“Compulsive liar”, “Trumpist”, “cheater”, “cynic”, “scrounger”… were some of the names that PSOE leaders gave to Alberto Núñez Feijóo after the electoral face-to-face with Pedro Sánchez. “Autist”, “despot”, “sectarian”, “authoritarian”, “egomaniac”, “caudillista”… here are some terms thrown by the leader of the PP at the socialist in his last interventions. The string of insults allows us to get an idea of the mutual consideration they profess. Although serious, the worst thing for democratic functioning are not these sincere expressions of tyranny, but those that build collective imaginaries capable of mobilizing the electorate for a certain option or, rather, against everything that is not one's own ideology.
In recent times, there is no speech or political statement that does not contain a moralizing charge with which to subtly divide society between good and bad. A political option or a different way of governing is not defended because it is considered more efficient or equitable, but rather the rival is stripped of morals to denigrate him. Populism always sets itself up against an enemy: Podemos (its founders had no qualms about vindicating that concept) appealed to the people against “the caste.” The case of Vox is clear when it calls to stand up to immigrants, feminists, separatists, etc. However, the PP and the PSOE also adopt worrying populist tactics.
In his most relevant speech to date, on the occasion of his investiture attempt, Alberto Núñez Feijóo sprinkled his intervention with words such as ethics, integrity, honesty, morality... as his own values. “I have principles, limits and a word,” he stressed. A way of presenting Pedro Sánchez as the reverse of him. “Arithmetic cannot replace ethics,” Feijóo declared this week, to criticize the possible pacts of the PSOE with the Basque and Catalan independence movement. A few days ago he warned that the socialist president is going to take Spain “towards its Balkanization”, with the connotations of violence and social and territorial fracture that that word contains and, therefore, with the implicit accusation of iniquity towards the adversary. This is not mere verbal hyperbole, but rather presenting citizens with only two possible worlds: one led by someone without scruples and another based on principles and values rooted in the uses and customs that memory, always sectarian, selects with inevitable nostalgia or well, they provide security and certainty, so scarce today.
Instead of ideological confrontation and discussion about the appropriateness of adopting one measure or another, a discourse makes its way that presents politics as a movie of good guys and bad guys. The left is not immune to this drift either. Not in vain has a feeling of moral superiority been attributed to him on many occasions. Sánchez has already hinted that, if an agreement is reached with Junts on the amnesty, he will defend this decision by appealing to “generosity”, which places the rival on the side of resentment. In such a context it is impossible for the two major parties to reach agreements, not even specific ones, since agreements should not be made with those who do not even deserve respect or ethical consideration. The recognition of the other, its legitimacy and its right to defend a political alternative constitutes an essential premise to make any agreement possible. It is not surprising that these days Spanish politics has plunged eagerly into Manichaeism due to the conflict between Israel and Palestine.
Once each of us has established a connection with a side, the good ones, of course, and we have put on our glasses, the world seems easier to read, even though in reality it is more complex to interpret every day. We may not know the solution to many of the problems that plague our societies, but we will always know which side to take. And, above all, we will be very clear who the villains of the film are.
It is not only the right and the left that use an excess of moralizing speeches. Nationalism and independence are also nourished by terms such as dignity, humiliation or betrayal, all of them related to morality. There is also no shortage of references to cowardice or bravery as attributes of the politician. In fact, a good part of Carles Puigdemont's argument for reaching an agreement with the PSOE is linked to the demand for a kind of moral reparation. Likewise, those opposed to the amnesty allege that there is no repentance in the form of a promise not to do it again for the other party.
Ethics must accompany politics. But sometimes it becomes an easy throwing weapon. In Max Weber's terms, Spanish politics suffers from an overdose of the ethics of conviction and a weakening of the ethics of responsibility. Our politicians justify their actions by virtue of their principles and convictions, to which they profess maximum fidelity in such a way that, when the results are not what citizens expect, they tend to blame “the world, human stupidity or the will of God”, as the German sociologist said.
This week I recommend: Two articles published in La Vanguardia. Moshe Dayan's dog, by Antoni Puigverd, always precise and sensitive. And another more provocative one from Javier Melero, Understanding the murderers
