The right should remember that some concepts in politics are like bees. The more you avoid them, the more they surround you. The harder you try to keep them away, the more exposed you are to pollination. This is what happens with the amnesty debate, already naturalized, with which they definitely do not find the right way. The General Commission of the Autonomous Communities in the Senate has been a big mistake that has served: one, for the PP to be on par with ERC; two, Pere Aragonés, to that of the president of Murcia, and three, accrediting the emptiness of the PSOE as an award-winning audacity, while Pedro Sánchez crosses the mines of Moria. “At the height of” means “in tune”, “to the same degree”, so that no one gets upset. If that was exactly the message that PP and ERC wanted, nothing to object to. They both won, then; They simply need to tell us “what”.
Look, often, in fights over words, the one who doesn't pronounce any usually wins and the one who says it when he speaks. In the case of changes of opinion, as is the case with the “amnesty”, which groups Spaniards into “yes” or “no”, the most powerful thing is to say “why”. When a politician speaks clearly, he usually has few friends left, but those who remain are authentic. He who shows character wins. And having character in politics does not mean maintaining a single, rigid and inflexible concept of ideas. A part of our politics is usually wrong in this regard. The most praiseworthy character is that of someone who knows how to perfectly alternate as a leader rigor with benevolence, seriousness with humor, inflexibility with compromise, punishment with forgetfulness. In Roman paladin, the one that goes from one Chamber for “punishment,” the Senate with 155, to another for “oblivion,” the Congress with amnesty. Don't tell me that Aragonés's return to the Senate asking for “an agreed referendum” does not overflow with ample symbolism.
It is clear that the PP did not fall at this point. The amnesty is not that it needs the PP, it is also the PP. Main long-term beneficiary of it. The amnesty erases the red mark left by that serrated bee sting. It doesn't matter if you exclude yourself. As with pardons, if there were no specific “no” to the amnesty, it would have to be invented. The “yes” and “no” is a healthy symptom, typical of a quality democracy. It should also be noted that it is not necessary to vote for amnesty in new elections, nor to hold a consultation. I remind you that the deputies do not have an “imperative mandate,” as indicated in Article 67.2 of the Constitution. In these times when the Middle East conflict makes everything relative, for example, the independence movement's request for "an international mediator", it is also worth remembering that no one voted for José María Aznar nor was there a consultation on the Iraq war.
From punishment to oblivion, therefore, a decade of territorial conflict to be forgotten, sterile, which only brought sadness and frustration. It is not amnesty due to investiture, even if it happens today, here and now. There are three specific moments in any advanced democracy: punishment (155), forgiveness (pardons) and oblivion (amnesty). Every time there is a dispute, there is one party that must take the first step to overcome the discord. The pardons were that bridge, wide and strong, towards total reunion. They changed the climate of discord that was installed in Catalonia and Spain and were carried out in a context without illegal actions in Catalonia. There was only one exception, a disobedience by former president Quim Torra that earned him a disqualification and which he complied with. He ruled the law and politics as now, and it will continue to be so. He helped Catalonia turn the page, something proven, and now it's up to all of Spain. The Government took that first step and Congress completes it with the amnesty.
It is worth not forgetting that the process was a peaceful movement. I still remember Mariano Rajoy having to ask confusedly and by letter if independence had really occurred for a few seconds. Thank goodness this is not widely known in Europe. The independence movement, for its part, must remember in this final stretch the wise words of Diego Martínez Barrio in 1936: “The first thing is amnesty. Don't ask for more now." Living trapped in the symbolic is Aragonés' therapy session in the Senate. The rapporteur is an unnecessary figure. If you really want to seal a “historic commitment” you do not need the UN.
I agree with the professor of Constitutional Law Antonio Rovira when he remembers that the amnesty does not question judicial decisions. It is a political tool of the legislative branch to address social and political conflicts that the application of the general law does not reach or is not capable of solving. It does not break anything, but unites what was socially and politically broken. An “institute”, the term with which the TC defines “amnesty”, typical of full democracies. The legislator bases and grants it and justice controls respect for constitutional procedures and principles.
We say “hooray” in moments of joy. The adjective goes poorly with the former presidents. That is why José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero's extensive pedagogical exercise has great value, both on 23-J and today with the “amnesty.” The transition from president to former president is like when they name a street after someone else. The former president always wants his own to be remembered and for the new one to be like the niche of a stranger. ZP is not like that. And on top of that, he claims the term “Frankenstein” as the modern Prometheus that marked an era in literature and cinema and has its origins in the work of the feminist Mary Shelley. She hoorays.
