Politics should not be a profession. In an optimal democratic system, our representatives should come from society itself and, therefore, already have their own job, a profession. The cases of those who come from work and return to work once their task is finished are so unusual that their case becomes news, as happened with Julio Anguita. Ex-presidents, moreover, have a lifetime pension, a secretary, an office, and a chauffeur with an escort, whether they were in office half their lives or only lasted a few months. A luxury retirement, at the opposite extreme of widows who collect the minimum wage. The establishment of these privileges is already a scandal and establishes a completely unfair comparative grievance with the rest of the workers. (Well, I am self-employed, so I already know what awaits me the day I can no longer string two sentences together and get paid for it, becoming an occupying, anti-system grandmother at the very least).
Being an ex-president not only has these economic compensations established by themselves, but it also entails public recognition that does not end with the mandate. It brings fame, contacts, a proximity to powers of all kinds that must be tempting, given the numerous cases of retired politicians who end up earning a fortune for being part of the boards of directors of large companies, whose interests may, perhaps, have been incidentally benefited by some law that these same politicians approved when they could. With revolving doors, placing yourself in a certain position in the representative sphere can be a good strategy for social advancement, for individual economic progress, and a long-term investment. You don't even have to assume the risks of corruption, just wait and do your homework when it's time. They fill their mouths with principles and values, with the common good, they boast of important advances and proudly display their moral superiority, but if all this ends up serving them to enrich themselves, their trajectory will be stained by monetary interest. The desire to make a good living is entirely legitimate, but doing so through politics is more than questionable from an ethical point of view. And especially when it comes to the left-wing sphere, which defends many causes entirely incompatible with this way of taking advantage of positions to make money.
The case of Rodríguez Zapatero is now an absolute disaster for the PSOE and for progressivism in general. Of course, the presumption of innocence must be respected and a judge must pass sentence, but even if he has not committed any crime, he has already thrown away all the reputation he earned as an incorruptible, feminist, inclusive, open president, etc. With the lucidity that characterizes him, Lluís Orriols explained in García Ferreras's discussion that Zapatero was the president who moved the Spanish left from the economic debate to the cultural debate. As progressives all over the Western world have done after Thatcher and Reagan, accepting defeat in the face of neoliberalism and entertaining themselves with issues that are important, but not the crux of class domination and inequality. That is why both he and other prominent and retired figures find it perfectly compatible to get rich and be left-wing, because money is no longer just the domain of the right. And in passing, acquired privileges are passed on to the next generation in what is a classic of Iberian politics: blatant and shameless nepotism. Is it because of his enormous talent that ZP's daughters invoice millions with a company called What the Fav? Or are they so brilliant that they alone have achieved what no construction worker's son will ever achieve, no matter how hard they try?
