It is a common place to affirm that politics consists in choosing the least bad of two deficient alternatives and that democracy serves to oust those who do not do well. In the Declaration of Independence of the United States, in 1776, Thomas Jefferson wrote that “all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. Citizens have the right to be free and to try to be happy.In Spain, for years we have found ourselves mired in a confrontation that has turned politics into a war of communication where anything goes to harm the opponent, who has already become an enemy. We have moved away from the principles proclaimed by Jefferson and practiced by Adams, and we have built a political environment based on what is negative and bad rather than on what is good and positive, and on the fact that telling lies is "legitimate" if it is effective. "That's politics," they say. It is not.It doesn't matter if a person hasn't broken the law or abused their power if I can accuse them of doing so, with false reasons or half-truths. Once the accusation has begun, social networks will do the rest and, from anonymity, will convince many that what is not true is true. The problem is that the enemy of truth is not lies, but half-truths, which, by containing part of the truthfulness, make it difficult to discern the degree of falsehood.
What is surprising – or perhaps not so much – is the coincidence of public communication of various corruption cases affecting the left and the excessive – and sometimes unjustified – incrimination in some police reports, which seem more like indictments than information. Some even become comical, as in the case of Begoña Gómez and the Attorney General. This situation has not occurred with the same frequency or intensity in cases involving the right. Perhaps this is related to the fact that the transition removed the far-right military commanders, but not the judiciary. The efficiency and thoroughness of Serra and Ledesma, ministers of Defense and Justice respectively, were not the same.The next elections may present a choice between a political option of moderation and fragmentation, and one of extremism and monolithism. But there is an indisputable certainty: the latter will accuse the former of corruption and theft, in line with what it has done in the last two years. Is it possible that someone not blinded by ideology can argue that if PP and Vox govern there will be less corruption than with the PSOE, the parties to its left, and the nationalists and regionalists?We must remember the best-known cases of each. In the PSOE: GAL, Filesa, Roldán, Guerra, ERE Andalusia, Ábalos and Koldo… And in the PP: Gürtel, Guateque, Arena, Fabra, Naseiro, Púnica, Kitchen, Bárcenas, operation Catalonia... What is true is that the PP has more than double the judicially processed money than the PSOE. Voting for any of these two parties to avoid corruption is an option of scarce consistency and profound naivety. Spain is a country of rooted corruption, with a slow justice system and a bias to the right. Presenting a government program with a serious reform of justice would also not be useful, because its implementation would require a transversal agreement in Congress which, due to the very nature of the conflict, will become impossible. An initiative of these characteristics will necessarily have scarce results.
Starting from this conclusion, which neither of the two major parties – rooted in the practice of "what about you?" – will accept, the vote for the next elections will have to be decided based on who will create more quality of life for the citizens, who will be capable of creating more wealth and distributing it better, who will establish a less harsh and tense social debate, who will pursue a fairer and calmer regional policy, who will contribute more to calming spirits… But let's forget about carrying out major reforms: we won't get out of it in a country now split in two, with a Cainite confrontation where the damage to the adversary matters more than mutual benefit. Building social dialogue and politics on hatred and excess, instead of on respect and moderation, is a mistake. The most harmed is the one who practices it, but society also suffers from it. Spain has gone through periods of conflict and confrontation: the defeat in Cuba and the Philippines in 1898, the War in Africa and the Tragic Week in 1909, the Civil War, ETA… These have alternated with times of consensus and understanding, with the transition to democracy in 1977 and the arrival of the left in power in 1982 being the most decisive. With the Transition, we thought we had broken forever with "the two Spains", but 50 years later we are once again at a point of conflict. The substantive difference is that now we are politically part of Europe and Goya's black drawings' blows are more difficult. Before it was assassination; now, media and dialectical aggression. The citizenry, on the right and on the left, should recognize the damage that this path causes to everyone. In addition to the lost opportunity it implies: while we fight and hurt each other, we do not advance.
Although it may seem impossible in the short term, surely future generations – more educated, more competent and, above all, more international – will change it. Nothing is eternal.
