Identity and equality, social cohesion and territorial cohesion, common and own culture and languages, spaces of understanding and coexistence… The political transition towards democracy after four decades of Franco’s rule was not only a complex change of regime, but also involved the construction of a An unprecedented autonomous state in which the heir government of the regime did not want to take false steps.
Relying on the Center for Sociological Research, the Executive still chaired by Carlos Arias Navarro commissioned a demographic study on what he called “regionalism” that began in June 1976, although the surveys – on a universe of 6,340 people of different sex , age, socio-labor status and residence – were not carried out until the months of July and August, with Adolfo Suárez already in the presidency after the resignation of his predecessor. In principle it was the first in a series that had no continuation.
Before the articulation of the State of Autonomies and the emergence of nationalist and regionalist forces in the Spanish political panorama, the study revealed the regionalist consciousness of Spanish society and its recognition and respect for differences, although at the level of social equality and territorial cohesion, a new model of State caused many suspicions.
When asked what they considered to be the problems facing Spanish society at that time, in a question with multiple answers, only 5% considered the feeling of identity as a priority, far behind problems referred to as prices (36% ), political uncertainty (34%), unemployment (32%), economic development (32%), agriculture (22%) or social inequality (15%).
However, although 67% of those surveyed did not hesitate to answer that they would consider themselves Spanish outside of Spain, a significant 22% indicated that even abroad they felt more native to their region than Spanish. Respect and the need for their recognition and adoption in the school and academic environment also took precedence over “regional” languages. The speakers of these languages ??surveyed revealed an environment of linguistic diglossia, although the degree of knowledge and use of Catalan, Galician and Basque was notable.
Respondents who recognized themselves as Galician speakers indicated that they had learned it mostly in their family environment (61%), although between 34% and 35% highlighted the influence of their learning on their social environment. Basque speakers increased the influence of the family environment to 74%, with 23% learning in the circle of friends or on the street, while only 56% of Catalan speakers acknowledged having learned the language in the family environment, while that for between 20% and 28% the social and friendship and work environment had exerted a decisive influence. The survey segregated Valencian and Mallorcan, and its speakers still downplayed family influence on their learning, valuing social and work factors more.
Regarding the use of these languages, family environments were strongly linked to social and work environments, which in the case of Catalan amounted to 68%. Reading habits in these languages, on the other hand, were around 40%, reading books in Galician from time to time and newspapers at 10%, and around 21% reading books in Basque also from time to time. and 16% of newspapers, and 33% of books and 30% of newspapers in Catalan, also with some regularity, percentages that decreased in those who recognized speakers of Valencian and Mallorcan.
A large majority of the universe of respondents agreed with the right for the regions that had them to use their own languages ??in the media (72% in press and radio and 61% in television) and to teach in schools (78%). Regarding its use as a vehicular language in primary education, 58% also agreed. Regarding officiality, the co-official nature of Spanish and “regional language” was liked by 58%.
Regarding identity, the feeling of one’s own personality was recognized by 47% of those surveyed as a distinctive sign of the Spanish regions, although 42% highlighted it as a difference in climate. A resounding 72% responded that they defended their region if it came up in family conversations. Regarding the level of regionalism, 61% of those interviewed recognized themselves as regionalists of different types.
In fact, 89% declared themselves satisfied or very satisfied with their region of residence and only 14% considered a change of scenery in the short term probable or very probable. Regarding this regionalist feeling, 32% considered it as a defense of identity and 28% as emotional, while only 5% understood it as separatism and just 7% as autonomism.
In defense of regionalism, 62% supported participation in a peaceful demonstration and 45% supported joining a regional political party – the survey did not use the term regionalist here – although the vast majority openly rejected any type of actions. violent or subversive.
Another issue with a very different perception was territorial inequality in a society still focused on migration in some regions. In this regard, 56% of those surveyed responded that the State’s economic policy favored a few rich regions and greatly neglected the poor ones. Another 24% considered this to be “partly” true. The rejection of the existence of this inequality promoted by the central government was limited to 16%.
Likewise, a resounding 70% agreed with the statement that both the State and private companies affected this inequality by investing exclusively in the “richest and most developed” regions, while another 19% considered this to be true “in part”. And only 7% considered that this was not the case.
Regarding the causes of this inequality, it was not considered that it was the result of a discriminatory State policy, and those surveyed mainly attributed it to the fact that these regions, where the majority of the migrating population from less favored areas went, presented advantages of natural wealth or geographical location or had begun to industrialize before others.
The possibility of opening up an autonomous political panorama in which these “rich” regions would have their own government and the capacity to manage their own economic policy was seen, also by a clearly majority, with suspicion, if not fear. In fact, 60% of those interviewed considered that this would further increase inequality and 55% stated without hesitation that it would “destroy the unity of Spain.”
This did not prevent the majority of the population sample under study from considering that services such as health, education, security, housing or taxation would be better managed and would work better if they were managed by the regions (61%). .