Carmen Calvo: "The former presidents must be regulated on what they can and cannot do"

MadridCarmen Calvo (Cabra, Còrdova, 1957) has done almost everything in politics: deputy, regional minister, minister and vice-president, in addition to having a long career of feminist struggle in the PSOE. Since 2024 she has presided over the Council of State, a historic institution that in 2026 will celebrate 500 years since its inception.

How can an institution created in an absolutist regime be valid in a democracy?

— Because it is born from a very modern idea. It is born with the concept of a modern state, which has a territory, a population, and power. That is to say, with the idea that it is even above the Crown. States can have a monarchical or republican form, they can change borders, they evolve... But the concept of a state is very modern. Right now we uphold it and it gives us protection.

But what remains of that initial idea in the current Council of State?

— The essence. We are consulted and we give our opinion [on the regulations]. We are neither the government nor the Parliament, but in almost 99% of cases, what we say is done. Why? Because over these 500 years a reputation has been maintained. We provide calm and rationality.

For someone unfamiliar with its function. What is their day-to-day like?

— From the point of view of substance, we function as jurists, we understand our legal system and we fit what is asked of us into it. There are also citizens who claim compensation from the State for the maladministration of the administration and come to us for answers. From the point of view of form, we are a very liturgical institution, we follow many rituals and I defend them because in substance it is good manners, respect..., a liturgy sets a limit from which you do not offend the other, even if they are at the other end from where you are. It would do us all good at this moment, because this is democracy.

It is not in the debate in Congress, for example.

— Now public discourse is full of exaggerations, lies, insults, personal offense... This is not how democracy can be built. I am one of those who thinks that truth lies in nuances, never in black or white. Forms are what allow nuances to emerge.

When do you think this polarization began?

— When the forms of authoritarianism and neofascism have appeared. Which means that anything goes to achieve their aims. This sweeps away everything: prudence, good manners, prestige... neofascism is contaminating everything. A public official has defined responsibilities and exercises them. They do not rule over others, who have rights and freedoms. Here, as president, I am governed by an organic law and regulations; there are certain things that, even though I am president, I cannot do because everything has limits. Neofascism says there are no limits.

She is one of the few women who have presided over it in 500 years.

— The first woman who entered as a lawyer was in 1996 and the first councilor 20 years ago.

As a woman, have you had to manage behaviors that you would not have had to face if you were a man?

— Things have happened to me like they have to everyone. That feeling that authority has a male version throughout history and that authority, when it is female, is less authority. Now, in the case of the Council of State, I have arrived here with a lot of baggage, having been vice-president of the government of Spain, of Congress, a councilor of an autonomous government for many years... and that matters, people realize it. There is a problem, in any case, of patriarchy in linking women and influence. We cite many different men who have influenced us without problems. The reverse does not happen. How many men do you find who say they read Virginia Woolf and discovered a world?

Besides being president of the Council of State, she also has a career in the feminist field. When the trans law was approved, she abstained. Seen with perspective, does she believe it was the correct position?

— As explained, the feminist movement cannot have a consensus on this, on what it means to be a woman.

How can it be explained that the feminist movement cannot have a consensus on this, on what it is to be a woman.

— Well, because there is no consensus on what it is to be a man or a woman. Because it shouldn't be. The patriarchy I fight against is a consensus on what it is to be a woman. Patriarchy makes us inferior, disabled, subordinate...

In the PSOE, feminists managed to get the party to adopt an abolitionist stance in the debate on prostitution and to expel militants who might be clients. What did you think when you saw the Ábalos case?

— So the same as if I had seen an individual from another party. Any man who uses prostitution for me is subjugating and violating the rights of women, turning them into merchandise. It would be too much for me if the debate were whether it's called A or B. Feminism can only be abolitionist; the democratic state cannot simultaneously protect the equality of men and women and, at the same time, a brothel, with some of the women trafficked.

But there is also no consensus within feminism on this. The Spanish government has removed the abolitionist law from the 2026 regulatory plan.

— How should feminism address issues like the burqa?

How should feminism approach issues like the burqa?

— I have drafted a bill to ban the burqa. All religions have been patriarchal and offensive against women's rights. All of them. Just as I tell the Vatican that it should think about the equality of women within the Catholic Church, I must tell another religion that it cannot continue with symbols that have meant the submission and invisibility of women. Let me say to begin with that I respect religions within each person's individual freedom.

What did he think when he saw this week that the Pope was demonstrating against the right to abortion and euthanasia in Congress?

— It is the doctrine of the Church, it did not surprise me at all. However, it seemed interesting to me that he insisted a lot on separating what is religious from what is political. And this is new because the Church has a history of wanting to impose its morality on politics. It was also interesting that he said that technofascism is pure and simple business, knowing that my ideas cannot coincide with theirs, it serves me for this moment.

There is no former president on the Council of State. It's surprising because in the end it's the place where they could have a lifelong salary. Why?

— What did he think when he saw the Zapatero case?

What did he think when he saw the Zapatero case?

— Anyone asking for justice expects at least two things: one, that the truth be investigated and that what is judged be the truth. That it not be lies, political opportunism, or falsehoods. And the other, that whoever makes a decision about this truth be impartial.

But do you trust in justice?

— With the criteria I've mentioned, I trust her. I don't have to blindly trust the government. I don't have to blindly trust Parliament. What do I ask of the government? That it fulfills the electoral program. What do I ask of Parliament? That it debates intelligently and makes laws that adhere to the Constitution. What do I ask of the judiciary? Well, that it finds out the truth and is impartial.

And to the police?

— But do you think there is a political operation against the government?

But do you believe there is a political operation against the government?

— This is what I cannot do if I am president of the Council of State. We have to do what is within the scope of our position, whether you are a judge, a deputy, a minister, president of the Council of State, or a mayor.

And what if he is a former president of the Spanish government? Not just Zapatero. For example, what does he think about Felipe González publicly opining against the current Spanish president, Pedro Sánchez?

— I understand that what they couldn't do, because it would create a conflict, is to act as lobbyists.

I understand that what they could not do, because they enter into conflict, is to act as lobbyists.

— What they can live on and what they cannot. It is evident that any person's intellectual property must be protected, they can write books, give lectures about their ideas..., but I believe that if public officials who intervene in politics are asked to be free of conflicts of interest, they should be too. If they intervene in politics, we should know what interests are behind it.

You who have been in a party, do you think a structure like the Leire case can be set up without the leading cadres knowing about it?

— I cannot comment on this matter. But I do want to say that democracies are the best political system there is. That, even if corruption exists, they confront and pursue it. Dictatorships are based on corruption. Sometimes, in the debate, it seems that democracies are corrupt, which is what neo-fascism is interested in, when they are the least corrupt system.