Social lessons from the great blackout: cooperation, risk and politics in times of uncertainty
By Narciso Michavila · President of GAD3.
‘The question is no longer whether a digital blackout will occur, but when.’
Six months after making this statement—during the presentation of Denaria’s Barometer on the use of cash—the answer came for Spain and Portugal. The blackout on 28 April 2025 was not a simple failure of communication systems: it was the biggest power cut in two decades. It was a real stress test for society, from which it is essential to draw valuable lessons from sociology.
Here is the Denaria Barometer for your reference.
1. Citizens do not panic: they cooperate
The first major lesson is the calmness and cooperation shown by citizens, widely recognised in the media and on social networks. Contrary to popular belief, this was not an exception, but rather confirmation of a well-documented pattern: in disasters, most people do not react with panic or selfishness, but with solidarity.
This behaviour has been extensively studied in the sociology of disaster. Enrico Quarantelli, a pioneer in the field, concluded that widespread panic is rare and that spontaneous cooperative behaviour is the norm. Decades later, Rebecca Solnit reaffirmed this in A Paradise Built in Hell, pointing out that the myth of chaos often serves as a justification for authoritarian responses.
What about blackouts with looting and riots, as in the United States? The reality is that these are very isolated cases. The famous New York blackout in 1977 was an exception explained by an extreme context: institutional crisis, unemployment, inflation and a bankrupt local government.
In contrast, the blackouts of 1959, 1965 and 2003 in the same city – as well as that of Italy in 2003 – passed calmly and with citizen cooperation. As historian David Nye recalls in When the Lights Went Out, outrage at politicians can coexist with civic-mindedness. And that is precisely what happened again in Spain in 2025.
2. Political polarisation: an artificial construct
The second major lesson from the blackout is that political polarisation does not necessarily reflect a real social divide, but rather an artificially amplified construct. In the absence of social media, those who generate tension saw their influence limited.
While citizens collaborated to solve practical problems, many political leaders took advantage of the crisis to deepen ideological differences, seeking electoral gain. This behaviour fits with Ezra Klein’s analysis (Why We’re Polarised), which shows how polarisation reduces the ability to govern. When leadership fails in management, the temptation is to replace management with confrontation.
3. Infrastructure: the price of short-termism
The third lesson is the urgent need to invest in infrastructure, security and sustainability. For decades, public spending has prioritised visible social policies — such as pensions — over long-term investments in bridges, reservoirs and power stations.
This trend, as Wolfgang Münchau points out in Kaputt: The End of the German Miracle, has led to obsolete and vulnerable infrastructure, as evidenced by blackouts and collapses such as that of the Dresden bridge. It is the same short-termism that fuelled the 2008 financial crisis, now visible in the energy sector.
Michavila, N. Puente Carola (Dresde, Alemania). 2025. Fotografía propia.
4. Progress entails risk, but its absence is worse
Ulrich Beck already anticipated this in the 1980s: progress brings new risks. But its absence does not bring peace, but other certainties: hunger, disease, violence, darkness and premature death. The security of not moving forward is the security with which our past generations lived.
Today’s risks, such as blackouts, are global, indiscriminate and systemic. We must not fall into Luddism or fear of change, but rather strengthen our collective resilience.
5. Recover technical judgement and rational debate
The final lesson is clear: if bridges of political understanding are not rebuilt, crises will become increasingly destructive. Growing polarisation, the invasion of partisanship into public spaces and the replacement of technical judgement with ideological judgement are not unique to Spain, but they are particularly evident here.
This already happened with the attempt to ban cash—promoted by a Swedish model, but halted by citizen mobilisation. We cannot repeat the mistake with energy. Citizens have shown maturity in crises and value proposals that arise from expert knowledge.
But in the current public debate, renewable energies have become the scapegoat. The problem is not the technology, but the lack of vision and leadership to manage it rigorously.
In this article for the Otrosí magazine, I am talking about the importance of expert knowledge in tackling complex challenges such as this one.
Conclusion: five keys to a better-prepared society
Faced with the challenges ahead, these are the keys to responding with collective intelligence:
1. Trust citizens, who have always shown good sense and cooperation in critical moments.
2. Restore technical criteria in public decision-making.
3. Invest with a long-term vision in infrastructure and sustainability.
4. Reject alarmism and Luddism, understanding that risk is part of progress.
5. Recover spaces free of sectarianism, where rational debate and the common good prevail over political tribalism.
