WOMAN: Being incompetent cannot be an excuse
What was to be expected from the statement before the judge by former Minister of Justice and the Interior of the Valencian Government, Salomé Pradas, who was in charge of emergency management on the day of the DANA, was that she would defend her management and that of her technicians, but what happened this Friday in the City of Justice in Valencia. Pradas justified herself by saying that she "knew nothing about emergencies" and that, therefore, all responsibility falls on the technicians. In other words, the former minister is using her ineptitude as an excuse to shrug off responsibility and shift it onto her subordinates, an attitude that is not only undignified but especially dangerous, since it fuels the belief that all politicians are just as incompetent as she is. This maneuver is complemented by another, predictable one, which is to exonerate her boss, that is, the current President, Carlos Mazón. The blame is placed on those below, never on those above.
As is already the case with Carlos Mazón, however, this legal defense strategy only serves to further expose the Valencian People's Party (PP) and Mazón himself, who appointed Pradas after Vox left the government. In reality, after this judicial declaration, Mazón should resign, not so much for what he did or failed to do on October 29 (which is another chapter still unresolved), but for having appointed to the position a person without experience or the minimum knowledge to manage the Civil Protection jurisdiction, which is exclusively the Valencian government's responsibility. This is called political responsibility. A politician is politically responsible not only for what he does, but for what the people he appoints do.
Unfortunately, we can be sure that Pradas's statement will have no political consequences. Not even in the Valencian People's Party (PP), as the Valencian PP's general secretary made clear in an interview with the newspaper ARA. Juanfran Pérez Llorca, nor in Spain, where Alberto Núñez Feijóo will continue to balance without addressing the major problem posed by Mazón's continuity.
In any case, Pradas's statement should serve to raise awareness among the population that voting for one politician or another is not the same, and that it is not true that they are all the same. Some are competent, and if they lack specific knowledge, they surround themselves with people who do, ultimately making a decision that is solely their responsibility. Pradas's statement is utterly frivolous, because it assumes that politicians, in reality, are not responsible for anything they do because they don't know enough.
Citizens trust that their politicians will know how to make difficult decisions in complicated contexts, and that is why they have salaries commensurate with the responsibility they assume. And parties must ensure that they elect the right people. And if they don't, as has evidently been the case, not only the person directly responsible but also the person who appointed them should go home.
