Antonio Navalón
I remember very clearly that during the Spanish democratic transition and, subsequently, after holding three general elections, we Spaniards discovered that the triumph of democracy was really based on something more than a simple change of government regime. At that moment, we realized that the laws were not just a simple orientation on where we wanted the country to go but were the elements and tools that truly regulated the social, political, and, above all, legal life of the nation. Undoubtedly, the end of General Franco’s regime and the beginning of the democratic transition were turning points in Spanish history. From then on, powers were no longer instituted or dictated under the shadow of a single person but emanated from the elections and preferences of the people.
After November 20, 1975, the date on which Franco died, and after the culmination of the democratic transition in Spain with the entry into force of the 1978 Constitution, the Spanish people began a new stage in their history. Until that moment and during the 39 years that General Franco ruled, removing or taking away someone’s privilege of holding and exercising power was unthinkable. After 1978, Spaniards acquired the powers and confidence to judge and even – under different legal mechanisms – remove anyone who did not have due respect for the laws and their correct application. This period was called transition because it went from the Franco regime – with and by the same representatives who served during that period – to an unprecedented vote that resulted in the election of the first president of the Spanish democracy: Adolfo Suárez.
One of the great keys to the success of the Spanish democratic transition was to go from one law to another. It was a process that sought to change from the root, and going article by article, everything that went against democracy. It was an exercise with only one purpose: to approve the Law for Political Reform of 1976, which was the prelude to the first free elections in Spain in 1977. From then on, things began to work properly; however, Spain did not become a full democracy until the moment in which compliance with the laws was ensured and until the role of the judges was more preeminent than political popularity or an electoral result.
Today, it seems that the whole world is on fire. If you look closely at the crisis in the Middle East, you will inevitably recall the blood and fire conflict that the Israeli Prime Minister had with the Israeli Supreme Court until October 7 – until the very day of the Hamas attack. It is, was, and will be very important to remember that, no matter how much a ruler has the vote and approval of the people, it will never be acceptable to live against the laws or to change or eliminate them without complying with the corresponding mechanisms to do so.
Any politician who runs in an election and wins has the right to propose the legislative changes they believe are convenient for the country. That is one of their rewards for having won the will and preference of the people. However, no one has the right to break the laws, violate the legal system, or destroy the legal tradition of a country, no matter how high the number of votes obtained in his favor. There is no valid justification, nor is it acceptable, under any circumstances, for anyone to attack the powers and organs that are the basis of a democracy. In Mexico, these bodies were created and served to regulate and limit the capacities of action of the leaders, avoiding the abuse of power and functions. Nevertheless, someone insists on dynamiting them regardless of the severe consequences that this could bring.
Many countries are demonstrating that the democratic system that cost them so much time and effort to establish is being seriously violated, starting with Spain itself, followed by Israel, and continuing with the conflicts over the fact that the candidate and former president of the United States, Donald Trump, is being accused and tried. In this era of the communications revolution of social networks, crises are becoming increasingly visible with the confrontation between the existing legality and the legality felt by the rulers.
I repeat, every ruler who wins an election has the right to propose to his people to change and make the laws he considers convenient for a better government; what he does not have the right to do is break the laws, destroy the legal function, and govern without complying with the legal mechanism required to eliminate, modify or create a law.
The results of the next elections will be uncertain because the bases that regulate them are uncertain. But, above all, we are beginning to get used to living in a world where the law is no longer only the will of the ruler but where despising the laws or attacking the legal structure has become almost a guarantee of democratic behavior that, in theory – only in theory – benefits the people and punishes the usurpers, corrupters, and abusers of the people.
It is inevitable to write this column without talking about the Zaldívar case. Without going into the substance, the form is being produced, reproduced, and embodied in what has been, at least for the last two years, the fundamental refrain of the protests and the descriptions of power after the promulgation of that phrase that will be remembered for a long time said by President López Obrador about: “don’t come to me with the story that the law is the law”. We are in the midst of a problematic clash of powers in our democracy in which there is not much room for action since the destruction or violation of one of the powers can either be the same destruction of the other or the establishment of complete uncertainty in the democratic development of our country.
Indeed, it is unfair. Surely, there could be better methods. Undeniably, the judges hold in the tip of their pen our freedom, our condemnation, or the production of phenomena that deprive us of our ability to live fully. However, we must ask ourselves if the real judges are well-trained and sufficiently supported, investigated, and observed so that this immense power depriving us of our freedom does not turn them into the greatest enemies of the people.
An investigation is underway, and for the good of all, it must be clarified soon. Responsibilities must be found, and if none are found in former Justice Minister Zaldívar and his group, the authors of the anonymous accusation must be pursued and sought because, in that case, he who kills with iron must die with iron. In the meantime, make no mistake, it is one thing to follow up on a complaint and respect all the constitutional guarantees of those under investigation. It is quite another thing to accumulate and create charges that distort, eliminate, and annihilate our country’s legal function.
I have always known that it is challenging to live fighting against a State, although life has taught me that it is much more difficult to survive without a State, even if it is an enemy. No electoral result can replace the strength of institutions. They can shape or condition them, but it is impossible to exercise any power without a legal and political structure supporting the actions of those who have conquered power. We are at a critical moment in our history, and at this time – when the elections are only a few days away – it is advisable not to play with fire. Otherwise, what may happen is that the day after winning the elections, one finds that what has been won is an immense vacuum and anarchy that makes the exercise of government impossible.
Further Reading: