The Spanish left is living through a moment of deep reevaluation. This is not a serpentine crisis or an unexpected collapse, but something slower and more structural: a phase of internal review regarding leadership, strategy, and future. And, although many interpret this as a symptom of political weakness, asking questions is usually a sign that a space is still alive.
During the last few years, that political sector was boosted thanks to novelty: new leaders, new acronyms, new promises. Today, in contrast, the dominant word is no longer illusion, but reconstruction. That change reflects that the political cycle has evolved.
The loss of popularity of Yolanda Díaz has become a symbol of that turn, not so much because of her personal figure as because it summarizes a frequent pattern: very rapid rises followed by accelerated wear and tear. Even so, it is worth not confusing wear and tear with disappearance. Polls agree that the space to the left of socialism has not disappeared. Formations like Sumar or Podemos maintain millions of potential voters. The main problem is not size, but division within the Spanish electoral system. Fragmentation usually costs many seats: it is electorally punished.
The recent history of that political space also shows a constant: very intense but short-lived leaderships, from Pablo Iglesias to Íñigo Errejón. Several projects have depended more on personal appeal than on solid structures. This contrasts with more organic parties, which better withstand changes in cycles because they do not depend so much on a single figure, but on their territorial structure.
To this situation is added a factor that accelerates the internal debate: the growing perception that a change of political majority could occur and that the right could govern with the support of VOX alongside the Popular Party. That expectation functions as an incentive to regroup and reorganize. It is, in other words, a catalyst.
From the outside, the process may seem chaotic: meetings, platforms, calls for unity, public disagreements. But that dynamic is not an anomaly in itself. Discussing leadership, strategy, and alliances is part of the normal functioning of any political space that is trying to redefine itself. In reality, what is important is not that debate exists, but what emerges from it.
The left wing to the left of the PSOE knows that it needs coordination, leadership, and a project, but it is still not clear how to achieve them or who can embody them. That uncertainty explains the feeling of provisionality that currently exists.
The conclusion is simple: this moment should not be interpreted only as a crisis, but as a transition phase. European political systems are changing; electorates are more volatile and majorities, more fragile. In that context, all parties are obliged to adapt, and perhaps that is the key to understanding what is happening: a political space rethinking itself is never bad news. It can be uncomfortable, it can be messy, but it is also the first step of any renewal. Because in democracy, projects are not static: they are born, they transform, and, sometimes, they simply start over.