In Spain, the dead are more alive than the dead of any other country in the world.

(Federico García Lorca)

Dead men tell no tales

Francisco Franco, dictator of Spain for 36 years, died exactly 50 years ago. For political purposes, however, he is more alive than ever.

Today and this entire year, there have been celebrations supported by the sitting government. Prime Minister Sánchez, leader of a coalition consisting of his PSOE, a mainstream European progressive party, along with new left parties as well as Basque and Catalan sovereigntists, has created an initiative called “Spain in freedom”. It is essentially a year-long agenda of commemorations, panels, and speeches celebrating concepts such as “democratic memory” and “historic memory”.

What an analyst of political communication might observe here is an effort to control the narrative. The Spanish government has made the best of this date to squeeze out all of the political capital. In resuscitating Franco, the ruling coalition caters to their voter base and solidifies its position until 2026. That year, the countdown to the next general election begins, and communications can be taken up a notch.

Ever since coming into power, Prime Minister Sánchez has made Franco a talking point again in Spanish politics. This Francostein, if you will, creates a binary view of political discourse consisting of Francoist and anti-Francoist. By seeing Franco everywhere, the political arena can be divided not into the ruling coalition and the opposition but into something deeper and more polarizing.

Deep as in reopening wounds that were thought healed, and polarizing as in creating an us vs. them dichotomy. Such a strategy makes any talking point of the opposition subject to the most baseless claims.

The opposition is against EU refugee quotas? Francoism. The opposition wants market solutions to the housing crisis? Francoism. The opposition warns of stagnant salaries? Puro y duro Francoism. That random blackout back in February? Franco probably switched the power off.

Instead of letting sleeping dogs lie (I mean Franco’s coffin was literally exhumed a few years ago, no kidding), we have seen a scheme of electioneering that, as long as there are history books, will continue to be used.

Intended outcome

The strategy consists of attributing anything an opposing leader, party, or movement does to a figure that has fallen out of the mainstream. By creating a negative association, the opponents are disregarded and effectively locked out of political discourse. It is often used in political communication as part of a smear campaign where opponents are directly attacked to rally voters and flip the undecided.

Latinamerically speaking, there are recent examples like the Chilean left accusing José Antonio Kast of being a Pinochetista. I mean, his brother did work for the regime. In the last Peruvian elections, the left attacked Keiko for approving of the repression of the Fujimori years. I mean, she is the daughter of Fujimori. On the right, we have the Venezuelan opposition accusing anyone who cedes even an inch of being a chavista. In Colombia, we have the uribistas accusing any dissenter of being a santista traitor. In Argentina, there are like three different brands of peronistas.

Enough of istas; practically no one outside of Latin America cares, but it is my duty to inform you. How about a daily example rooted in psychology, where electoral strategies stem from? Have you ever done or not done something because you associate it with negative memories? Boycotted a restaurant or dish because it reminds you of someone you no longer like? Stopped watching a show or movie because your ex loved it? Psychologists call that trauma avoidance.

That is the exact intended effect of the Frankenstein strategy. How about you don't vote for that guy because he reminds you of that dead guy? It is the same thing, but elevated into the political sphere. By breathing life into a polarizing, dead figure, politicians and the media essentially play with trauma. Lovely.

Repercussions

Of course, an electoral victory is the intended direct result of an effective "Frankenstein" strategy. By analyzing it from a sociological standpoint, some unintended consequences become evident.

Namely, the “Overton Window” becomes narrower. The “window” is a concept that outlines which talking points and policies are deemed acceptable or unacceptable within the political spectrum. It also includes the gray areas like “sensible” and “radical”. Going back to the binary view, negative associations limit political expression and leave voters out of the political spectrum. In turn, some voters will feel unrepresented.

The quickest way to make a stance become unacceptable is by linking it to someone polarizing. If this someone is dead, it becomes even easier because no first-hand reprisal is expected. Whoever dares hold an opposing view is automatically considered an unacceptable militant and a political enemy instead of just a fellow citizen and civic democrat exercising their right to an opinion.

Another drawback that pains the heart of the amateur historian even more is the twisting of history. Absolutes do not exist in history. The past is neither good nor bad; it just is. Societies learn from it and adapt accordingly. Media literacy teaches us that history can easily be made biased. Anytime a Frankenstein strategy is propped up, a huge effort is made to twist facts and stretch out truths. Objectivity goes out the window to meet short-term electoral goals. The popular catchphrase of facts and feelings is inverted into feelings don't care about your facts.

As an extra, and you should all be aware of this, an equally significant effort in public funds (i.e., your tax money) goes along with it. Suddenly, the Ministry of Culture gets a huge budget. Statues are built, books are published, and events are hosted to talk about a dead figure whose views either coincidentally match or scarily contrast the party in power. To think my parents considered my communications degree a waste of money.

Weighing out turning the page

The problem in politics is that dead cast long-lasting shadows, and the Frankenstein strategy comes in very handy. Distancing oneself from a negative association while under public scrutiny is no easy task. Some of these associations are so abominable that even a false accusation is enough to tarnish a résumé.

Following WWII, German and Austrian public officials, intellectuals, and any kind of leaders with social standing underwent a denazification process. Realistically, it is very hard to source the human capital for state-building that meets all the clean requisites. Can you imagine what rebuilding Cuba will be like after a 65+ year regime? Or even Venezuela? Where will economists, accountants, researchers, etc., with public sector experience but no ties to the regime come from? Difficult but doable. How about judges or bureaucrats? Nearly impossible. Staffing the army, navy, or intelligence services? Nearly, if not literally impossible.

Once a Frankenstein is raised, with real or false accusations, people realize their leaders have more than just their income to hide, but also their convictions. While in politics, there are no magical solutions, we can begin to understand why the Genie in Aladdin forbids bringing the dead back to life.