We all know that politics is a struggle for power and is governed by the principle "I'll take you out so I can put myself in." But democracies seemed destined to be a ritual with rules of respect for one's adversary and responsibility to the citizenry to limit the delusions of the will to power. Given the spectacle that politics offers us day after day, which in Spain has reached delirious levels in the single-issue offensive by the People's Party (PP) against the Socialist government, in which the debate is not about proposals and ideas but simply about accusations with which to disqualify the adversary—that is, without any distinction between truth and gamesmanship, and therefore without the democratic framework—it becomes alarming.
One of the most profound signs of this perversion of democracy is the increasingly evident politicization of justice. Citizens like any other, although sometimes their robes make them believe they are above the average person, the judiciary certainly contains all kinds of ideological and political positions, and with the prudence that emanates from their responsibility, like every citizen, they have the right to express them and demonstrate as they see fit. But that should not impede the search for a conceptual framework of reference. And contributing to the natural discrepancies becoming the fruit of debate, without building irreconcilable interpretive barriers.
I know perfectly well that confrontation is structural to the human condition, but also that justice should not be random, nor based on each person's ideological position. Nor should it be used to intervene in the political scene seeking to tip the situation one way or the other. In other words: it should not be possible for a sentence to vary depending on the ideology of the person issuing it.
The law should be the same for all, and the fact that the same act can be considered a different criminal offense depending on the ideological positions of those who judge is disturbing, to say the least. And in any case, it calls into question the principle of equality before the law. How disturbing it is to see judicial actions with manifest political objectives, with accusations that are difficult to sustain. This does not prevent each judge from aligning himself with whatever political options he pleases. But when it comes to sentencing, there should be a clear space for consensus. Or can an act be punished or acquitted depending on the judge's political position? I know perfectly well that judges are not angels and, like all humans, have a certain tendency toward absurdity, but justice is a territory that should be carefully protected from whim, mania, resentment, and hatred. And the spectacle of the politicization of justice, championed by the right, is a threat to democracy.
