Confidence or flight forward

Two years ago, Pedro Sánchez made a virtue out of necessity and won the Spanish government in return. Now, after the corruption scandals that have engulfed his inner circle at the top of the PSOE, he seems tempted to turn that same necessity into a way of life.

Coming to power in 2018 through a vote of no confidence that ousted Rajoy from government for corruption imbued Sánchez with a powerful identity, making the fight against corruption the rationale of his political action. Therefore, if facts like those known are uncovered, we must rise to the occasion.

The reasonable thing would be to know the opinion of the parties that made Sánchez president.

The ethically advisable thing to do would be to call elections. But since it's understandable not to do so when populism is knocking loudly at the doors of power, reasonable damage control suggests seeking the confidence of those who made the current government possible. Especially since the corrupt officials were chosen by Pedro Sánchez as the PSOE's organizational secretaries, and one of them, moreover, was a minister in the department where the scandals were hatched.

No one doubts the honor of the Prime Minister, although the diligence he exercised in supervising and overseeing the work of those to whom he delegated his responsibilities in the PSOE (Spanish Socialist Workers' Party) so that he could fully exercise his duties as head of the Executive is highly questionable.

It's understandable that Sánchez reacted with indignation, feeling betrayed. It's also understandable that he apologized and adopted exemplary measures. But if he announces that he wants to face up to what happened, then we must remind him that in a parliamentary democracy, you have to risk having your head smashed in Parliament. This is something that constitutional liturgy provides for the Prime Minister through the vote of confidence regulated in Article 112 of our Constitution.

Shifting the responsibility of proving the necessary confidence to govern with a vote of no confidence to the PP is institutionally reversing the burden of proof. We already know that Feijoo doesn't have it in the current Congress, although we don't know if he would have it at the polls. Since only Pedro Sánchez can do the latter, it's reasonable that the people have the right to know if he would still be the president at this time. And not so much to have a snapshot of what Sánchez and the PSOE would want, which we know, but to know the parliamentary opinion of the parties that supported him to make him president.

It would be a healthy exercise in ethical transparency to know the exact degree of real tolerance each party displays toward corruption when it directly or indirectly concerns them. Furthermore, it would allow us to understand the ultimate purpose each political force attributes to the majority in a polarized moment and when it comes to halting the advance of populism. The viability of our parliamentary democracy, which avoids the temptation to become a governmental democracy, will depend on this.