Saving democracy every day

I bitterly confess that I have seen lives torn apart by fanaticism, by criminal greed, by the violent defense of dogmas that had been deconstructed, by accidents that were not accidents but the consequence of recklessness, by loneliness or poverty, by climate catastrophes. Bad politics has consequences, and they are not good.

These days, joys are intense, and the absence of lost loved ones is more palpable. To live together peacefully, to prosper collectively, and to value the full creative potential of each fellow citizen would be my Christmas wish if this were a section for cards of good intentions.

But it has not been an easy year. There are no easy years for those of us who are pained by the ills of humanity. For some time now, those of us who believe that politics, good politics, is the only way out of social dead ends have been concerned that the emotion of intellectual debate has been replaced by insults, and that the pedagogical function that the public forum must necessarily have is thus deteriorating. And little by little, hoping that next week or the next campaign will be better, we observe that some democracies disrupted by populism show signs of destructive pathologies, with democratically elected leaders who have broken the first of universal values: truth.

And the problem is not always the erosion of the current constitutional system. In most parliamentary democracies of the so-called advanced world, the constitutional structure could function if respect for institutions were loyal and sincere.

That's what I'd like to talk to you about. The slow and progressive weakening of essential institutions (press, justice, political institutions...) might lead to a boxing match, but not to the solution of the serious problems of inequality, wars, and human rights violations, starting with the basics: knowing and behaving as equals.

The courts of justice are indeed subject to criticism, and there are proposals for them to become more exemplary and more deeply rooted institutions. But they must be respected both when they rule in our favor and when they rule against us. To pretend that political bodies should no longer definitively resolve any disagreements and that everything should be decided by a court inevitably leads to wanting those who settle disputes to become mere instruments of birth, which seriously distorts the basic concept of justice.

If we have made the ECHR a baroquely glossed institution, we must also pay attention to it when it does not rule in our favor. This is how we preserve its existence. By extension, and with whatever objections may be necessary, this also applies to the rest of the judicial structure.

It is necessary that there be an overwhelming majority, always exceeding 80% of the members of parliament, who respect the institution itself and the committees that manage the debates, regardless of their composition. What is currently happening, when there is incitement to disrespect both parliamentary rules and authorities if they are not "on our side," is a demonstration of anti-democratic practices.

Executive branches, governments, must be held to an exemplary standard both when they implement progressive policies and when they implement reactionary and restrictive policies in the services they provide. Clearly, each option needs to be explained, but governments that emerge from the popular will are not illegitimate, even if we are prepared to challenge them in public debate and try to achieve other majorities in the next elections.

The so-called polarization is introducing the dangerous idea that only governments that defend the proposals we like are democratic and therefore legitimate. Combating right-wing positions is something I've done all my life, but I haven't considered illegitimate the governments that the ballot box has given the power to undo what I considered progress.

Populist governments are a different matter; they are based on lies and deception, sell easy solutions, and want to gain control of institutions to destroy their very reason for being, because they seek anti-politics and chaos. They are the ones who don't believe in decentralized power but are increasingly powerful in decentralized governments. They are the ones who deny universal values, such as the absence of races, religions, or sexes superior to others, and who, at the precise moment of asserting this, place themselves outside the framework of coexistence of democracy as such and its fundamental norms.

Democratic coexistence is the consequence of collective wills and projects that, in turn, stem from significant exercises in responsibility. The lack of respect and loyalty to all the institutions that make up a democratic regime is a real danger, not a distant fiction.

Unfortunately, the People's Party should be part of the 80% that loyally defends the institutions, but it has allowed itself to be dragged along by a party that long ago positioned itself outside the constitutional framework. We see it in minor incidents like a mayor lying in court to get unemployment benefits. We see it when regional elections are no longer about fulfilling promised programs, but about stringing together electoral campaigns in which a weakened leader seeks out platforms from which he cannot be challenged. We see it when opinion polls take precedence over the difficult objective of providing housing for the homeless.

A democratic society must see shared objectives in its leaders.