Who is King Juan Carlos?

[Prince Cobra]

I believe Franco was not a fool and realised that the dictatorship has no future. It started eroding even at the time when Franco was alive becuase it was clear that Spain can no longer be isolated by the democratic world after 1945 (Franco's regime was authoritatian and never pushed into a totalitarian one; partially, that is due to Franco who never liked the totalitarian wings in his party (maybe because he feared to lose his influence to their leaders and probably because deep in heart he stayed monarchist ) ). Despite his numerous faults (like any dictator), his correct behaviour even prior to that date (during the WW2) and his relative lack of extremism (compared to other dictators) showed he was sensible man, not a fanatic. In addition, it may seem surprising but deep in heart he seemed to stay a monarchist and he was determined to restore the monarchy in Spain. This is part of the reason he tried to associate the young heir (and current King) to the rule with the clear idea to make him his heir (and to avoid unnecessary conflicts and violance which often came with the fall of dictatorship - this was the main reason behind his choice, I think). I think he was right to put his trust on institution with high legitimacy amongst the Spanish like the monarchy and in this way to secure that there will be a strong figure in the transition period. I believe in this aspect Juan Karlos replied to all of his expectatuions. The new King encouraged the democratic reforms and once he even stood against a military coup in the 80's which is a good proof for his intentions. I believe the reason Franco chose him was exactly this: there was no future for the disctorships and he needed a man who knew that and is convinced into the democratic development of their countries. For let's make this clear: monarchy is not incompatible with the democratic values and in many cases its authority can stop an authoriarian (or worse, totalitarian leftist or rightist) attempts of certain persons (something that happened in Spain in the 80's; happened in Thailand; and unfortunately failed in Italy because of the incompetence of the Savoy monarch). The fact he chose Juan Carlos showed not that the current King of Spain sympathises the authoriarian rule but that the old dictator just knew there was no future for his eroding regime.

I am not a fan of Franco since he did many things he should not have. Yes, I do not think he was as black as many people use to portray him but no, I dislike any kind of dictatorship.

The role of Juan Karlos: he used the prestige of the monarchy in order to stand behind the democratic reforms. It would be exaggerated to say that he was the one who did the reforms (I have to check in the books for more info, though; it's been long time since I read about it). He simply did the first push. In fact the bulk of the work was done by the politicians who had the main power by free elections. The King simply gave support in case something went very very wrong. Like in the 80's.

P.S. The thoughts on Franco who foresees the downfall of his regime seem to be the most logical for me. I'm a bit sceptic his realistic mind thought that an absolute monarchy was possible nowadays. Of course, there could be more standard point of view, which say the young King simply managed to play his cards well in front of Franco in order to restore the dynasty and to secure the democratic development (vital for the development) of his country

[KrooK]

He is king of Spain - definitely reformationist.
And he loves Real Madrit football club.

[Prince Cobra]

As I said, I remembered only fragments but I overestimated my memory. Franco indeed put the end of the ambitions of the totalitarian wing (after the death of Hose Antonio Primo de Rivera, the leader of this wing and the only real rival of Franco for the post of leader in rightist Spain) and indeed he did not have any sympathy for the right totalitarism. In the 50’s he practically destroyed the party as one of his pillars (because of the need of reforms and change, which he realized). The transition to monarchy happened after the WW2 when he needed to make his Spain more appealing to the USA and the allies. He kept the right to determine the heir and also the moment of his transition (practically after his death; basically, once he came on the top, he never intended to part with power like any dictator). The sources I use mainly say that he tried to do anything (after he lost the second pillar of his regime: the Church and left only with the army that we know is dangerous ally) and to maneuver in order to avoid any threat for his personal regime. Which is not surprising again. And here we come to the choice of Juan Carlos: he tried to pick a figure that will act as his heir and will provide the necessary prestige of the regime. This happened in 1969, about six years before his death. I was confused by his rejection of the totalitarian regime, his relatively moderate line and maybe added things that he did not really believe in. Why did he choose Juan Carlos: did he look for an influential man to secure his faltering regime led by the obstinacy of old man or did he try to look beyond his regime absolutely based on his personality choosing democracy? My book and main source says the first. And yet, I am tempted to speculate with such an idea. It is strange that I detest most of the revisionist views in history but surprisingly in this case I sound almost in this way. Here we have more information since Franco died only thirty years ago and I believe there are still people who know him. Was he deceived in his hopes by Juan Carlos or just in the opposite the King did what exactly Franco wanted him to do?

I will stop going off topic and will continue with the story. There had been indeed an attempt to continue the dictatorship by Karero Blanco (the right hand man of Franco) who acted as Prime Minister instead of the sick Franco in 1973. He was assassinated and this ended any attempts to continue the dictatorship. From this moment on, there was no doubt (though I still think that even Blanco would have been forced to step out at certain moment) that after the death of Franco dictatorship will end. The man who came after him was Arias Navaro who was not very eager to start reforms and did them too slowly. But finally in 1976 he was replaced by Adolfo Suares who started more active contacts with the opposition. In the same year referendum for reforms and election of Constituent Assembly was voted successfully. After the elections for this assembly meetings between the opposition (semi-legal opposition, which however in the end of the Franco regime was not opposed by the authorities: the regime obviously went to his end) and the ruling party had been organized so that the opposition can be fully legalized and so that the latter can participate in the elections. The elections had been won by the party of Suares but it was a minority in the Parliament and it closely collaborated with the opposition (and also to cope with the financial crisis of the country). Treaty has been concluded and it guaranteed the freedom of speech and other democratic rights and also economical actions against the crisis. In 1977 the new Constitution had been voted. Suares (the ex-“Francist” leader but popular because of the reforms) won again in 1979 but because internal problems within the ruling coalition (ex-Francist), assassination of the separatists he was forced to resign. In the very same month, February 1981 a military coup was attempted by generals who wanted to “put order within the country”. Juan Carlos who at this stage encouraged morally the democratic reforms without directly involved into the government stepped in and declared he is against the coup. His intervention turned out to be decisive (I doubt anybody can doubt that) and demonstrated once and for all he was one of those who supported the democratic reforms (despite the possible “hopes” Franco could have had in him). After this moment the situation normalized and Spain continues to develop as a democratic parliamentary monarchy. And this is another proof that sometimes the role of the mature monarchy can be essential for the democratic development of the country.