s were efficient but violated the electorate’s cultural restrictions and were quickly reversed. However, reforms that erode institutions, such as political control over the judiciary and the degradation of education, remain intact because they align with prevailing desires.
Is there hope for change? Perhaps. Polarization can sometimes break down the consensus that perpetuates stagnation. In the United Kingdom, Margaret Thatcher reformed education without consensus, and Tony Blair later chose to maintain those reforms, recognizing their effectiveness. In Spain, however, the right’s educational reforms were quickly dismantled, prioritizing other interests.
It’s time to remove the blinders and ask a fundamental question: Is what we have truly what we want? In a sense, yes. We vote and receive the results we deserve. Democracy functions, but the illusion lies in believing that the ballot box delivers prosperity, when it merely reflects existing preferences. True prosperity is built on savings, effort, and acceptance of competition – qualities that are currently lacking. As Arruñada concludes, the blame doesn’t lie with the elites or the system; it lies with us.
Well-being is built on savings, effort, and acceptance of competition.
