“Sánchez and Zapatero have a criminal future”

—How would you define the shadow that Zapatero leaves on current politics?

—The book does not claim to be just the story of Zapatero, but the story of an era, of the origin of a dark era for Spanish democracy. He also wants to be a bit of our history: that of a society which allowed it to happen, which rewarded this new way of doing politics established by Zapatero, in which half of the Spaniards became enemies. It seemed to me that the shadow had a duality: on the one hand, it is a dark shadow that has extended since Zapatero took the reins of power, even over Spanish society, democracy and politics in Spain.

But at the same time there is another part, this black shadow that devoured him. In psychology, it is often explained that we all have a darker side that we struggle with, but that it has been eaten away by its shadow. The moment his shadow devoured him, his narcissistic side took over everything. From that moment on, he lost his scruples and didn’t care if it showed.

—In the book you also discuss the negotiations with ETA. In your opinion, what is the highest democratic price that Zapatero has paid in this process?

— Zapatero didn’t pay it, we paid it. Legitimizing ETA by making it a political interlocutor is the greatest betrayal. The greatest danger to a democratic system is not the number of members of a terrorist group, but its legitimacy. Legitimize actions, but also objectives. The legitimization of objectives is even more dangerous than that of actions. By replacing the “defeat of ETA” with “the negotiated end to violence”, the government has placed itself in the same position as the terrorist. This legitimization, placing the legitimate violence of the State and the violence of terrorists on the same level, is the original sin. From there, there is no major corruption for a Democrat.

— Is it possible that the PSOE returns to the scene before Zapatero?

— Not this PSOE. There will perhaps be a social democratic party in the future, even with the same initials, but this PSOE has not been a political party for a long time: it is a populist and anti-system movement in its behavior, because it calls into question the democratic institutions themselves.

With Zapatero, it is already an anti-system and populist party which has decided to exclude the democratic right from the consensus, calling into question the transition and transforming into allies those who were traditional enemies of democracy. With Sánchez, in addition to being populist and anti-system, it is not even formally a political party: it is a family business, made up of him and his wife, who welcome those they deem useful.

—Is there any trace of light that can be recovered from the Zapatero period?

— Well, I don’t know, even the stopped clocks give the correct time twice a day. But Zapatero’s strategy was to break. And the rupture is black, it is the shadow and it is the rupture. I can’t save anything. Some things he did, which later turned out to be positive, he never thought about doing. The Marriage Equality Act, for example, was positive, but it is another example of a law that was implemented to provoke a vote against the People’s Party.

—How did you interpret the former president’s phrase “I will support what the Catalans say”?

— Zapatero saved ETA when ETA was socially and operationally defeated, and he saved the independence movement when it was also defeated. Because I was going to have to both replace the Popular Party and create majorities while leaving the PP aside. This sentence has two readings. One: absolute contempt for the rule of law, the separation of powers, Parliament, the Constitutional Court, national laws, respect for the hierarchies of a federal state. Second: the attempt to save the independence movement.

It is a denial that the national Parliament and judicial bodies are above it. And it is the message of “Me with you and you with me we will understand each other”, apart from the law, national sovereignty and the unity of the nation. This is very typical of someone who did the same thing with ETA: legitimized it and saved it after its defeat. This mutual recognition is visible in the ETA minutes. At the first meeting after the T4 attacks, the government representative told them: “You and we were at war.” Is there any political corruption greater than this? No.

— To what extent were Zapatero’s mistakes ignored?

— It would not have been possible for Zapatero to win a second time if we had done what we had to do: question him, rebel, prevent him from continuing to destroy coexistence and democracy in Spain. We all have a responsibility, some more, some less. In a democracy, it is impossible to prevent a madman from becoming president, but serious democracies have counter-powers that act. In Spain they did not act. The media, businesses, opinion leaders, society… many people made fun of him when they could have stopped him.

The first four years, when he broke everything that had been built during the Transition, those who criticize him today did nothing. They remained silent because Zapatero had poisoned the bases. If you criticized something, they called you a traitor or a collaborator. Many of those who had influence within the PSOE remained silent to continue to have an internal future. Spanish society is democratically weak and poorly structured. That explains things. But many people had the ability to stop this and they didn’t.

— In 2023, he told ABC that there was “nothing more patriotic than firing Sánchez.” Is there anything more patriotic today?

—I still think the same thing, but I hope to have more success now. There can be nothing more patriotic than expelling Sánchez de la Moncloa. This is not about right or left. It is about regenerating and rebuilding the democracy that is being destroyed. Rediscover the spirit and form of the Transition. There is a process of rupture so deep that firing the person who caused it is the first step. This is just a first step, but an essential one. I see nothing more patriotic, more democratic or more legitimate defense of our institutions than ousting Sánchez de la Moncloa.

— Do you expect a legal future for Sánchez and Zapatero?

—I think they both have a criminal future. Probably different, but they have it. Zapatero’s future will depend on his international adventures. He is proven to be a defender of the world’s dictators. In Venezuela, he is always on the side of the dictator and those who massacre. Its representation has positive effects for Maduro. It is proven that in Venezuela he acts as a prescriber and defender of the dictator against those he represses. It now remains to be proven whether he charges for it. I think one day we will see a trial, I don’t know if it will be a conviction.

About Sánchez: nothing moves within the PSOE without his knowledge. The level of structural corruption within the party – organizational secretaries, ministers, affairs that affect one’s wife or brother, illegalities, the attorney general – does not occur without an institutionalized corruption conspiracy. And it is impossible for such a plot to take place without Sánchez’s knowledge, protection or impetus. If the PSOE ends up being tried for corruption, Sánchez will be too.

— What would you say to young people about Zapatero?

— Let them read. There is a lot of writing. You don’t need to read my book. Let them study, let them worry. In Spain there is no democratic pedagogy and recent history is not studied either inside or outside the education system. But it’s easy to get to.