Highly appreciating Escrivá’s preparation and qualifications, I have no choice but to evaluate his nomination negatively. For me, the democracy in which I grew up and became an adult is more important than any other consideration.
Sánchez appoints Escrivá to the Bank of Spain after the PP’s refusal to agree on the renewal of economic organizations
More often than not, democracies erode slowly, in barely perceptible steps."
Patient self-control, temperance, the way to restrain oneself in the exercise of a legal right, this is how one of the fundamental norms for the survival of democracies is defined in “How Democracies Die.” According to Levitsky and Ziblatt, democracy is by definition a game that we all want to continue playing indefinitely – we pray – and to guarantee future matches, players must refrain from both neutralizing the other team and facing it so harshly that a future player does not want to play again or applies the same or more harshness. “Even if people play to win, they must do so with a certain restraint,” they say. This is something that Pedro Sánchez has undoubtedly applied on the field, although the big question is whether he is aware of the importance of applying it on the great democratic field.
The opposite of institutional containment is “unrestrictedly exploring the institutional prerogatives that are attributed to us” and this is what the opposition accuses Sánchez of and this is precisely what makes his defense very difficult. And, I continue to quote Harvard political scientists, “when the perceived cost of loss is high enough, politicians are tempted to abandon containment” and the result is “a policy without safeguards and a cycle of growing constitutional extremism.” The argument that others have had the same temptation before or will have it in the future is not enough to avoid the analysis of an attitude that decisively diminishes the quality of a democracy that you are proud to defend.
The appointment of the Governor of the Bank of Spain is another step. It is not about Escrivá’s qualifications for this position, which are indisputable, but rather about the repercussions that such a decision, that of appointing a minister of your government to a position that must function autonomously, has not only in institutional practice but also in democratic praxis. It is obviously an “institutional prerogative” of the President of the Government to propose this appointment to the King, but, in this case, is it a frenzied way of exercising it? In my opinion, yes, clearly. The revolving doors that he himself despised have been turned a thousand revolutions in recent years by the two major parties. Something very different from what happened in the early years of the Constitution, in which the political forces actively practiced this self-containment based on institutional meaning.
It is clear that despite the existence of a law of autonomy of the Bank of Spain, the legislator has granted governments the possibility of appointing solvent technicians who have a vision of the world in line with their ideals – otherwise another type would have been stipulated. of formula – but also that the legislation requires that the Bank of Spain is not subject to the rules of the General Administration of the State or to the designs of the Government. To this are also added two premises: a six-year term, two years more than that of the current government and some causes evaluated with a view to a possible dismissal. In a democracy, the form, as I explain, clearly reflects the substance. And the essential thing is the figure of someone who is not linked to the Government and who can exercise independently of his interests. “In matters of monetary policy, the Bank is not subject to the instructions of the Government so that it guides it with the priority objective of maintaining price stability”, we can read in the organic law.
The name agreement convention between the hegemonic parties aimed to strengthen these norms by seeking solvent and non-partisan people and ensuring their tranquility despite changes in government. Breaking this dynamic undoubtedly implies weakening this objective.
It is probably not about stigmatizing people who have held political responsibilities either. According to López-Medel, there are several factors to take into account when assessing the opportunity to make this transfer between the government and other autonomous or control bodies: the time elapsed since the end of the mandate, if it is this condition that pushes them precisely towards the new position, professional career and personal connection with the political project determined during the representation. The serious incontinence of some appointments of the current government comes precisely from the undeniable negative score that arises from the zero time that has elapsed between leaving the ministry and arriving at the new position and from the fact that a minister, by obligation, has been linked to the political project of the government. Write now, but Juan Carlos Campos before or Dolores Delgado or Carmen Calvo are too much incontinence not to worry.
The best way for them to stop accusing you of colonizing institutions is not to do it, that is, to make appointments taking advantage of this institutional confinement. “Even if people play to win, they must do so with a certain restraint” and the opposite will always be criticizable in terms of preserving democratic quality. Thus, greatly appreciating Escrivá’s preparation and qualifications, I have no choice but to evaluate his appointment negatively. For me, the democracy in which I grew up and became an adult, and which I hope to enjoy until the end of my days, is more important than any other consideration. I want a strong and quality democracy. The question of who governs is a question that old people already know must fluctuate over time. I am neither so young nor so inexperienced to answer a survey that I would not mind living in an authoritarian regime. I could not bear it.
Democracy cannot fluctuate and I expect my leaders not only to talk about it, but to row in that direction. If they do not, they will have to be criticized for their journalistic obligation and civic dedication.
