On February 19, 1966, the inauguration of the Monument to Franco took place in Santa Cruz de Tenerife. This is stated in the edition of DIARIO DE AVISOS of February 22 of that year, in which it is detailed that, “at one o’clock on Saturday afternoon a brilliant and emotional ceremony took place in Santa Cruz on the occasion of the delivery, by part of the commission appointed for this purpose and chaired by the Civil Governor and Provincial Head of the Caudillo Movement, to the City Council of the capital”. The article continued detailing that “the aforementioned Monument, the work of the sculptor Juan de Ávalos, as is known, presented a brilliant appearance with all the fountains fully operational…”. Fifty-six years after that act, the sculptural ensemble is still standing, defying the passage of time, and is awaiting a final report certifying that it also contravenes the Historical Memory Law, which will mean its removal from the streets of Santa Cruz, the last in Spain in which recognition of the dictator of this caliber is maintained. A study commissioned by the City Council itself already certifies that point. The announcement by the Santa Cruz City Council about its intention to start up the fountain of the Ávalos monument, as reported by DIARIO DE AVISOS, has once again brought the controversy surrounding this monument to the table.
The first to show their rejection of any type of intervention in the sculpture complex were the Sí Podemos Canarias groups from the Cabildo de Tenerife and Unidas Podemos from the Santa Cruz City Council. Both formations reject that public money is going to be invested in a study to start up the source of a monument on which the Catalog of Vestiges of Francoism, which is being prepared by the Government of the Canary Islands, has not yet ruled. UP understands that there is no other decision than to remove the Monument to Franco because it violates the Historical Memory Law, and sees in the Consistory’s intention to start up the fountain a way to “provoke reactions in the part of society that defends maintenance of this monument.
Among the rest of the opposition parties, the UP’s position is shared by the PSOE, which has stated on several occasions that “the Monument to Franco is illegal, there is no room for resignification or elimination of elements. It has to be removed from public roads, that does not mean that it has to be destroyed, only that a monument that extols a coup d’état should disappear.
Ciudadanos, on the other hand, is in favor of resignification, like the PP. The spokeswoman for the orange party, Matilde Zambudio, pointed out that “it should be what the Canary Islands Government Historical Memory Commission dictates. We are in favor of the resignification that is protected by the Historical Heritage Law in accordance with article 15, which would be applied when artistic or architectural reasons concur, and this is the case that I understand that the artistic historical complex of Juan de Ávalos holds” .
For the councilor of Cs, “the attitude of the popular party is a clear symptom that we are facing a party that is increasingly leaning towards the extreme right, together with Vox when announcing, without waiting for any type of opinion, the rehabilitation and start-up of operation as it is today. I do not share it and, furthermore, if they were so clear about what the future of the Almeyda fountain was going to be, why did they commission a report to assess what to do and what the situation is, regarding the Historical Memory Law, of the Monument? ”.
The Santa Cruz City Council yesterday insisted on removing the start-up of the Franco Monument fountain, after 20 years without water, from any political evaluation. “The action of the City Council is limited to putting water for the fountain. It is not a rehabilitation. The City Council is still waiting for the approval of the list that the Government of the Canary Islands must make and, of course, will comply with the Historical Memory Law in all its terms. To this he added that “it must be emphasized that the start-up of the fountain coincides with the provision of water supply from two other fountains in Santa Cruz, in the Weyler squares and in the Black Castle”. And this is how the first deputy mayor and spokesman for the PP explained it, Guillermo Díaz Guerra, who insists that his decision to commission a report to assess the costs of starting up the fountain is not a political decision, but rather falls within the framework of within his powers as a councilor for Public Services, an area in which the maintenance of the municipal heritage falls. What Díaz Guerra does defend is that this sculptural ensemble must be valued, and that, in any case, it must be resignified if its permanence offends the memory and dignity of some people.
Historical memory
From the Association of Historical Memory of Tenerife, its president, Mercedes Pérez Schwartz, is also against any type of intervention in a monument that, according to her words, “is not only breaching one law, but also breaches two, that of Historical Memory of the State and that of the Canary Islands”. “It has already become clear that it is not BIC, so it cannot be covered by article 15 of the Historical Memory Law,” she added. For Schwartz, the fact that Díaz Guerra wants to put the source into use is the same as wanting to break the law. However, she admits that the delay of the Government of the Canary Islands in finalizing the Catalog of Traces of Francoism gives rise to this type of situation. “The Law of Historical Memory of the Canary Islands makes clear the removal of monuments and distinctions to those guilty of the 1936 coup d’état. The fact that the Government of the Canary Islands does not meet the Technical Commission that was created as a result of that law is causing give rise to these types of ads”.
United We Can: “Rehabilitate the source is the same as violating the Law of Historical Memory”
Yesterday, the groups of Unidas Podemos in the Santa Cruz City Council and Sí Podemos Canarias in the Cabildo, offered a press conference in front of the Monument to Franco to express, once again, their rejection of any type of intervention, because that would be the the same as rehabilitating the monument. Ramón Trujillo, spokesman for UP in Santa Cruz, told DIARIO DE AVISOS that “this intention of the City Council to only fix the fountain, which implies is a violation of the Law of Historical Memory.” “You should not carry out -he continued- the repair of that fountain, nor take any step that contributes to the maintenance, improvement or restoration of that monument, which is what the commissioning of the fountain would mean at some point. What you have to do is comply with the Law of Historical Memory”.
Trujillo insisted that “we reiterate our position and that is that in a democratic society you cannot pay tribute on public roads to the Spaniard who has killed more Spanish men and women, and that the equivalent would be to pay tribute on public roads to characters like Hitler or Mussolini, something that is not even considered in countries like Germany or Italy”.
The mayor of UP went further when talking about the cost that some attribute to the monument. “If it is true that it is worth 41 million, they should sell it and dedicate the money to social housing. But, of course, who is going to want to buy that monument that is an exaltation of a dictator”.
Regarding the resignification defended by parties such as the PP or Cs, the spokesman for United We Can resort to a simile to explain his rejection of this position. “It’s as if you wanted to resignify Cara al sol for its musical values, it doesn’t make any sense.”
