Giles Tremlett: "One of the legacies that still survives from Franco's regime is corruption."

BarcelonaBritish journalist Giles Tremlett (Lynmouth, 1962) came to Barcelona in 1984, stayed there for a couple of years, and returned in 1991. A year later, he moved to Madrid, where he has lived ever since. He says he became interested in Spanish history because there were aspects of society he didn't understand, and has now written six books. He is a contributor to The Guardian, in Franco, the dictator who shaped a country (Debate; translated into Spanish by Pablo Hermina and María Serrano) reviews not only the dictator's life, but also how he transformed society.

This is your sixth book on Spanish history. What fascinates you about this country's past?

— Understanding Spain is almost a life project. As a correspondent, I asked myself many questions, and the answers lay in history.

What was it about Spanish society that you found so difficult to understand?

— I first came to Barcelona in 1984 to learn Spanish; at the time, I didn't know a lot of things [smiles]. One of the things that caught my attention was that Franco, who had been dead for nine years, was as if he had never existed. Many people I knew were ashamed of having been under the power of someone they considered mediocre for so many years. They made jokes about it, saying it was a way of getting over it without going into the subject in depth. And then, from London or New York, they would ask me what was happening with Franco. And I would reply that it was as if he had disappeared. In fact, the first book I published was Spain facing its ghosts (21st Century, 2006).

Have we underestimated Franco?

— Clearly, he has been greatly underestimated, as he has been in the past. He rose so quickly because no one saw him coming. Perhaps he was intellectually mediocre, but he wasn't the least bit mediocre in many other aspects of his life. For example, he was a good soldier and had a knack for leadership. And he abused that gift.

The book emphasizes Franco's family origins. Did his family have that much of an impact on you?

— He became a dictator, and his brother, Ramon, was a great Spanish aviator. I don't think it was a coincidence. In their house, and I'm simplifying, there were two Spains. The father was liberal and authoritarian, and the mother was pious and conservative. When the father abandoned the family to live with his lover, there was a cataclysm. For Franco, it was a humiliation, and he remained loyal to his mother. As a child, he was already a conservative and chose her side. I think it's also important to review the historical context, the post-imperial history of Spain. As a Briton, I understand post-imperial syndrome very well, because we're still suffering from it with Brexit. Falling from a great height hurts a lot, and it's hard to recover. Imperialism is like a drug, especially if you're convinced that you belong to God's chosen people and that this gives you the right to rule over others. Therefore, Franco suffered two humiliations and wanted to restore Spain's honor. It was his obsession and that of the Africanist military, like a cult.

Is his excessive ambition his father's fault?

— There was always a contemptuous attitude from the father, who wasn't impressed by anything. The father never acknowledged any of his son's virtues and achievements, because he basically loved himself. And Franco also loved himself greatly. Perhaps it's good for oneself to have so much confidence, but it was fatal for Spain. He thought he was an expert on economics, but he didn't have a clue.

How do you explain that a man without charisma could become a dictator for almost forty years?

— The army has a structure that forces others to respect you. It's perfect for someone like Franco, who also worked incredibly hard. You're always clear about what the next step should be and where you're aiming.

Did the Spanish passively support Franco?

— There was explicit support for the military rebellion, even in Catalonia. There's another aspect that's very difficult to measure, which is passive support, which was what Franco was looking for. It was more than one generation that grew up with Franco. Václav Havel said that in an authoritarian state, the line that separates a collaborator from an opponent isn't between people, but within oneself. Some historians have done very interesting work looking at their own family. How do I explain that my parents, who hated Franco, voted for him in a referendum? They had to survive in that society, they and their children. If questions were asked of the grandparents, the answers would be interesting. If they were teachers, for example, at some point they had to promise to observe the movement's rules. Is this supporting him? Is it tolerating him? Even the opposition in the 1960s and 1970s was weak.

Is this apathy a triumph for Franco? And how did he achieve it?

— He had the tools to take control of the state. The first element was fear. He invested heavily in terror from the start. There were shootings, concentration camps, the Political Responsibility Act... Paul Preston always said it was like depositing money in the bank and then getting a return on it. There was control and propaganda. The 1938 Press Law was inspired by German totalitarianism and lasted until 1966. The control was brutal. The Vanguard It was almost like reading Franco. And the entire educational system that many generations went through... That's why the title of the book is Franco, the dictator who shaped a country.

Are we still a product of the society that Franco shaped?

— It's a difficult question. Francoism was a project of social control, not political control; there was no ideological transfer. This social control is expressed in the sociological Francoism. What Franco sought was a following of authority, a "I'm in charge here." These are cultural issues. In Spain, there are more presidents than in any other country. From the president of the staircase to the regional presidents. It's a very common title. For me, Pedro Sánchez is a prime minister because a president is the head of state.

Is authority respected too much in Spain?

— Sometimes yes, even doctors are like gods in white coats. Power should be questioned more.

In Spain, questioning power has consequences, as we have seen recently.

— Everyone must have their own version of how Spanish democracy works, but questioning power is the essence of democracy.

Did it take too long to talk about the dictatorship?

— An opportunity for educational purposes was missed, but this has also happened in other countries.

Is the memory of Franco's regime still a vaccine against the far right?

— It was once, but vaccines don't last a lifetime.

What diagnosis would you make of Spanish democracy?

— I'm optimistic; it's a robust democracy. There's a lot of discussion, and there's no bloodshed. But corruption is a legacy of Franco's regime that still lingers. From a British perspective, it's hard to understand why we have structures that make certain types of corruption very difficult. They could have been created during the times of González, Aznar, Rajoy... but they weren't.

Are we too tolerant of corruption?

— Yes, Spaniards are too tolerant of corruption and no one takes action.

Has there been no action against corruption due to a lack of political will, but has there also not been enough social pressure?

— In Spain, the culture of cronyism, nepotism, and the importance of family also persist. It's important to keep in mind that the welfare state was built in the 1970s, and if you couldn't trust the state, you had to trust your family, who could offer you a safety net.