The resurgence of Franco and its impact on the debate about historical memory.

The resurgence of Francisco Franco's figure in contemporary debate has sparked intense interest in the documents that portray his thoughts and ideology. One of these key pieces is the interview Franco granted to the French newspaper Le Figaro in 1958, a document that sheds light on his perspective as a leader and his vision of Spanish history, inviting a deep reflection on historical memory in the current context. During the conversation, Franco categorically rejected any external ideological influence in his formation as a statesman, even denying Mussolini's figure as a source of inspiration. His words reflect a strong nationalism and a conviction that the solution to Spain's problems must arise from within, without interference from foreign models. This argument becomes a central axis of his discourse, which rests on the idea of "cooperation among social classes" in contrast to the "divorce" he believed political parties had caused. Franco also used the interview to condemn liberalism, which he held responsible for Spain's decline. In his view, the country had fallen into a "dream" that distanced it from the industrial and political advances experienced by other nations. His critique focused on the inability of the politicians of the Second Republic to address problems objectively, which, according to him, exacerbated divisions and led to the civil war. This narrative, which presents his regime as the savior of the nation, reflects an intention to legitimize his authority and justify his control over the country. The interview also reveals his perception of the Spanish political leaders prior to his rise to power. Franco seems to disdain his predecessors, claiming that all, without exception, failed at the critical moment. This lack of respect for those who came before him is a characteristic feature of his rhetoric, where his regime is presented as the only one capable of restoring national greatness. One of the most revealing moments in the conversation is when Franco refers to his meeting with Hitler. His narrative, detailing how he rejected the Führer's offers to ally in the war, is used to project an image of pragmatism and sensibility, despite the context of his regime and the alliances he maintained with Axis powers not being ignored. This episode reflects his ability to manage public image, presenting himself as a nationalist leader who prioritizes Spain's interests. Throughout the interview, Franco also expresses his thoughts on the future of Europe, hinting at the possibility of a community that transcends national rivalries. However, his visions of a "world concord" are nuanced by rhetoric that still advocates for nationalism, which can be interpreted as an inherent contradiction in his discourse. His idea that nations should unite around common interests contrasts with his insistence on maintaining the uniqueness of Spanish identity. Franco's view on democracy is also surprising. Throughout the interview, he defines democracy not as governance through parties, but as the will of the people manifested through their institutions. This interpretation is presented as a critique of the failures of liberal democracy, evident in his rejection of the multiplicity of parties, which he considers a source of national disagreements. This perspective has generated extensive debate about the meaning of democracy in the context of authoritarian regimes. Franco also addresses the issue of historical memory, asserting that there is no discrimination between the victors and the vanquished of the civil war. The propagation of this idea attempts to construct a narrative of reconciliation, although its implementation in practice has been the subject of debate. The reality of repression and the silence of many on this topic is a legacy that continues to affect contemporary Spanish society. In this sense, Franco's reflections on the civil war and its consequences reveal a conception of history that seeks to legitimize his order and minimize the violence exercised during and after the conflict. This approach has sparked criticism and led to questioning how historical memory is addressed in Spain, highlighting the struggle between different narratives about the country's recent past. Finally, the 1958 interview with Franco not only provides insight into his leadership but also invites broader reflection on the role of historical memory and how it has been constructed and reconstructed over time. In a context where history remains a subject of dispute, the analysis of these documents becomes increasingly relevant. Franco's figure and his legacy continue to provoke passionate debates, reminding us that understanding the past is fundamental to facing the challenges of the present and building a more reconciled future.