Who Said Impartiality?

These past few years, there have been a number of investigations into illegal financing of the conservative Partido Popular (PP). Corruption has even reached into the royal house, with the sister and brother-in-law of the King charged with misappropriation of public funds. The Infanta was acquitted (of course) but her husband was found guilty. Neither of the two have faced a day of jail time, only fines. 

A couple of weeks ago, during a trial regarding the illegal funding of the national PP, it was shown to be true that the party financed itself illegally, channeling funds through offshore accounts in Panama and traditional Switzerland. Even Mariano Rajoy, Prime Minister and Secretary General of the PP was called upon to testify. Of course, he didn't know anything, was not involved in the financial aspect at all, and was totally ignorant of what the treasurer, friend Luís Bárcenas, was up to. Those who will probably end up in prison will be the minions who actually moved the money and made everything possible. 

All the news of this latest trial (I think it's the Gürtel business, but there have been so many corruption cases, I'm not sure.), has been practically obliterated from the news by the government's actions in Catalunya. All attention has been brought to bear upon the elected Govern of Catalunya which has broken the law in declaring independence from the Spanish state. Of course, once Madrid removed the Govern when it took over the autonomy of Catalunya, one of the judges assigned to investigating the declaration of independence and the possible crimes committed by the Govern, put all the consellers (regional ministers) into preventive prison. This was done because they are being charged with sedition, rebellion, and misappropriation of public funds. The judge also pointed out they had the means to flee the country.

So, what was the difference between the Infanta and her husband and the consellers, that one group should be put in preventive prison because they have the means to flee, and the other should be allowed to live in Geneva and travel back and forth for the trial? Simply, who they are. The Infanta and her husband are a part of the Establishment that is in power. The consellers challenged that power. 

Another difference is that, while on paper the judiciary is independent of the legislative branch, many of the judges are far from impartial, having been assigned their courts by the elected government at the time, through the Ministry of Justice. There are some left-leaning judges appointed by former Socialist governments, like the one trying the Gürtel affair, and there are those who are personal friends with higher-ups in the PP, such as the judge who is investigating the Catalan fiasco. Do not tell me every judge sitting on every bench is strictly impartial.

Neither is the media impartial. The state-run TVE (Televisión Española) is hopelessly partial to whatever government is in power. The other channels are less partial, but the bias still shows through. I suppose because if they show themselves to be completely impartial, when their licenses come up for renewal, they might find themselves in the cold. There have been small snippets about the illegal financing, but so small, they were easily lost amid the massive coverage of Catalunya. 

In the middle are the regular Spaniards. There are some who try to sift through the mess to make sense of what is really happening in their country. Others find it easier to accept what they are told, certain in the fact that we now live in a modern European democracy. But we are not really a democracy. Is it normal within a democracy to be told it is wrong to try to change how we are ruled? Is it normal to jail one prisoner and not another simply because of who they are? Those in charge affirm the referendum on independence on the 1st of October went against the law. They also say that the consellers committed the terrible act of rebellion and will probably commit it again. (Rebellion, as stated in Spanish law, involves incitation to violence, which is extremely difficult to prove in this case, because the Catalans were always asked to protest peacefully.) But does not the illegal financing of the PP also go against the law? Did not the misappropriation of public funds (stealing, really) by the Infanta's husband go against the law? So, where's the prison time for those lawbreakers? Or is the stealing of public money and misuse of public funds a simple misdemeanor versus trying to achieve a more equal treatment of a region, after attempts to do so within the boundaries of the law failed?

In the end, the heavy-handed tactics of Mariano Rajoy more resemble those of another Galego who died over forty years ago. The law is more amorphous than it is rigid, and usually accommodates those in power who can decide which law is more important and which is relatively unimportant. Whereas, those who wish to change the law within its framework, find themselves facing the Wall of Lamentations, which cannot possibly be altered in any stone because of its importance. Woe be to the simple citizen who calls upon his government to be free of the hypocrisy created by power. He will find himself suffering in the cold.