The politics of tourism protest

There had been a far bigger protest shortly before the elections in 2007. While tourism was a factor, the emphasis on that occasion was more on general policies to do with land regulations under the then Partido Popular government in the Balearics. So, apart from the odd very minor gathering here or there, 23-S was the first ever protest of any scale that specifically targeted tourism. Some of you may recall that it brought to prominence the ‘kellys’, the collective of Mallorca’s chambermaids, whose job precariousness and workplace injuries were to eventually result in legislation for beds with lifting mechanisms.

Those jobs were something of an adjunct to the central message of too much tourism, which had already emerged with a movement dubbed ‘sense limits no hi ha futur’ (without limits there is no future). In Palma specifically, there was ‘ciutat per a qui l’habita’ (city for those who live in it). Those two movements had grown up after the left coalition of PSOE and Més (with Podemos usually supporting from the sidelines) had come to power in 2015. The 23-S protest happened 27 months after that government formally took over.

A leading tourism and travel publication (Spanish) has published an opinion piece which says that there was not a single demonstration against overtourism during the eight years of the left coalition and suggests there could be a solution to tourist saturation in Mallorca (or to protests against it anyway) were the left to return to power.

23-S proves that there was a demonstration. It was a remarkable oversight to have forgotten this. Almost as remarkable was the fact that after a day had passed following the publication of this piece, no one had commented on the error. In fact there was only the one comment, which started: “Check your eyesight, because you can only see out of one eye; you know which one.”

This alluded to the political character of the article, an implication having been that protests in 2024 and this year are the consequence of a right-wing government. Even if they are, this cannot dispute the evidence from September 2017 and from those other movements which fed into the protest.
To be fair, however, it should be said that the organisers of 23-S, principal among whom was Margalida Ramis of the environmentalists GOB, did state that the demonstration wasn’t against the government as such. It was against an economic model that was “excessively dependent on tourism”, a charge that is of course still made. But the government wasn’t blameless. The protesters hoped there would be bolder measures to address the dependence and its ramifications; those adopted had been “insufficient”.

What were these measures? The tourist tax had come in the year before, but no one seriously believed that this was going to decrease tourist numbers, and it didn’t. Otherwise there was stuff about looking to shift tourism to the low season, which there still is and has only meant that the total numbers of tourists have risen, and there was also the legislation for holiday rentals. The article rightly points out, as I have on numerous occasions, that this flooded the market with legalised holiday apartment lets which undoubtedly contributed to an increase in tourist numbers but which the likes of GOB had actually supported because it was a form of tourism ‘democratisation’ attacking hotelier dominance.

GOB came to realise this was an awful mistake, as did Més, the party who had pushed for it. But it’s true to say that no one protested against this. The opportunity had existed on 23-S, but it wasn’t taken because the government wasn’t under fire for the legislation (from the left anyway).

Would it be more accurate to argue that the left is likely to get an easier ride from tourism protest groups? Perhaps, but eight years on from 23-S the situation has intensified, especially because of housing (and the left were pretty useless in addressing this). Total numbers of tourists in the Balearics have risen by over two million since then. If there really is seriousness in wishing to find genuine paths to sustainability, we could do with abandoning all the left-right argumentation. It helps no one. The trouble is, though, that it will just continue.