Empire Rising: Spain

During the 16 years of Carlo’s reign, the Spanish Parliament made several amendments to the constitution, clarifying the powers of the monarchy, the premiership, and the Upper and Lower Houses, thereby maintaining Spain’s political stability over the long term.

After the regions were reorganized into states, the Spanish Parliament also discussed the power division of the new administrative divisions, as well as the election processes and related legislation for each state government.

After returning to Madrid, Carlo attended some parliamentary sessions and roughly understood some members’ thoughts on the power changes regarding the new state governments and state parliaments.

Naturally, there is no need to elaborate on the state governments; all members, including the governor, must highly comply with the orders of the Cabinet Government.

Regarding the state parliaments, there have been no changes to the original method where each state elects parliamentary representatives, and the state parliament elects members of the Lower House.

However, due to the reduction in the number of administrative divisions in Spain, the seats in the Lower House that each state can elect have been adjusted to some extent.

This adjustment is not critical; it merely allows certain states to elect more Lower House representatives.

The truly critical change is the second item, which concerns the reform proposals for the state government election processes.

Under the original Spanish constitution, the regional governor was elected by the regional parliament, and it was difficult for the Cabinet Government and the Lower House to intervene.

Although the Cabinet Government and the Lower House also had supervisory power over the regional governments and governors, they found it difficult to dismiss governors as long as they did not violate regional laws.

After regions were transformed into states, this situation has been significantly alleviated.

The Spanish Cabinet Government has the authority to directly dismiss governors, which is the most direct and effective method to strengthen control over the states.

Compared to the Cabinet Government’s direct dismissal power, the reform proposals put forth by the parliament members primarily focus on the election of governors.

Previously, elections were conducted by the regional parliament directly from among the members, which inevitably allowed some politicians with brief careers to leap to high-ranking positions like governors.

The proposal currently being voted on by parliament addresses this issue. It does not alter the process where the state parliament elects the governor, but modifies the eligibility conditions for state parliamentary members to run for governor to a system of recommended elections.

What does this mean? Only those who are recommended are eligible to run for governor; other individuals, whether state parliamentary members or Lower House members, do not qualify to run for this position.

How can one be recommended? Or, which institutions have the power to recommend candidates?

According to the parliamentary proposal, only two institutions have the power to recommend candidates: the Upper and Lower Houses.

Aside from the governor candidates recommended by the Upper and Lower Houses, governors whose terms have ended will automatically gain recommendation eligibility.

Of course, if a sitting governor has performed poorly during their term, they may have their recommendation eligibility revoked by parliament, and a governor with revoked recommendation eligibility cannot run again.

The specific content of this proposal ensures that during state governor elections, both the Upper and Lower Houses each recommend a governor candidate, with the addition of the existing governor making a total of three candidates to participate in the governor election.

Each state parliament votes to elect a new governor from the three candidates, with the one receiving the most votes winning and automatically attaining the governorship for a five-year term.

Why are the governor candidates recommended by the Upper and Lower Houses? This proposal provides an explanation.

The Lower House contains members from each state, naturally making them well-acquainted with the situations in different states, which is why the Lower House has the power to recommend.

The Upper House includes performance assessment departments, having clear knowledge of which officials perform well and which do poorly.

Having both Houses jointly recommend governor candidates for the states is relatively reasonable, as all recommendations go through a certain level of appraisal and review, eliminating concerns that individuals not proficient in administration might ascend to high positions like governors due to various unforeseen events.