Anson and Iglesias debate at the Garibaldi Tavern about Monarchy and Republic in Spain.

The debate between Luis María Anson and Pablo Iglesias at the Taberna Garibaldi, an emblematic venue in the Lavapiés neighborhood, has brought to light not only the ideological confrontation between Monarchy and Republic but also the complexity and richness of Spain's recent history. The tavern, a place laden with symbolism that evokes past struggles, becomes the perfect setting for a deep and provocative conversation between two figures who, despite their ideological opposition, have shown mutual respect that invites reflection. From the outset of the discussion, Anson, a veteran journalist with a long career in political journalism, expresses his desire to convince the PSOE to consider the possibility of a republic. "Luis María, I want to convince the PSOE to bring the Republic," he declares, challenging his interlocutor. For his part, Iglesias remains firm in his defense of the Monarchy, asserting that he will do so as long as he lives. This clash of positions not only reflects their differences but also invites questioning of the political reality of the country. The meeting, which lasts nearly three hours, is a testament to both men's commitment to dialogue and discussion, something that is often lacking in the current political landscape. As the conversation progresses, both allow themselves to explore nuances and reconciliations, making it clear that, despite their differences, there is space for constructive conversation. Iglesias, referring to Anson, emphasizes the importance of listening to those who have been protagonists of history and the necessity of learning from them. Both figures, with their respective backgrounds, provide a critical analysis of the Spanish Transition. Anson praises the figure of Juan Carlos I, whom he considers a key leader in the democratic process, while Iglesias criticizes the actions of the current monarch, Felipe VI, deeming him a "king of the right" who has failed to represent the diversity of the country. This exchange of opinions provokes reflection on the legitimacy of the Monarchy and its place in contemporary Spain, a debate that resonates especially among younger generations. Anson and Iglesias also address the issue of corruption and politics in general. According to Anson, the mediocrity of politicians, rather than corruption itself, is what has led to distrust in institutions. Iglesias, for his part, expands the argument, pointing out that corruption is not exclusive to politics but manifests in the media and other sectors of society. This exchange invites deep reflection on how trust can be restored in a democracy that seems to be in crisis. The conversation also revolves around the idea of a plurinational Spain. Iglesias argues that the survival of the PSOE depends on its ability to adapt to a constantly changing political reality, where the desires of different communities must be considered. Anson, while more conservative in his stance, acknowledges the need for inclusive dialogue, suggesting that the key to moving forward lies in accepting plurality as an intrinsic part of national identity. Moreover, the debate touches on the role of the media in shaping public opinion and politics. Iglesias highlights that, in many cases, media directors possess a power that can surpass that of politicians. Anson, recognizing this reality, observes that media power has changed throughout history and that politicians must learn to navigate this new environment. Thus, the conversation becomes a critical analysis of how narratives and stories are fundamental in constructing political reality. The figure of youth also plays a central role in their conversation. Anson laments that the Transition generation has not been able to provide what new generations demand, and both agree that the country's future will depend on the political system's ability to adapt to the needs of the younger population. Iglesias emphasizes that the arrival of a third republic is possible, although it requires significant change in society and politics. At the end of the debate, both Anson and Iglesias are aware that their discussion is just a small fragment of a much more complex whole. The conversation, filled with tensions but also moments of camaraderie, reflects the reality of a country still trying to reconcile its past with its future. The Taberna Garibaldi thus becomes a symbol of the need for dialogue and understanding in a fragmented society, where the voices of all, monarchists and republicans alike, must be heard. This debate is not only a reflection of the struggle of ideas in Spain but also a call to action and reflection on how narratives around our identity and politics are constructed. At a moment when polarization seems to be the norm, the encounter between Anson and Iglesias serves as a reminder that, despite differences, there is always room for dialogue and understanding.