The camp set up at the Puerta del Sol after the demonstration for the eviction of Maricarmen has opened a new front, this time between the Ministry of the Interior and the City Council of Madrid. Hundreds of people continue this Sunday in the square to demand that the Government approve the so-called "Maricarmen decree," but the discussion has stopped focusing solely on housing: both administrations now disagree on who has the responsibility to act in the face of the occupation of public space and, if necessary, who should order or execute an eviction.
The City Council has expressed its "surprise" and "indignation" and accuses the Government Delegation of "absolute negligence and dereliction of duty." According to the municipal version, the current situation is a consequence of state forces not adequately controlling the end of the demonstration on Saturday and allowing some participants to return to Sol and set up tents. The Interior, on the other hand, maintains that the camp is currently proceeding peacefully and differentiates between the ordinary management of public space, where it attributes responsibilities to the Municipal Police, and a potential scenario of public disorder in which the National Police could intervene.
About 500 people woke up in Sol
The administrative dispute comes after around 500 people, according to data provided by the Government Delegation to Europa Press, spent the night from Saturday to Sunday at the Puerta del Sol. During the early morning, approximately a hundred tents were set up, although the Tenants' Union claimed that their own estimates put the number of people who had participated at some point in the camp above a thousand. The mobilization has so far developed without significant incidents.
The protest began after the demonstration on Saturday, which gathered 25,000 people according to the Government Delegation and about 300,000 according to the Tenants' Union, a very considerable difference between both estimates. The march had precisely departed from Sol at 6:30 PM and concluded in front of the Congress of Deputies. Subsequently, groups of demonstrators returned to the square and began organizing the camp to maintain pressure until the Council of Ministers on Tuesday, when they demand that the Executive approve new housing measures.
The City Council accuses the Delegation of "looking the other way"
The municipal government of José Luis Martínez-Almeida considers that the main responsibility lies with the Delegation of the Government in Madrid, because it is the competent governmental authority regarding the communicated demonstrations and the actions related to maintaining public order. Municipal sources also claim that the National Police withdrew from certain positions when the tents began to be set up and demand clarification on whether that withdrawal was a decision by the Government delegate, Francisco Martín.
The City Council also links the camping with the development of the previous demonstration and argues that some groups would have moved through different places than those initially communicated. From there, it accuses the Interior Ministry of having allowed a temporary protest to end up becoming a continued occupation of the square. "The control of public order and the right to demonstrate correspond to the Delegation of the Government," states the City Council, which demands that "normality be restored in Puerta del Sol as soon as possible."
The municipal version thus treats the camping as an extension of the demonstration on Saturday. However, the Interior Ministry introduces a different distinction: once the communicated march is over, what exists in Sol is also a occupation of public space, an area in which the Municipal Police has administrative and surveillance powers.
The competencies are divided
The legislation allows us to understand why both administrations find arguments to defend their positions, but also why it is too simple to attribute all the competence to just one of them. The Organic Law regulating the Right of Assembly establishes that meetings and demonstrations in public transit places must be communicated to the governmental authority and that this authority can propose modifications to the route, date, or duration when there are founded reasons for risk to public order. It also corresponds to that authority to order the dissolution in specific cases, such as when there are disturbances of public order posing a danger to people or property.
But the same regulation does not establish that a concentration must dissolve automatically simply because it has not been communicated or has lasted beyond an initial call. The law sets specific assumptions for ordering a dissolution, among them that the meeting is criminally illegal or that serious disturbances of public order occur.
At the same time, the Organic Law of Security Forces and Bodies assigns local police functions of administrative police related to municipal ordinances, surveillance of public spaces, and collaboration with the State Security Forces and Bodies in the protection of demonstrations and large concentrations when required. This means that the City Council also retains competencies over the use of public roads, mobility, ordinances, and municipal surveillance.
Therefore, the discussion is not simply resolved with the question of whether it "corresponds" to the National Police or Municipal Police. An eventual intervention would depend on what specific action is intended to be carried out, the situation in the square, the rules being applied, and the coordination between both administrations.
Interior differentiates between camping and disturbance of public order
The position of Interior is precisely based on that separation. As long as the concentration remains peaceful and there are no public order incidents, sources from the department consider that it is not appropriate to automatically activate an intervention by the National Police. The scenario could change if confrontations, risks to people or property, or other circumstances affecting citizen security were to occur.
Until this Sunday, the available information describes a calm atmosphere. The protesters have set up tents, organized supplies, and maintained activities related to their housing demands, while the National Police, Municipal Police, and other bodies have monitored the surroundings. No serious incidents have been reported during the first night.
This absence of disturbances is relevant because Organic Law 9/1983 establishes that the governmental authority must proceed to dissolve a meeting when certain circumstances occur, but it does not automatically turn every unplanned concentration into a situation that requires immediate police intervention.
The City Council recovers the precedent of 15-M
The City Council has resorted to the 15-M of 2011 to discuss the interpretation of the Interior Ministry. After the first demonstration of Real Democracy Now, a group of people remained in Sol and began to set up a camp. During the early morning of May 17, the National Police and Municipal Police participated in an operation to evict it after the City Council requested the collaboration of the Government Delegation. That intervention ended with one detainee and one injured officer.
The precedent serves the City Council to remind that the Government Delegation participated directly then in the decisions about the camp and that the two police forces acted jointly. However, 2011 also does not offer a perfect equivalence with the current situation. After that first eviction, thousands of people returned to Sol and rebuilt the camp, which remained for weeks. When the Central Electoral Board considered that the gatherings during the electoral reflection day were contrary to electoral legislation, the government of José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero ultimately decided not to order a police intervention to disperse them.
Therefore, the 15-M precisely shows the complexity of the matter: there was a first joint action, but then the government chose not to evict again despite the legal and political controversy. There is no automatic rule according to which the existence of tents in Sol always obliges the National Police to intervene.
An institutional fight while the protest continues
While the City Council and the Interior Ministry discuss their competencies, the Tenants' Union wants to maintain the camp at least until Tuesday, when the Council of Ministers will be held. The organization demands that the Executive approve the so-called "Maricarmen decree," a package of measures aimed at strengthening protection against evictions and modifying different aspects of rental regulation.
The case of Maricarmen Abascal, evicted this week at 87 years old from the Retiro home where she had lived for more than seven decades, has served as a trigger for a mobilization that already transcends her particular situation. The Union intends for the protest to continue until a response is obtained from the government and has requested food, water, mats, and sleeping bags for those who remain in the square.
The debate now is who should act and when
The clash between administrations adds a new political dimension to the camp. The City Council maintains that the Delegation allowed the protest to turn into a permanent camp and demands that Interior act; Interior distinguishes between public order and urban space management and argues that a peaceful gathering does not alone justify an intervention by the National Police.
Legislation divides functions between both administrations: the Delegation has central competencies over the right to assemble and public order, while the City Council and its Municipal Police intervene in the surveillance of public spaces and compliance with local ordinances.
With the camp still active and without serious incidents, the conflict remains for now in the political and institutional realm. The next relevant decision may come even before a possible eviction: on Tuesday, September 29, when the Government must decide whether to bring any of the housing measures demanded by those still installed at Puerta del Sol to the Council of Ministers.