(Read Part 1) 

Pedro Tarquis wears many hats. Some might describe him as a retired physician, having spent 40 years practicing in Madrid’s public health care system. Others might view him as a social leader: an ordained minister of the Christian Assembly of Madrid, a board member of the Spanish Evangelical Alliance, and a member of the Parlamento & Fe (Parliament & Faith) Coordinating Committee in Spain. Many will recognize him as a journalist, having spent over 20 years at the helm of Areópago Protestante — a leading media platform for the Spanish-speaking conservative world.

However, the aspect of his life he would most emphasize is the 180-degree turn that occurred when he encountered “Jesus as my Lord and Savior at the age of 24.” Since then, he has been passionate about apologetics, bioethics, and the importance of Christian presence and witness in public life.

Today, he is an analyst who seeks to provide a balanced assessment of Spain’s political situation. Under a “social-communist” government that has been in power for nearly a decade — led by President Pedro Sánchez — the consequences, both domestically and for the wider Western world, appear significant.

Here is part two of my interview with Pedro.

What is the role of the minority evangelical community and other conservative sectors?

Currently, the conservative sectors active in public life are primarily those aligned with Vox, as well as a faction within the Popular Party (PP).

Vox has generally shifted toward a form of Catholic fundamentalism, a trend marked by the departure of figures who embodied a Christian humanism more akin to that of evangelicals — such as Iván Espinosa de los Monteros, whom I interviewed in 2023. There are evangelicals who support Vox due to its unequivocal stance against gender ideology; however, a roughly equal number are troubled by the party’s radicalism regarding issues such as immigration and violence against women (specifically, the tendency to downplay or dilute the reality of machismo), among other concerns.

The party also raises doubts because its modus operandi has consistently been to oppose everything, demonstrating an inability to govern even when presented with the opportunity to do so — after all, it is far easier to criticize and denounce than to actually manage and resolve complex problems. As for the PP, a similar situation prevails, albeit in reverse. Their capacity for governance and dialogue is appreciated, as is their general adherence to traditional values regarding life and family; however, questions are raised as to whether their defense of these values is somewhat passive. They are also expected to demonstrate a greater commitment to the middle class and the most disadvantaged — particularly in the realm of public health care.

In both instances, a fluid relationship exists with the evangelical community, yet it stops short of evolving into a fully articulated relationship of mutual understanding and collaboration. I refer here to two specific aspects: First, the presence of evangelicals within their ranks — specifically in positions where their views carry weight or influence. And second, the absence of solid, stable channels for dialogue. Such channels as do exist are typically bolstered only during election periods, driven by a clear interest in securing votes.

I must state that my own perspective — shared by the Spanish Evangelical Alliance and Areópago Protestante — is to respect and defend every believer’s right to hold their own specific political views or affiliations, while simultaneously upholding our own independence as evangelical entities — specifically, our non-partisan stance.

In this spirit, we critique whatever we deem negative within any political party (just as I have done in this interview), while simultaneously acknowledging the positive contributions that each party also makes.

Finally, it is worth noting that evangelical media outlets have grown in number, quality, and influence; furthermore, the number of voters of evangelical faith is steadily rising, now approaching the one million mark. This represents a source of influence — and a voting bloc — that is by no means monolithic, yet which, in many instances, holds the power to determine the outcome of a parliamentary seat.

What potential cultural, economic, and national security impacts might the recently announced mass regularization of half a million undocumented immigrants have on Spain?

In my view, there are two extreme positions that are equally reprehensible.

One involves stigmatizing immigrants by cherry-picking isolated incidents to serve as a basis for sweeping generalizations — all while keeping them in a state of illegality and exploiting them as cheap labor. Such workers are often treated unfairly or subjected to abuse, despite constituting a vital component of the country’s social and labor fabric. The other extreme is to open the door to an open-ended regularization process — one devoid of criteria regarding shared responsibility, rootedness, and social integration. Such an approach would foster a certain degree of anarchy, as well as cultural and social tensions.

The absence of a fair mechanism for regularization leads to the abuse and marginalization of many immigrants. Conversely, mass regularization entails granting rights to individuals who, based on their lifestyle, are not entitled to them — having neither integrated into society nor contributed their fair share of solidarity and commitment to it.

In either scenario, situations of insecurity arise for society.

I believe that the current political polarization and conflicting interests make it impossible to work jointly in that middle ground — the space required to regularize, in a balanced and objective manner, the status of those who are entitled to it. It is, undoubtedly, a difficult task; yet I believe it would be achievable if there were a reasonable, good-faith effort to address this issue, involving collaboration from across the entire political spectrum.

What prospects do you see in the political landscape for the upcoming elections?

Undoubtedly, Pedro Sánchez’s hold on power is faltering; his concessions cannot continue indefinitely, and this is causing the support of his self-interested coalition partners to weaken.

Furthermore, he is being impacted by numerous corruption scandals involving figures close to his own government — scandals that are even beginning to personally implicate him. Specifically, some of these cases involve high-ranking officials within the PSOE and the Sanchismo faction (such as Ábalos and Santos Cerdán). There is evidence — currently pending trial — alleging nepotism involving his brother and his wife; there is also an investigation into suspected irregular financing of the PSOE during his tenure — though, regarding the latter, there are currently only witness allegations, with no clear or conclusive evidence as of yet.

Moreover, his administration has suffered from a loss of public confidence due to numerous failures in public service delivery.

However, if Sánchez has demonstrated anything, it is his capacity to turn situations around — his immense talent for executing creative political maneuvers that boost his public image, even if only artificially. Consequently, he cannot be written off as defeated just yet.

Added to this is the fact that his core message has consistently proven effective: that if the far right (referring to the Vox party) were to come to power — even merely as a coalition partner — fundamental rights would be placed in jeopardy. This is a message he will undoubtedly continue to reiterate.

Perhaps the key lies in whether the main opposition party — the PP (which, in fact, won the highest number of votes in the last election) — can successfully carry out the work necessary to earn the trust of the citizenry, including Spain’s evangelical community.