The euphoria of the far right makes the PP uncomfortable

Once the last plenary session of the Parliament had ended, the president of Memoria de Mallorca, Maria Antònia OliverShe re-entered the room. She needed to make one last gesture before leaving, and placed her red handkerchief on the table where the Prime Minister was still sitting. Marga Prohens"Truth, justice, and reparation," he said and left. He did so in protest against the repeal of the Democratic Memory Law, swiftly struck down at the initiative of the far right, supported by the PP. Vox celebrated it as another victory, while the Popular Party simply weathered the storm as best they could. No applause, no congratulations, just perfunctory smiles. "We're the only normal party," the PP spokesperson, Sebastià Sagreras, was heard saying once the plenary session ended. You know how it is: non-small excusatio, manifest accusatioIn other words, perhaps you should get it checked out if you feel the need to justify your behavior.

Representatives of this entity wear scarves in remembrance of Nora Cortiñas, one of the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo in Argentina. And the headscarves were seen both at the protest outside the Chamber and inside, where representatives of memorial organizations, members of the PP's youth wing, and far-right supporters witnessed one of the tensest debates of the legislature.

A Fascist. How fascism works and how it has entered your life (Blackie Books), Jason Stanley She explains that a characteristic of the far right is victimhood, a trait that Vox representatives display whenever they have the opportunity. According to the party spokesperson, Santiago AbascalManuela Cañadas said that supporters of the memory law behaved extremely violently, a situation she said could even have ended "with a stabbing." Cañadas neglects to mention that the Vox deputy in Congress Jorge Campos He made the gesture of pollice verso At the entrance to Parliament: the thumbs-down gesture, the one with which the ancient Romans demanded the death of defeated gladiators. Apparently, he couldn't hide his satisfaction. Cañadas also failed to mention that far-right supporters had announced that "now it will be a funeral" when the repeal took effect. They made this announcement in the Hall of Lost Steps, where the families of the murdered men were demanding respect.

Perhaps the repeal of the Historical Memory Law has affected the memories of the former socialist activist, because Cañadas was a member of the PSIB (Socialist Party of the Balearic Islands) before finding her place in the world within the ranks of the far right. But it is necessary to clarify her confusion: what she calls 'violence' democrats call freedom of expression. Or perhaps she expected to be thanked at the doors of Parliament for dismantling a law that condemns Francoism, recognizes the victims, ensures the removal of symbols of the dictatorship, and promotes the recognition of victims and investigation? Perhaps she would understand with a simple explanation: freedom of expression always exists, especially in cases where others do not think like us.

It is thanks to freedom of expression that members of the far right can justify the dictatorship of Francisco Franco, for example. They play on the edge, but they play the victim if someone points them out for their actions and words. The intervention of the deputy spokesperson of the far right, Sergio RodríguezRodríguez's argument for repealing the Historical Memory Law was, in this case, textbook. He brandished the banner of those who died for not being left-wing or for disagreeing with the Republic, in a performance so emotionally charged that at times he seemed to be on the verge of tears. His reasoning was far from subtle, because what the victims of Francoism demand is recognition after an established power, as happened in the Balearic Islands from the very beginning of the Civil War, implemented a strategy to erase all traces of anyone who thought, lived, or acted differently from what the fascists considered correct.

Rodríguez raised an accusing finger and blamed the PSOE for being "responsible for the violence of the Civil War." That's why a memory law is necessary, because someone must remember that there was a legal and legitimate government, which was overthrown by a coup d'état. Those responsible for the coup are those who carried it out. No one forced them; their moral duty was not to initiate decades of terror, but to defend their principles democratically. Rodríguez said he feels like a victim when tributes are paid to... Lluís CompanysThe last president of the Generalitat before the dictatorship. It is obvious that Lluís Companys did not murder his godfather or his uncle. According to the far-right representative, the person responsible for security in Catalonia was the one who carried out the murders. reductio ad absurdum Textbook example. If Marga Prohens is responsible for healthcare in the Balearic Islands, is she guilty of the deaths caused by medical negligence? The comparison is ridiculous, in keeping with the argument. "We are morally, intellectually, and aesthetically superior," Rodríguez proclaimed from the podium. The excitement of the moment undid his mask. This statement sums it all up and makes it clear that when the left is accused of believing itself superior, the problem lies with the finger pointing.

The PP is trying

The left did what it had to do: defend the law, support memorial organizations, and ensure that, when it returns to power, democratic memory will occupy the place it deserves in any civilized society.

For her part, the PP representative who defended the repeal, Cristina GilIt demonstrated how complicated it is to defend the Popular Party's support for the far right in this case. Gil tried, applauded by her supporters, but most of her arguments were childish. She pointed out that the tension in the plenary session showed that the Historical Memory Law "divides us." But Ms. Gil needs a reminder: in its eight years of validity, the law has not created any problems or divisions. What has caused the tension is the fact that the Popular Party grants this satisfaction to the far right. She also asserted that "memory is individual, belonging to each one of us." We burn monuments, museums, and history books now that we know, thanks to Ms. Gil, that collective memory is a Martian invention. And she even used a pedagogical tone, as is her custom in her speeches. Perhaps tone cannot compensate for a lack of ideas.