The enormous influence that Balearic politicians allow the hotelier guild to have, which can be called 'hotelism', explains why the tourism model has not changed for more than seven decades. Also why so many directly related problems have been created, from the very business that now impoverishes the social whole to the captive economic structure of a monoculture that dangerously weakens its potential, passing through so many others, such as demographic substitution. None of this worries hotelism in the least, for which the only thing that matters is satisfying the greed of these entrepreneurs.It is worth saying that the responsibility lies not so much with the hoteliers as with those who allow themselves to be influenced and often determined, the politicians. The right-wing have never hidden their submission, while the left-wing and nationalists may be ashamed of it – some – and deny it, but practice when they have governed betrays the same vassalage. This docile brotherhood has been a reality since 2003, although the influence is older.The first time it manifested was in 1955: peak of the dictatorship, beginnings of mass tourism, first travel operators who brought more visitors each year, inns that from one day to the next became hotels, houses rented whole or by rooms and that each year grew with new attached rooms – there was no urban planning control – the Mortgage Bank that granted generous credits to build hotels and each season a handful of them appeared on the sand of some beach...The progression of the business was so rapid and uncontrolled that some politicians of the Diputació – who must not have had hotel interests, neither direct nor indirect – began to worry about the growing disorder. And since they thought – ingenuously – that it was up to them to remedy it, they decided to approve the Report and project of the Provincial Charter – published in the official provincial bulletin on December 30, 1955 –, in which, among other measures, a special tax was launched for tourist establishments – hotels, pensions and others – and the prohibition of building on the coastal sandbanks.The hoteliers saw it more or less like the advent of the Soviet revolution. They allied themselves with the cream of institutional fascism – the Organization movement and the Civil Government – and directed the Foment del Turisme against the initiative. The Foment presented allegations – it had the official Madrid behind it – and the outcome was as predictable as could be: the attempt to limit hotel greed was aborted and the president and other members of the Diputación resigned – for ‘personal reasons’ – the following year.In practice, it was the green light for absolute chaos. In the following 20 years, the hotel industry sowed the first line of new constructions: 'Balearization'. With the 1973 oil crisis, tourism declined and did not fully recover until 10 years later, coinciding with the invention of autonomy.Back then – in 1983 – other de facto powers still existed. For example: Vaticanism and Banca March. The financial institution, for instance, determined who would be the first President of the Government, Gabriel Cañellas – from Alianza Popular, AP, today PP – when the general director, Carlos March, forced a meeting in his Madrid office between Cañellas and the head of Unió Mallorquina – which had the key deputies – Jeroni Albertí, who had bank guarantees that – according to what he said in an interview in Memòria Viva. Mallorca des de la mort de Franco fins avui, Promomallorca, 1995– did not allow him to be "economically free" and he had no choice but to make Cañellas president, closing off the options for the socialist Fèlix Pons. And his own, not least because he aspired to force a deadlock that his election could break.Forming the Government in such a ignominious manner cannot be surprising that the tourism policy it launched was also infamous: satisfying hotel greed. The left opposed it and when it came to power, in 1999, it began the conflict strategy with the hoteliers – designed by a Catalan consultant, from the PSC – which involved imposing an ecotax as a first step of the future reform of tourism. But the PP of Jaume Matas won in 2003 and the losers assumed that the war against the hoteliers had been the cause.From then on, the hotel industry reached its maximum splendor. The PSOE, the far-left, and progressive nationalism joined forces with the right and paid them homage. The second Pact of Progress (2007-2011) and the subsequent left-wing Governments (2015-2023) certified this.More than 70 years have passed since the first failed attempt to limit hotel power, in 1955. Many things have improved since then, but there is one thing that, if it has changed, has only gotten worse. And it doesn't look like it will improve in the coming years: triumphant hoteliering.

For years we have been breaking tourism records. The problem is that a growing part of the islanders no longer celebrate them. There is no need to explain much why. Housing, saturation, traffic, noise, pressure on services. The demonstrations have only made visible a discontent that has been there for a long time. That is why I believe that the debate is no longer whether we want more or fewer tourists. The debate is who should be at the service of whom.It would be absurd to deny all that tourism has contributed to Islands that owe a large part of their prosperity to it. But it is one thing to acknowledge it, and another to take for granted that the interests of our main industry always coincide with the interests of those of us who live here. A hotelier wants to fill more rooms. A restaurateur, more tables. An airline company, more passengers. It is quite normal. What is no longer so normal is to take for granted that we also need this growth.The question is quite simple. What does a tourist leave us more, what collective costs does their stay generate, and, above all, who pays for them? You only need to look at any tourist area: streets, asphalt, lighting, gardens, sewage, water networks, pumping, waste collection, cleaning, access roads. Many developments grew to accommodate a population that multiplies during a few months, but the town councils have to maintain them all year round. And this pressure has already entered our towns and cities in full force: squares, parking lots, water, cleaning, security, maintenance.Part of this additional capacity ends up being paid for with the same budgets that must meet the needs of those of us who live there all year round. And public money, if it goes here, cannot go to housing, kindergartens, public transport, care for the elderly and other needs. The OECD has long warned that tourism depends heavily on public infrastructure and services and that high pressure can affect the resources and quality of life of the host communities. It is curious that we worry so much about the destination being competitive and so little about who pays for this competitiveness.Then, there is the bill that does not go through any Administration. We find it when we look for an apartment, when our children cannot become independent, when certain prices adapt to the spending capacity of those who are on vacation for 15 days, but also in things harder to put into euros: the noise, the queues, the congestion, the loss of tranquility, and having to adapt our daily lives for months to a pressure we have not chosen. Tourist and second-home demand competes, even within our towns, with local families who have much less purchasing power. This is hard to swallow: we maintain our towns to make them attractive, we pay taxes all year round, and in the end, some of our children can no longer afford a house there. And all this wear and tear, even if it does not appear on any budget, also comes out of our well-being.This is why I think we are mistaken when we discuss whether the appropriate number is 15, 17, or 20 million tourists. The size of the tourism industry should not be decided from the outset. It should be a result. First, we should know what this activity really costs and ensure that the collective costs it generates are part, as much as possible, of the bill paid by those who generate them. Only then will we be able to know what size of the tourism industry is compatible with the general interest.This will increase part of the tourist offer. So what? If someone considers that coming to the Islands is worth that price, they will come. If a business continues to be profitable after paying the costs it generates, magnificent. And if it was only so because we were paying part of those costs, perhaps we should ask ourselves why we are so interested in preserving it. Surely fewer people would come. I don't see it as a drama. Less volume should not be the objective. It should be, if appropriate, the result of ceasing to charge residents part of the bill.And here we must also demand a response from our institutions. Why do we continue to govern tourism thinking so much about the needs of the sector and so little about the well-being of those of us who live here? The tourism sector has every right to defend more activity, more clients, and more profitability. That is its job. But the Government, the councils, and the town halls do not have this mandate. Their mandate is to defend the general interest of the citizens who live here. Always.A good government does not govern to maximize the interests of an industry, however important it may be. It governs to maximize the well-being of citizens. When the interest of the sector and the general interest coincide, perfect. But when they stop coinciding, there is not much room for discussion: the general interest must prevail. That is why we have the right to ask those who govern what criteria they use to decide if a tourism policy is good. Does more people come? Does spending increase? Does the sector bill more? Or do the islanders live better?We do not govern an industry. We govern a society. For too long we have asked residents to understand the needs of our main industry. Perhaps it is time to ask our main industry to understand the needs of the residents.It has been a long time since we passed the point where more tourist activity meant more well-being for the people here. Returning to a level that suits us does not mean arbitrarily deciding how many tourists should come. It means making those who enjoy tourism pay not only for the hotel, the restaurant, the car, or the taxes they already pay, but also for the share of the collective costs generated by their stay, which we continue to bear collectively today. Only then will we know what level of activity is truly compatible with the well-being of those of us who live here. In the end, this is the only measure that really matters: that tourism helps us live better, not worse.

In 1952, when Elizabeth II ascended to the throne of the United Kingdom, Isaac Asimov published a story whose plot was based on the struggle for water between Earth and the colonies of Mars. In other words, more than 70 years ago, Asimov already understood that a water crisis could endanger an entire planet. Or two. And that water is not a resource that can be squandered. In fact, from ‘Dune’ (Frank Herbert) to the screenwriters of ‘Mad Max’ (George Miller and Byron Kennedy), many science fiction authors have seen in the possibilities of water scarcity an apocalyptic plot.Well then, the Islands are already living an apocalyptic plot: there is no water, but we continue growing, building, expanding airports and increasing the number of tourists as if we had water. What could go wrong?At the beginning of this year, the United Nations, in a landmark report, declared that the world has entered an era of global water bankruptcy. In other words, many ecosystems have reached the point of no return, because human demand, with its unsustainable progress, has exhausted aquifer savings and dried up the wells of the future. The entire planet's water system is at risk. And, on this desolate map, we can understand islands like the Balearics —located in a Mediterranean that is warming above average and sold to tourism and unbridled concrete— as the paradigm of shipwreck in dry dock, the small-scale experiment of the consequences of the policy of excess. What happens when a society behaves as if a finite resource were infinite?Thus, amid the widespread absurdity, the Archipelago rises, once again, as the champion of nonsense. Attila preventing the grass from growing. In the Islands, we still don't understand what we're playing with regarding water. And this despite all indicators showing we're reaching a very dangerous limit. Water reserves are not reaching 40% on any island. Menorca's reserves have fallen to historic lows. In Ibiza, the largest part of the underground water masses are overexploited and salinized. And the precipitation regime is disrupted due to climate change.It is true that many municipalities have established restrictions — supply cuts or restrictions on irrigation and swimming pools — but if construction continues and human pressure increases, these measures will be like putting band-aids on Smith and Wesson .45 wounds.We are living a water crisis within a climate crisis that threatens our future. And, in reality, it's not that we don't understand it (I think many of us do), it's that whoever sets the agenda for our rulers is a business sector that, in its infinite arrogance, believes that money buys everything and that their navel is above all things in the universe. One fine day I reproached the person in charge of the company that brings us water to our homes —the water oligarchs— that, with the critical situation of the aquifers, they didn't turn off the tap (never better said) to those who ask for five trucks a day for swimming pools and gardens. He answered me that, in reality, he should offer these wasters a better price than me, because they are their best clients. And this is the philosophy. The laws of the market applied to a resource of all that they have privatized without anyone setting limits. Suicidal capitalism, once again.And, ultimately, the limits, of course, are always for those of us who already save water. Individual consciousness as an alibi for not discussing the decisions of those who truly waste. And if not, just ask the pharaoh of Sant Antoni de Portmany (read Mayor Marcos Serra), who, in full drought alert, authorized a party where an Egyptian setting was recreated with a lake that required 170 tons of water to be poured. Water as decoration; the shape of the water we were missing to see.In Asimov's story, titled Martian Way, Earth is about to stop supplying water to Mars —and I don't know if this will be a spoiler, but the book is from 1952—, so the Martians, to avoid depending on Earth's water, decide to go search for an enormous block of ice in Saturn's rings. What some would call technological solutions. And perhaps they themselves will tell me that, after all, an Archipelago is surrounded by water, and that the solution is desalination. But if anyone still thinks that way, I will recommend a short trip to Talamanca, where Ibiza's desalination plant discharges the brine from the desalination process through an outfall under a cliff. There, right there, there should be a splendid seagrass meadow. But the desalination plant has destroyed it. The ecological cost of desalination is too high. And until we can go get ice from Saturn's rings, we either stop building or die of thirst.

The National Police has returned from the August holidays with their September homework done: a nice internal report (but immediately sent to the courts) on the demonstration of July 26, in which the demonstrators appear as the culprits of the police charges, and seven people in particular are pointed out as the instigators of the clash. The government delegate, Alfonso Rodríguez, was urged to resign as the direct political official responsible for that episode of police brutality. There were more than enough reasons to ask for it, this resignation, although, on the other hand, it was quite predictable that Rodríguez would not resign, and he did not. On the contrary, he received the support of Pedro Sánchez himself after his visit to Felipe VI “to confer” in Marivent: the president and the head of the Spanish state are undoubtedly two conspicuous connoisseurs of the social reality of the Balearic Islands, who know better than anyone what the citizens of these fortunate islands need. For his part, the day after the demonstration. Rodríguez not only did not resign, but he commissioned this police report that now arrives loaded with blame for everyone except the Police. Indeed, a surprise never seen before.

The Orquestra de Cambra de Mallorca seems, for a long time, since the day it was born, that growing is part of its character, of its DNA. The latest test by fire is, without a doubt, the challenge of facing Gustav Mahler in the monographs that each year they dedicate to a composer, behind the Pollença Festival and in the same enclave. But this is another story that we will have time to talk about, but which in some way has to do with the concert with which Bellver Castle rounded off the summer season. A farewell, on the one hand, and a presentation card, on the other. A great prelude and a program that to call demanding is an understatement, a great understatement.

The Balearic Parliament approved a bill for the creation of an airport authority for the Balearic Islands, also declared itself against the works announced at Ibiza airport, on June 2, and pronouncements have been made against the planned expansion at Menorca airport. In my opinion, these demonstrations and positions are made out of ignorance, prejudice, or more unconfessable intentions.If we talk about going to a sustainable model and against massification, I agree, but it won't be by attacking and blaming Aena as we will clarify. To defend the autonomous management or co-management of airports, and to oppose Aena, it is said that if we manage the airports from here, public or social interest will prevail, and connectivity will be better. And recently a new one has been added: Aena is responsible for the tourist overcrowding we are suffering and, therefore, we need to move to a new management model to avoid it. The truth, however, is that there is no argument to support this position, beyond populist, not to say demagogic, expressions, and simple answers to complicated problems.Imagine you that because of waiting lists or the lack of doctors, nurses and specialists in public healthcare the solution was to privatize healthcare? Something similar is happening with the airport self-management/co-management proposal or the attacks on Aena.Aena is the leading airport operator worldwide, moving 10.8% of Spain's GDP and, according to an Incosa study, in the last decade, Aena has become the most successful European air model, and it doesn't cost us a cent! You read that right, it costs us nothing, it is self-financed with airport fees and what it invoices to companies that carry out commercial or economic activity there.Breaking it up would only make management more expensive and increase problems.Mass tourism is not a consequence of Aena's management, which, we recall, manages airports of general interest by constitutional mandate of article 149.1.20a; and, therefore, manages the airports of Ibiza with 9,138,224 passengers in 2025 and that of Menorca with 4,210,152 in the same year, two islands similar in terms of square kilometers and the same manager, but with a very different economic evolution. The first island has bet since the sixties of the last century on a model based on the tourism sector, while Menorca had a more diversified economy with more presence of the primary and secondary sectors.Aena also does not control the number of flights and slots. In Europe it is regulated by Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 and in Spain, since 2014, it is AEFCA, an independent body, that determines the slots based on the capacity declared by each airport and the historical rights of the airlines.  The works announced in both Ibiza and Menorca are not aimed at increasing the declared capacity, but at providing solutions to structural problems in both terminals, which are not well dimensioned for the current number of passengers. Increasing the declared capacity is what should really alarm us.Does this mean that Aena is doing everything right, that there is no room for improvement, that we can do nothing? Well no, but the political and social initiatives in our autonomous community should be directed in another direction and address the real problems we have at our airports. Firstly, fight for the reversal of the 49% privatization carried out in 2015, in compliance with article 128.1 of the Constitution. Secondly, ensure that they have the necessary staff, as they claimed at Menorca airport on July 21st, or more recently in Ibiza on August 24th with gatherings, not forgetting Son Sant Joan and Son Bonet. The same applies to the staff of many airport contracts, be they companies of handling, security, restoration or cleaning. Thirdly, to have the essential infrastructures. The most urgent case, that of a new control tower at Menorca airport. Fourthly, to demand compliance with occupational risk prevention regulations, which are very deficient. Fifthly, to actively participate in airport coordination committees and improve their composition and competences. Finally, if we really want to combat mass tourism, we must decrease, regulate tourist rentals, intervene in the housing market, limit vehicle entry and reorient the economy towards more sustainable sectors. And all of this is within the autonomous and municipal power, but it is easier to blame Aena for everything. By the way, and what about the ports where the Autonomous Community participates? In the case of APB (and, therefore, of the influx of cruise ships) it has the competences of the Ports of the Balearic Islands, which manages, among others, the port of Ciutadella, where we have gone from 205,461 passengers in 2012 to 643,582 in 2025 (and they want to expand it). But it's better not to talk about that, right? We can go against Aena, like Don Quixote against the windmills, thinking they were giants. But they were not giants, they were windmills. The sooner we open our eyes, the better, lest by attacking the windmills' sails we get hurt.

I was listening to Catalunya Ràdio. In a discussion among young people, the kind that are common now and talk about social networks and influencers, they addressed a concept that is starting to gain traction even among what are now called ‘content creators’ and who in the past must have been called ‘people with a profile’ or simply ‘common folk’. The discussants said that even these very same ‘influencers’ who charge thousands of euros to publish posts where they slip us hidden advertising for clothing brands, cosmetics, and all sorts of products, are now apparently tired. They suffer from ‘digital fatigue’. One might think we're talking about itchy eyes, headaches, physical and mental exhaustion... But it goes further than that. They've grown tired of themselves and their peers. They can't take it anymore. There are already content creators who are fed up with having to create every day, and with every single thing they experience having to become original, entertaining content destined for the tedious enjoyment of today's scrollers.

The author of the article, Salvador Martínez, left us on the 3rd. We are therefore faced with a posthumous text. His political testament, which he wanted to publish in ARA_Balears, a medium to which he was a subscriber and with which he maintained permanent contact as an activist and facilitator, as well as president of ATTAC. This writing is published in the hope that it will be a source of debate, that it will illuminate perspectives of peace and social justice, and also encourage transformative thought and action.I completely agree with the analysis that Juan Torres, economist and member of the scientific committee of ATTAC Spain, published in Globalter on May 28th under the title: ‘The left that no longer serves. Ideas to regain the north’ and I want to focus my reflection and proposals on four key lines that are developed in his article.