Antonio Franco
We are facing a paradox. When politics should have
been applied, time was wasted, some of them disobeying laws and others limiting
themselves to leave everything in the hands of the judiciary. Now, when it is
technically necessary to determine before a court what we had witnessed,
instead we are the audience to the performance of a lot of politics. In the
trial there are more monologues from those who try to justify ideologically
what they did - both on the part of accused and witnesses - than a diaphanous
presentation of evidence for and against the accusations. There are times when
the sessions are a kind of talk show full of bizarre opinions: the accused have
no obligation to tell the truth, unlike the witnesses.
So far, the semantic chaos has not been dislodged
and the differences between what we all understand that certain words mean and
what they themselves mean in legal language have come to mind. The most
important is 'violence', but there is also 'conspiracy', 'coercion' and the
difference between 'harassment' and 'violent harassment' of police officers,
civil guards and judicial officials. And on that depends nothing less than the
outcome of the oral hearing. At this point of the trial the key remains whether
there was violence or not and if it can be applied to what happened the
technical version of the word 'rebellion', something that does not seem
reasonable to many of us. I consider essential the scope (and legal
consequences) of the word 'intimidation' when it is very massive. All that is
still very open. On the other hand things are becoming clearer with respect to
two other issues, disobedience and embezzlement, although it is difficult for
the profane to clarify their possible punishment.
I return to three political considerations of what
is emerging. One, that for the first time Rajoy has expressed something that
can be considered as regret for the damages of the abusive
excesses of the police intervention of
1-O. Too late (as he no longer presides the Government) has said what many
citizens do not forgive that Felipe de Borbón did not express at the time in
one way or another. The second consideration is about the high-ranking pro-independence
leaders who now recognize before the court what they have not yet had the nerve
to dare to tell with the same directness and solemnity neither to their
followers nor to the others: the declaration of independence either was not
worth at all or it lasted only a few seconds, as Puigdemont comes to say. The
third consideration is about a black and undemocratic practice that is
recognized in a frayed manner: the big decisions about the country were adopted
in meetings in which some people who had nothing to do with the polls and undemocratically
selected participated with elected officials. That kind of prolegomena to the
republic for which they say they work disqualifies them as the ones to present
it as democratic to the rest of the citizens.
0 comentarios:
Post a Comment