The corruption that the electorate forgives: why does the right have less to lose?

Barcelona"The left cannot steal," Gabriel Rufián, a Member of Parliament for Esquerra, told the PSOE bench a year ago. This warning resonated strongly with a PSOE which, with the Koldo and Cerdán case and the investigations into Begoña Gómez and David Sánchez – wife and brother of the Spanish Prime Minister, Pedro Sánchez – were yet to be joined by the cases of Leire Díez and former socialist president José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero. The perception in public debate, however, is clear: progressive voters do not forgive illicit enrichment, as the conservative electorate does. But does corruption really punish the left more than the right? Far from being a myth, evidence shows it is a reality with studied mechanisms.

Behavior varies according to ideological bias when a scandal breaks. As explained in conversation with ARA, Joan Botella, emeritus professor at the Autonomous University of Barcelona, the left has presented itself as "more purist, more of a defender of clean hands." The right, on the other hand, "does not preach corruption, but for them it is not such a transcendent issue." Toni Rodon, a political scientist at Pompeu Fabra University, consulted by ARA, agrees with this thesis: "In recent years, the left has relied heavily on moral issues and, [...] obviously, corruption, even if it is material, also has an important moral component." Making this demanding narrative a banner means that voters themselves will remind you of it "and penalize you," he adds.

What, then, is the instinctive reaction of the disillusioned voter? Firstly, abstention. Botella explains that it is "very easy for left-wing people to adopt an absentee attitude" and therefore stop voting. The conservative voter, on the other hand, is more pragmatic: "They are much more militant. They want their side to win," points out Botella. A loyalty that leads them to overlook corruption: "If necessary, we will hold our noses and vote for our own," he adds.

the former socialist president José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero"They steal, but they deliver"

Despite ideology, not all corruption generates the same seismic waves. Rodon differentiates two phenomena: "proprietary corruption", when a leader "puts their hand in the till and keeps the money", and another typology of irregularities where "other people also benefit". This latter practice, which distributes projects from which "other people benefit, such as builders, bricklayers, or those on the construction site", usually "has a much lower electoral penalty than the first". It is the sociological crystallization of "they steal, but they do".

This asymmetry was validated in the study by Pablo Fernández-Vázquez, Pablo Barberá, and Gonzalo Rivero in 2015. The experts, analyzing the Spanish municipal elections of 2011, divided scandals between those that diminished collective well-being and those linked to speculation, which entailed clear short-term economic gains for the local population. The results were clear. Mayors involved in corruption without any community benefit lost an average of 4.2% of votes, while "those who participated in actions that provided income to citizens survived completely unscathed". The research thus evidences that "voters ignore corruption when there are collateral benefits" and punishment is only received "in those cases where they receive no compensation". If the corrupt mayor fostered the economy, the reward "completely compensated for the reprisal that voters would have inflicted".