Talk:Political divisions of Spain

Three spheres are State, Autonomous Communities and Local Entities

The interpretation of Article 137 of the Constitution in the lead, seems to be at odds with the typical interpretation of the three spheres of government as State, Autonomous Communities and Local Entities (encompassing municiaplities, provinces, comarcas, mancomunidades etc).

While acknowledging the often stated ambiguity of Clause 137, the Constitutional Court's decision 25/1981 clearly distinguishes a qualitative difference between the autonomous community's government with its power of legislation and the local entities whose remit is purely administrative.. This puts provinces and municipalities in the same "local entity" box as does Article 140 and 141 of the Constitution.

Also the focus on only Article 137 ignores Article 141(3), the Local Government Act and the reality that Autonomous Communities have created numerous other territorial divisions and/or administrations (such as comarcas, metropolitan areas, minor local entites, etc).

Therefore I think the lead could be rewritten to reflect State, Regional Govt, Local Govt as the proper their spheres or tiers of government (political division). And in addition we could state that there are multiple territorial divisions at the local level (local entities) (not all of them with administration) and discuss there municipalities, provinces, comarcas, etc.

Thoughts?

Bibliography

• "Local Government in Spain" (PDF). Ministry of Public Administration. Retrieved 11 June 2022.
• "Synopsis of Article 137 of the Spanish Constitucion" (in Spanish). Congreso de los Diputados. 2011. Retrieved 11 June 2022.
• Albet i Mas, Abel (2019). "The municipal map in Spain: structure, evolution and problems". Geopolitica(s). Revista de estudios sobre espacio y poder (in Spanish). 10 (1): 11–40. doi:10.5209/GEOP.63834.
• "Local Government Act (Organic Law 7/1985)" (in Spanish). Agencia Estatal Boletín Oficial del Estado. 1985. Retrieved 12 June 2022.

Peter Brew (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

In the absence of response after a year and responding to scholarship in the 13 years since the page was originally written, I will add some of this information about tiers of government and separate it from the territorial boundaries used for statistical purposes. In addition the role of provinces in reality seems to be quite different to what a superficial reading of the constitution might suggest, so I will add some balance here too. Peter Brew (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Poor translation

I find that this article is based on a flawed translation of the Spanish Constitution.

First problem. There is obliviousness to the fact that some words, e.g., "solidarity", may be obscure to even educated English speakers, or may have parochial legal and political connotations in Spanish politics. Indeed, this particular word in this document (the Spanish Constitution, not the Wikipedia article) is bound to be largely a diplomatic formula. After all, Article 2 of the constitution reads (in its entirety):

La Constitución se fundamenta en la indisoluble unidad de la Nación española, patria común e indivisible de todos los españoles, y reconoce y garantiza el derecho a la autonomia de las nacionalidades y regiones que la integran y la solidaridad entre todas ellas. [The Constitution is based on the indissoluble unity of the Spanish Nation, common and indivisible fatherland of all Spaniards, and recognizes and guarantees the right to autonomy of the nationalities and region that constitute it and the solidarity among them all.]

I can't even tell what "solidarity" is supposed to mean here. In general, it's a straightforward, uncontroversial term, but not here. I am skeptical of the choice of words. Yes, it makes sense to "recognize and guarantee" a right, and it makes sense to "recognize solidarity" [recognize that it exists, provided it genuinely exists]. I reject that it makes sense to "guarantee solidarity" among nationalities and regions. Another example is the use of "exercise of the right" for "ejercicio del derecho". Although strictly speaking this is grammatical, again, the translation is awkward, due to non-Spaniards' unfamiliarity with political context as well as to matters of English vocabulary usage.

Second problem. There are at least a few plain errors. E.g., in the first paragraph, it says the autonomous communities "were" created under constitutional authority. Although this is correct strictly speaking, it is incorrect is a genuine sense: namely that additional autonomous communities can be created under permanent provisions of the constitution. Related to this basic truth is the historical fact that the current autonomous communities were not created simultaneously.

Accordingly, I ask that other editors help me improve the article by providing context of international law and Spanish politics, and even by correcting the translation where purely grammatical issues are involved. Hurmata (talk) 14:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand what you mean by the obscurity of the word "solidarity". I do not find it obscure, but in either case, it is the word used in the English translation of the constitution provided by the Congress of Deputies and the Constitutional Court.[1], [2].

The solidarity "clause", if you may, was added to guarantee that devolution of power, meant to be asymmetrical, would not imply that any one community should have privileges that would undermine the unity of the nation. But I defer to the "General Court's lawyers for a better explanation of the reasons behind its inclusion.

As for the second problem, you make a good point. I agree; the constitution was written prior to the creation of the communities and simply established a way for them to be created without setting a limit (neither numerical nor in time, except for the "five-year" wait in case of a negative vote). So, as long as some provinces comply with the requirements set forth in the constitution, new autonomous communities can indeed be created. However, I do not know the implications of changing the first paragraph to read "autonomous communities are created" or "autonomous communities can be created". Would it make sense to keep the verb in the past tense in the first paragraph, but explain, subsequently, or in the appropriate section, that new autonomous communities can indeed be created?

Oh, also as to your comment about the "exercise of the right" phrase, I don't see the awkwardness. True, it is not "simple" English, but encyclopedias (with the exception of the Simple English encyclopedia) are not meant to be written in elementary-school English. The phrase is used extensively; just a google search of the term (in quotations) yields 13 million results, the first of which are international institutions like the United Nations. Moreover, it is used on several articles of the constitution in the English translation that I mentioned above, including article 143.

--the Dúnadan 01:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Now that I think of it, I do not know if there is a process for provinces to secede from existing autonomous communities to form new ones. The constitution opened the way for two or more provinces to form an autonomous community due to historical reasons, but once they are created (which includes the residents voting for it), I am not sure if the process for secession is the same. I know that some people have shown interest in creating a community for León (seceding from the current [Castile and León]]), as well as the division of Andalusia in "Upper" and "Lower" Andalusia, but with little support. I will do more research on this topic.

--the Dúnadan 01:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you Hurmata and woudl suggest that interpreting the constitution is almost akin to original research. Its especially problematic given the horse-trading that occurred during the constitutions negotiation leading to a often ambiguous and complex constitution that has required years of case law to unpick. I am hoping to add more external papers of those who have the expertise to interpret it. Peter Brew (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Abandoned user draft

Please would an interested editor assess the material added at User:Marc Levinson/sandbox, incorporate what is useful, blank that page as WP:COPYARTICLE, and leave a note here when done? – Fayenatic London 07:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'd be happy to incorporate some of your material while I make some other changes to the page. However to make my job easier, could you please tell me which parts you have worked on, as your draft is quite long. Peter Brew (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)