Sánchez is not credible against corruption

His partners are suspicious of his proposals to prevent another corrupt scheme, but they haven't withdrawn their support. Feijóo confronts him with a mirror of his own contradictions for presenting himself as a "clean politician."

The question that the extraordinary plenary session in the Congress of Deputies on corruption in the PSOE was supposed to resolve yesterday was whether Pedro Sánchez's associates believed his explanations about what happened and gave him the credit to implement measures to prevent something similar from happening again in the future. And, judging by their interventions, it's clear that the president isn't credible, not even to his associates, when he talks about fighting corruption. Among other things, because despite having been the one who named the defendants in the case of bribes in exchange for public works, he has merely apologized, but without assuming greater responsibility. And because all the firewalls applied within the PSOE and the government since Sánchez led both have failed to prevent the irregularities now being investigated by the courts. Whether this means they will force the fall of the coalition government is a different matter. So, paradoxically, the president emerges politically strengthened thanks to the tolerance of his allies, especially Sumar, toward the serious cases of alleged corruption involving Sánchez's family and political circle.

The president attempted to calm the waters with yet another cosmetic plan to combat corruption, adopting most of Yolanda Díaz's proposals in this regard. But once again, it is a disjointed catalog of well-intentioned initiatives, some announced months ago or redundant with existing ones, but which, had they been in effect, would not have served to prevent the operation of the scheme created and sustained by the last two PSOE Organization Secretaries since at least 2020, just a few months after the second cabinet formed by Sánchez began, now with Podemos within it. Perhaps for this reason, the spokesperson for this party, Ione Belarra, harshly attacked the socialist leader and attributed the discomfort he later said he felt at having Podemos representatives in the Council of Ministers to the reprehensible behavior of some PSOE leaders with public resources and women.

Alberto Núñez Feijóo was the one who held the Prime Minister up to the mirror of his contradictions after presenting himself in the parliamentary debate as a "clean politician" who had been deceived by his collaborators. The opposition leader used an unusually harsh tone with Sánchez, reproaching him for trying to hide behind the corruption cases that affected the PP in the past, accusing him of having been "a lucrative participant in the abominable business of prostitution" and reminding everyone that his wife, Begoña Gómez, is being investigated for influence peddling, business corruption, misappropriation of funds, and interference. Feijóo thus signaled a complete break with a government he considers terminal and which his own partners have warned is on its last legs, even though Sánchez insists on completing his term.

Instead of pressuring the president, his allies targeted the companies that, according to the judicial investigation, made payments to Santos Cerdán, José Luis Ábalos, and Koldo García, trying to shift all responsibility for corruption onto the business sector. This accusation, based on outdated ideological prejudices against private enterprise, was echoed by CEOE President Antonio Garamendi: "The corruptor is the one who has the power, and the one who has the power is the one who manages it," he said, referring to public officials. In the business world, there is concern that the crisis generated by corruption within the PSOE (Spanish Socialist Workers' Party), which has led the European Commission to denounce the "high risk" in awarding contracts in our country, will end up affecting foreign investment. What image of the Spanish economy does a entrenched prime minister offer, whom his allies keep in power only to prevent a democratic alternation?