Between 'lawfare' and post-truth
Since the Zapatero affair broke out, almost every day we are faced with a new surprise. Some, quite surreal. The feeling of disbelief is great even among those who for a long time put our heart and soul into the fight against corruption. But there are too many elements here that point to what has come to be called lawfare, the use of 'justice' to criminalize and bring down politicians, particularly progressives, through a lot of disinformation and little evidence. It happened with Lula in Brazil, and we have seen it in the Kingdom of Spain with the leaders of the Procés, the comrades of Podem, and a couple of years ago, with the case of our friend Mònica Oltra, who already warned us that we could all be, like her, victims of infamous maneuvers to civilly kill those who stand up to defend progressive values.
The PSOE didn't pay much attention to it, and now it seems that Pedro Sánchez, despite his commendable ability to navigate messes, has been cornered. The main progressive party has been weakening community by community, burning out minister-candidates, and the reactionary right and the deep-state have taken advantage of the results of the Andalusian elections, which reaffirm the electoral strength of the PP-Vox tandem, the bet of the country's elites. We are still waiting for that plan for democratic regeneration that El perro announced after his five days of going to the thinking corner, in the face of the political, media, and judicial harassment his partner was suffering basically for being his partner. Let's remember that beyond baseless accusations, the level of disinformation has reached the point of questioning her gender, by the way, with an acquittal for the troll who spread the infamy. She is not the first couple to suffer brutal and violent harassment, and if not, ask the Montero-Iglesias tandem.
Other couples are luckier: we have been waiting for months for a judge to allow the Civil Guard to access the accounts of Ayuso's partner, who meanwhile continues to bill on behalf of the privatization of the health system presided over by an admirer of Hernán Cortés. And it is that the contrast between how the judicial system addresses one cause or another says a lot about the judicial system, and what judges eager to play politics – and resistant to democratizing access to the judicial career – are not calibrating is that their actions are accelerating the destruction of the system's credibility for a good part of the population. If you want to talk about contrasts, let's talk about the Kitchen case: it is being judged these days and the evidence that is not of interest is arbitrarily set aside, especially if it is to incriminate those most responsible for the financing scheme of the Popular Party, in a case in which, incidentally, State resorts were used to spy on the same members of the PP so that the truth would not come to light. In times of artificial intelligence, judges have serious problems identifying who M. Rajoy is in Bárcenas's notes.
I will not go into the fact that in most cases the actors who usually star in the complaint are habitually fanatical far-right snitches, but it is already striking the mere fact that there are gentlemen with robes who admit it for processing, or even some judge who, to score points, throws himself into the pool on his own initiative, without even a fiscal accusation. Of the actions of the UCO, it is better not to talk about it... Between Sonsoles's jewels and the search of the PSOE headquarters in Ferraz, which wasn't even a search, and that a powerless character like Leire Díez can buy judicial favors, well... Here I am concerned about two things: on the one hand, the ultra infiltration into the security forces and bodies, including the majority of police unions, something that in Germany has led to several purges that are neither here nor expected and Marlaska has not done much about this issue. The other, the levels of police corruption, which paradoxically place this profession as the one with the highest levels of criminality: take a look at the category 'Police corruption in Spain since 1975' and we'll talk about it.
Finally, post-truth also surrounds the noise about the case. Let's remember that this concept refers to the distortion of reality to the point where truth and lies become inseparable. Of course, there are things that must be clarified and for which accounts must be given, in Zapatero's actions and in those of all former presidents who have taken advantage of their time in politics to favor their own or others' interests. Just as clear regulations are needed regarding this matter, and the absence of them is no excuse for not considering certain actions ethically reprehensible.
In any case, and to summarize: when we move between lawfare and post-truth, it means that big changes are needed, and not more of the same or worse. We need to democratize the State and not an oligarchy with elections, which is where all of the West is heading.
