The mayor of Santa Cruz de Tenerife, José Manuel Bermúdez (CC), following the announcement from the Cabildo of Tenerife regarding a motion to ate the Victory Monument created by sculptor Juan de Ávalos, commonly referred to as the Franco Monument, points out that “it belongs to the municipality, thus only the City Council has the authority to alter its name or reinterpret it.”
In this respect, he urges the Cabildo to “come to an agreement” with the municipal corporation regarding “any potential reinterpretation of the monument.”
Bermúdez elaborates in a statement that the Cabildo has embarked on the path that “justice has indicated for it,” which involves initiating the process to declare the Ávalos monument an Asset of Cultural Interest (BIC).
“I find this appropriate, but the suggestion to rename a sculpture that is municipal property, which he cannot do since the work does not belong to him, seems nonsensical to me,” he remarks.
In line with this, he expresses his “great surprise” that the Council is making decisions regarding municipal assets “without collaboration from the City Council, akin to decisions that have precedents; the Government of the Canary Islands did it, and it was not at all successful.”
Consequently, he calls upon the Cabildo “to hold discussions with the owner of the sculpture, which is the City Council of Santa Cruz de Tenerife.”
Bermúdez concludes by stating that “should it be necessary to reinterpret and rename, it will be conducted through a process involving civic participation with relevant stakeholders,” emphasising that “it should not merely be a political initiative from the Cabildo that has not even been discussed with the City Hall, which owns the sculpture and its fountain.”
The first deputy mayor and councillor for Public Services, Carlos Tarife, concurs with the mayor’s assessment, noting that they believe the Cabildo “is acting in accordance with what justice requires,” but that “it has proceeded too far ahead,” while recalling that “Santa Cruz has plans for the rehabilitation of that fountain, which have not yet been approved” as it was awaiting the clarification of the monument’s status.
“Hence, our priority should be to process that BIC, without putting any names forward initially, and once approved, we will move forward with the modification of the project for the fountain, integrating what has been addressed in the BIC process,” he states.
Tarife agrees with the mayor that he would “prefer” there to be a participatory process for citizens regarding the renaming of the sculpture.
Why is the monument to Franco illegal?
The structure commonly referred to as the monument to the caudillo is a complex designed and erected at the intersection of the Rambla de Santa Cruz (formerly Rambla del General Franco) and Avenida de Francisco La Roche (formerly Avenida de Anaga) in Santa
Cruz de Tenerife faces a deficit in the topical relevance of declarations of value regarding the safeguarding of artistic, architectural, or artistic-religious heritage assets by the competent authorities. However, a court ruling, contrary to the assessments of specialists in the field, declared that it does possess artistic merit. The analysis conducted by these specialists argued that “from this standpoint, its preservation as a monument as a whole is not obligatory, considering that it constitutes a complex that infringes upon the democratic principles of coexistence and contributes to the distortion of historical truth simultaneously.” This is portrayed as the most extreme example of the glorification of the dictator as a messianic figure,” as emphasized in the report by doctors María Isabel Navarro, Yolanda Peralta, and Ricardo Guerra from the University of La Laguna (ULL) for the Catalog of Francoist Vestiges in the city, which was preceded by a study commissioned by the mayor. The report identifies approximately 80 representations or exaltations of the Franco regime that still persist in the streets, violating the Historical Memory Law of 2007 and the regional law of 2019.
The monument comprises up to nine symbols devised by the sculptor for the 1964 commemoration. Firstly, there is the victory achieved by the rebellious army in the Spanish Civil War (symbol of victory); secondly, the island of Tenerife serves as a geographical reference for planning the military uprising (with a pyramidal relief forming the base of the monument) and this is associated with another symbol, representing the loyalty of the island of Tenerife to Franco, the messianic figure. The fourth symbol noted is the effort to elevate the dictator to a metaphysical reference, endorsed by the assistance of the archangel. Furthermore, it asserts the portrayal of the military initiative against the Republican government as a holy war, presenting General Franco as a figure of ‘armed peace’, with the sword depicted as a cross, symbolising a ‘liberation crusade’, despite not being acknowledged as such by the Vatican. Lastly, the display of the emblems of the nine judicial districts of the province as a backdrop for “supporting General Franco’s flight in the Dragon Rapide to initiate the military uprising represents a blatant distortion of historical fact and a symbol that contravenes the principles laid down in the Historical Memory Law.”
The investigation elucidates that the monument to Franco is, consequently, “an interpretation that imposes a skewed view of the war and its consequences for the defeated, and seeks the continuous exaltation of victory and, in this instance, a sanctification of the dictator’s image.” This aligns, as with other monuments scattered throughout the city, with “the tradition of artistic works that aim to convey ideals in the sense of exemplum virtutis – example of virtue – and propaganda of historicist tradition, which was transformed in the twentieth century into a potent instrument of ideological control when combined (with the mass media such as newspapers, radio, and documentaries or news programmes like No-Do) typical of totalitarian regimes.”
The catalogue indicates that its execution was linked to two significant events that impacted the populace. Firstly, there was the process known as popular subscription, described as “a systematic method of extortion enforced through the military and civil governmental control, holding information on citizens, as demonstrated in the documentation produced by the governing body itself, the Civil Government of the Province of Santa Cruz de Tenerife.” Consequently, it was the residents of Tenerife who were compelled to finance the monument. The second detail provided is the ongoing use of this urban space “as a memorial site through persistent public occupation commemorating an event that venerates the dictator.”
This is not an isolated case; the capital of Tenerife exhibits “one of the most pronounced instances” in Spain, featuring a dense concentration of commemorative elements of the regime “of monumental scale within a very confined area,” as noted in the vestige catalogue. The island of Tenerife, Franco’s residence at that time, hence emerged as “a notable reference point in the mapping of the emblems of Victory as the supremacy of the rebel faction advanced.” The monument to the leader effectively completes an entire circuit of memorial emblems established since the coup d’état, including the Monument to the Fallen in the Plaza de España (1943-1947); the General Serrador Bridge and the Our Lady of Africa Market (1943); the García-Escámez neighbourhood (1945) or the Victoria and Marqués de Somosierra neighbourhoods. At present, there are around 80 exaltations that require removal throughout the city, either fully or partially, as evidenced by the cases of the Africa Market and the monument to the Fallen.
What makes this case unable to be recontextualised?
Unlike the artworks that form part of the ensemble of the Monument to the Fallen in the Plaza de España in Santa Cruz de Tenerife, the memorial of the Monument to the Caudillo in Santa Cruz de Tenerife presents “a singular problem within the context of the monuments created,” according to the study. The primary conclusion asserts that “the potential technical and artistic merit of the sculptural pieces does not permit their retention in public space, given that contextualisation is unfeasible, when taking into account the sacralization code linked to the dictator’s figure and the collection of misleading historical and symbolic arguments presented in the group. Consequently, the sculptural elements must be safely removed and stored within municipal offices, precluding their display in a public space that lacks identification and interpretative resources.”
The researchers note that the removal of sculptural elements with the necessary guarantees has been the subject of consultation, both for this sculptural group and the Monument to the Fallen in the Plaza de España. This consultation was conducted with Compagnon Régis Chaperon, a body whose training is akin to that of medieval master stonemasons, as well as expert sculptors well-versed in historical techniques. It has been concluded that this review process concerning “the uncomfortable heritage of the past” should allow for installation within a public park, with appropriate contextualization regarding its artistic value and historical and cultural significance. As proposed for the Monument to the Fallen in the Plaza de España, the selected location ought to feature infrastructure nearby for an International Centre for Peace and Reconciliation, integrating the establishment of a documentary centre, training centre, and dissemination centre focused on democratic memory, which the authorities deem essential for dissemination among the sectors of public administration.
