The last blitz of the UCO and the decline in cases of sexual harassment coming from certain socialist positions – and some other PPs – leave us in a situation of civic emergency. Most often, when the existence of corruption plots is added to a series of inappropriate behaviors which spread in our public space and contribute to transforming indecency into a spectacle.
We will say that these isolated cases are exceptional, and that the existence of a few rotten manza does not necessarily have to contaminate the whole basket; The good news is that all these breaches of public morality find their immediate sanction. No, that’s not the problem; The problem is that democracy goes astray when abuses become naturalized, when corruption or unworthy acts become part of the landscape. Indeed, they can count on complications that create a feeling of impunity, when, for example, “party loyalty” or ties of friendship interfere in a rapid reaction to unacceptable behavior. We don’t know if he’s there before the start Abalos affairfollowed by the (apparent) shield which ensured access to a safe. But it’s hard not to understand what Paco Salazar is saying.
Democracies have always faced similar problems, because virtue is part of their constituent DNA, and must continually confront what Judith Shklar called “ordinary vices” and Kant called the “twisted core of humanity,” the type of behavior that, given human nature, is as common as one would expect, but which sometimes results in results that are intolerable under any scheme of public morality. It is the traditional contradiction between the classical virtues and the reality of subjects who cannot exercise or realize themselves.
It is precisely for this reason, for so much boasting of embodying these virtues, that the PSOE today finds itself stuck in an incoherence that is difficult to resolve. This affects its identity as a party, but it does not stand up alone, provoking a government crisis, as Yolanda Díaz suggests, nor, as dignified as it may be, standing alongside the victims.
Who takes responsibility?, that would be the question. Both for the citizens and for the party itself, because not doing so would put them at the feet of their caballos during the next electoral cycle. A certain catharsis is missing, a certain repulsion of great symbolic immediacy.
Calling an election in such circumstances would leave the previous question unanswered, as it would mean transferring responsibility to a civic court, trusting party loyalty as its most effective exculpatory element. It is obvious that sooner or later citizens will speak out, but coming to her without having been held accountable is a risk difficult for her party to assume and which is not the most edifying for our democracy, eager to see gestures that go beyond the usual mutual incriminations or the fear that indignation over scandals will be distributed in a partisan manner.
The gesture that requires this situation is the reduction of the President of the Government, even if the uncertainty over his parliamentary support means that his possible replacement finds himself facing a bad inauguration and could be forced to be called to the elections again. But the gesture at least serves to promote internal reflection within the PSOE, which would also be consistent with the exercise of responsibility that the situation requires. His candidate would probably be Pedro Sánchez, now strengthened in his credibility by the aforementioned gesture. It is now political fiction, because this reduction will not happen, but letting everything take its course is the best guarantee to follow the hundiéndonos in the fango.
About The Author
