ZP: error, sin or crime?

In recent days, the case affecting former president Rodríguez Zapatero is causing a great political and media stir. We still do not know how the judicial evolution of the case will proceed and what political consequences will arise from it, and therefore we must be prudent and careful with the assessments made at this time. However, enough information is already available to ask ourselves some initial questions and venture some initial answers.

Is there a crime? This is the first question to ask when there is a criminal investigation, as is the case. The only honest answer to this question is to say that we do not know. An investigation does not equate to a conviction, at least in the judicial sphere. Socially, the conviction already exists, I will refer to it later. But in the judicial field, an investigation is carried out to determine if there are sufficient indications or evidence to open a trial, and the latter is the only one that can determine whether there is guilt or not. We know of cases, such as that of former FC Barcelona president Sandro Rosell (whom justice is now pursuing again), who was imprisoned for two years and then acquitted of all charges, with total impunity from the judge who deprived him of his liberty, who was even compensated with a professional promotion, presumably in gratitude for the "services rendered". More recently, we have witnessed the long trial of the Pujol family, after an endless investigation of more than ten years. Whatever the sentence, we have been able to verify that nothing of the alleged major crimes presented at the beginning could be proven. In the ZP case, we will see if there is a crime or not.

This statement leads me to a final consideration. What is happening now with Pedro Sánchez and what he represents reminds me almost entirely of other processes that others of us have lived through at other times. For some of us it is a The third and final question is whether Zapatero's action is a mistake. On this point, the answer is resounding: it is a big mistake. Just as I don't know about the crime, and I suspect about the sin, on this point of mistake I confirm it. He has made a mistake, and a big one. I don't know if the mistake comes from surrounding himself with bad company, or if it is directly attributable to himself. For the case at hand, it's much the same. In my opinion, the core of the mistake is wanting to earn a living as a private citizen and accepting a high political role. Either one or the other; but not both together. If you have a prominent role in election campaigns, if you act as a mediator in international conflicts, and especially if you accept being the interlocutor in very delicate negotiations, such as those carried out in Belgium and Switzerland with Junts and President Puigdemont, do not engage in business. President Zapatero wanted two legitimate things: to earn a good living and to have a high public profile. He wanted it all, and you can't have it all. Wanting it all can be equivalent to losing it all. It is true that other Spanish presidents have made forays into the private world and have sought to continue influencing the public sphere. But not with the persistence of ZP, and, above all, not becoming an enemy of the deep state, as ZP has done.

This statement leads me to a final consideration. What is happening now with Pedro Sánchez and what he represents reminds me almost word for word of other processes that some of us have experienced at other times. For some of us it is a deja vu. Certain actions by the police, judicial bodies, and media powers already conspired, years ago, to decapitate the Catalan sovereignist movement. They did everything in their power to bring down parties, organizations, and people. Since it was an operation directed against "Catalans," anything went and everything justified weaving complicities of all kinds, including the Rajoy-Sánchez alliance to suspend Catalan autonomy. That medicine, in the form of a purge, is now being tasted by others. And the lesson is very clear: if certain abuses and malpractice are not cut off at the root with brave and profound reforms, the monster, always hungry, ends up devouring everything.