Does the robe also vote?

If an alien landed in our country today and only read the newspaper headlines, they would probably think that Spain is governed from the courts, and perhaps they wouldn't be too wrong. While Pedro Sánchez's PSOE accumulates investigations affecting the Government's circle and the PP continues to be pursued by corruption cases, in our country a simple graffiti at an environmental protest has even been classified as terrorism. The feeling is that a large part of the political confrontation has moved from parliaments to the courts, to the point that judges seem to have become another actor in the public dispute. In this context, the question is inevitable: does justice really work?Before attempting to answer the question, it is worth remembering a fact. A democracy is not limited to holding elections every four years; it also needs independent institutions that mutually control each other. The Constitution proclaims this separation of powers and guarantees judicial independence. However, there is often a considerable distance between principle and practice. After all, courts do not exist outside of society, but are part of it and inevitably reflect its tensions and contradictions.Judges have a certain way of understanding the world, like anyone else. And the data show a reality that is difficult to deny: only one in ten judges considers themselves progressive. This does not automatically make judges biased. One can be conservative and apply the law with absolute professionalism. But it is also legitimate to wonder if a judiciary so ideologically homogeneous does not end up generating certain biases, even if they are unconscious. Because, I ask myself, is it healthy that those who judge such a plural society come almost always from the same social environment?Citizens, in any case, have already passed judgment. According to a survey by Ateneo del Dato, almost half of Spaniards consider that justice is not impartial. The CIS is even more forceful: almost nine out of ten citizens believe that a powerful person does not receive the same treatment as an ordinary citizen, and confidence in the courts barely reaches 4.76 out of 10. A justice that does not inspire confidence is an institutionally weaker justice.The responsibility for this situation is shared: political polarization has turned the courts into an extension of Parliament. Parties applaud rulings that benefit them and denounce those that harm them as if they were an attack on democracy. Leaks of case files fuel parallel trials and some particularly controversial instructions end up damaging the credibility of the entire system. And that's how we are.I believe that justice functions reasonably well in the vast majority of everyday conflicts – a divorce, a traffic accident, and a robbery, for example. It does so with an often despairing slowness, but, in general terms, it fulfills its corresponding function and is comparable to that of countries in our environment, such as France, Italy, and Portugal. However, we must not forget that it is a justice of a liberal democracy, with the virtues and limitations that this entails.His big problem, then, is another. The reason is that whoever has money buys time. He can hire the best lawyers, file appeals almost indefinitely, and withstand processes that last for years. Whoever doesn't have it, resigns themselves. Equality before the law is a legal principle; equality before the possibilities of defending oneself is another story.Nor can it be ignored that the Spanish justice system is an institution heir to the Transition and, therefore, to the transformation of the structures of the Francoist state into a democratic system. And, as in so many other areas, some inertia still persists, such as the elitism of the judiciary itself. Let us remember that accessing the judicial career requires years of preparation for competitive examinations without income, a luxury that many families cannot afford. Then, some are still surprised that judges often share the same social background, the same legal culture, and a certain way of understanding the world.Finally, a reflection addressed to Majorcanists: it is important not to forget an evidence that too often goes unnoticed. The magistracy is a power of the State and, like any other state institution, has the function of guaranteeing and preserving the current constitutional order. Therefore, expecting the courts to resolve linguistic and self-government conflicts that call into question this very constitutional framework is an unrealistic expectation. After all, it is difficult for any judicial power in the world to adopt decisions that contradict the legal and constitutional foundations on which its own authority is based.Perhaps the lesson is this: justice can resolve disputes, prosecute crimes, and protect rights, but it will never replace politics. Those who aspire to transform society would do well not to confuse courts with ballot boxes, nor judgments with solutions to major collective conflicts.