The Administrative Litigation Court number 3 of Santa Cruz de Tenerife has ruled that the statue of the dictator Francisco Franco, constructed in the capital of Tenerife by Juan de Ávalos, holds artistic and cultural significance. Therefore, the Cabildo of Tenerife must begin proceedings to classify it as a Cultural Interest Asset (BIC). This decision is based on an art evaluation, which is contrary to the opinions previously given by experts in the field.
After a thorough analysis in 2022 of the study conducted by the University of La Laguna and the report by the Government of the Canary Islands’ Technical Unit for Historical Heritage, the Cabildo concluded that the monument does not possess exceptional artistic values.
Currently, the court, as reported by The day and Diary of Notices, has ruled in favour of the Association for Research and Artistic Heritage San Miguel Arcángel. They had previously urged the Cabildo of Tenerife to elevate the sculpture, situated at the junction of Avenida de Anaga and Rambla de Santa Cruz, to the Government of the Canary Islands for its classification as a Cultural Interest Asset (BIC). This same association challenged in court the Catalogue of Francoist Vestiges in Tenerife’s capital by the Government of the Canary Islands, and also displayed posters across the city in defence of the dictator’s sculpture.
Referred to as the “Angel Monument” or the “Franco Monument”, this sculptural fountain was unveiled in March 1966. In 2010, it was renamed the “Fallen Angel Monument” by the Santa Cruz de Tenerife City Council, which some groups believe holds cultural significance while others disagree.
The previous government of the Canary Islands (PSOE, Podemos, Nueva Canarias and Agrupación Socialista Gomera) included this monument in the list of Francoist remnants, abiding by the Democratic Law of the Canary Islands. However, the current Canarian administration (CC, PP, Agrupación Socialista Gomera and AHI) annulled it after the High Court of Justice of the Canary Islands suspended it temporarily due to procedural irregularities.
The association, which has now received a favourable ruling from Court number 3, requested the Cabildo de Tenerife’s previous governing coalition (PSOE-Cs) to initiate the BIC classification process for the monument, an action previously deemed unnecessary due to its lack of extraordinary artistic value.
Following the rejection by the Tenerife Island Council, the San Miguel Arcángel Association for Artistic Heritage and Research took legal action, initially dismissed, but later accepted by the High Court of Justice of the Canary Islands leading to the suspension of the island entity’s decision.
A subsequent appeal filed by Tenerife Island Council was upheld by the Supreme Court affirming the High Court of Justice of the Canary Islands’ ruling. Presently, the administrative litigation court number 3 of Santa Cruz de Tenerife has mandated the initiation of the BIC process by the island institution.
Is the Franco monument unlawful?
The caudillo’s monument currently lacks declarations of value essential for the protection of artistic, architectural, or religious heritage assets by the relevant authorities. “Furthermore, given the complexities associated with it violating democratic principles of coexistence and distorting historical truths, its preservation in its entirety is not obligatory.”**Rewritten Title: The Controversial Monument to Franco and Its Symbolism**
Described as the most extreme instance of glorifying the dictator as a messianic figure, the report points out.
It entails up to nine symbols devised by the sculptor during the commemoration of 1964. Firstly, it represents the victory achieved by the rebel army in the Spanish Civil War (depicted as an image of victory); the island of Tenerife is used as a geographical landmark for the organization of the military uprising (a pyramidal relief serving as the monument’s base), moreover, this connection is linked to another symbol, the island of Tenerife’s loyalty to the messianic figure of Franco. The fourth symbol alluded to is the effort to elevate the dictator to a metaphysical level legitimized by the assistance of an archangel. Furthermore, it discusses “the glorification of the military rebellion against the Republic as a holy crusade, portraying General Franco as a proponent of armed peace by displaying the sword as a cross, symbolising the liberation crusade, despite it not being acknowledged as such by the Vatican.” Lastly, the presentation of the shields of the nine judicial districts of the province as a backdrop for “support for General Franco’s flight on the Dragon Rapide to kickstart the military uprising constitutes a clear distortion of historical truth and a symbol that goes against the principles outlined in the Law of Historical Memory.”
The study elaborates that the Franco monument is henceforth “an interpretation that enforces a skewed version of the war and its aftermath onto the defeated side and aims for the continual celebration of victory and, in this instance, the sanctification of the dictator’s image” and conforms, like the other monuments scattered across the city, “to the line of artworks that seek to convey ideals in the sense of exemplum virtutis – example of virtue -, propaganda of a historical tradition transformed in the twentieth century into a potent tool of ideological manipulation when combined (with the mass media – newspapers, radio, and documentaries or newsreels such as No-Do) typical of authoritarian regimes.”
