The Order of Proscribed Legitimacy was created on April 16, 1923 by the Carlist claimant Jaime de Borbón, to distinguish all those who “because of their sufferings or services” to the “legitimate” (Carlist) dynastic branch became worthy of she. The cross of the order was awarded to numerous Carlists, including Ramón MarÃa del Valle-Inclán. This order later split into two branches, and its subsequent destiny was to fade away.
In view of this, perhaps the name could be used again, modifying it as Order of Full Legitimacy, to reward for their services (without the need for suffering) all those faithful to strict governmental observance, who interpret the legitimacy of origin as a sanctifying sacrament of all the subsequent political action of a legitimate government, whatever it does. A faith like this well deserves a medal.
I explain. I take for granted the concepts of legitimacy of origin and legitimacy of exercise. I only remember that the legitimacy of origin derives from free elections, while the legitimacy of exercise derives from the exercise of power with respect to the rule of law and the conduct guidelines of a democratic government.
Having said this, can it be understood that this legitimacy of origin automatically entails the legitimacy of exercise, abstraction made from what a legitimate government does?, can a full democracy accept that the legitimate government acts entirely at will?, or also Article 9.1 of the Constitution is applicable to the government, which provides that “citizens and public powers are subject to the Constitution and the rest of the legal system.”
The answer to these questions is obvious. There is no democracy that can accept that a government with legitimacy of origin has a letter of marque to do whatever it wants, interpreting the law and using the institutions as it pleases. There is a legal order expressed in laws and embodied in institutions that we must all respect, both governments legitimized by the popular will and ordinary people. Otherwise, a legitimate government would be, more than such, an anointed government, thus recovering the spirit of the old regime.
But, in addition, there is a question that causes today, among the Spanish, the greatest perplexity. It seems as if the current Government should be exempt, due to its undoubted legitimacy of origin, from any criticism coming from citizens or private institutions (the public ones are already silenced or in the process of being so). This is how all those who come up against any criticism of the executive consider it, exclaiming astonished by the audacity and with a mixture of surprise and indignation: “It is a legitimate government.” And it is, indeed. I repeat it so that there is no doubt or any mental reservation: the Government presided over by Mr. Pedro Sánchez Pérez-Castejón is a legitimate Government from before the birth, during the birth and after the birth.
But this does not imply that it enjoys, in the opinion of a large part of the citizens, legitimacy of exercise in the aforementioned terms. Think of the unbridled number of decree laws, legal reforms to the letter and for their own benefit, the occupation of institutions, pro domo sua appointments and the treatment of the opposition as an enemy. All of this without forgetting the essential: the repeated concessions to populists and pro-independence supporters, who seek the erosion of what they contemptuously call the ’78 regime and aspire to a new order.
It is logical that, even acknowledging the success achieved by the Government in social and foreign policy, there are citizens fearful that another legislature, with an executive backed by an alliance similar to the current one, poses a serious risk to Spain as a living historical reality and as a political entity. All this thanks to a legitimate Government, which should grant its most staunch defenders the great cross of the Order of Full Legitimacy. They deserve it. They do not stitch without thread.