The decline in the evaluation of judges in our country reached its milestone months ago. After a strike was called against a reform of the government process, they say that only one judge of all those who joined the strike notified the fact so that his prorated salary for that day would be withheld. Even in the humblest and lowest paid union, workers accept having their wages deducted on the day of the strike. It is, in a certain sense, a gesture that honors the right to strike at work. But the drift that has led the judiciary to no longer enjoy a high social consideration like doctors or teachers dates back to the block due to the renewal of the General Council of the Judiciary. This anomaly lasted five years and over time the wear aroused the curiosity of non-experts. What could happen for a constitutional obligation to be thwarted in this way? Well, simply that the clash of interests between the political blocks that sponsor the promotion of judges had contaminated the professionals irreparably. From that moment on, no judicial decision of higher bodies will be free from suspicion. The block has become a shame perpetuated over time and many politically relevant rulings are predictable just by looking at the composition of the Superior Court, roughly divided between the so-called conservatives and progressives and with a clear advantage for the former.
The amnesty law against defendants in processes The Catalan separatist movement has led to another bitter clash between the government and a judiciary that has openly opposed a law it considers despicable. Perhaps the staging of their disagreement reached a reprehensible extreme when some maneuvered to prevent, even today, the application of this controversial amnesty law. These clashes exemplify the reason for this perception that has been established among citizens. There is a lot of politics behind what should be seen as a completely impartial oversight institution. In some summaries, local judges are reluctant to indict people qualified for their political position because they perceive that the bias of the higher courts indicated for those specific cases will not be strict with the law, but rather part of this total war that is being experienced between part of the judiciary and the national government.
Recently, another investigating judge who is vigorously following a nefarious case involving the wife of President Pedro Sánchez, decided that when the trial is held, it will take place with the participation of the popular jury. All absolutely legal, but in a previous case like that of the former Valencian president Camps, a fairly obvious derivative had already been experienced. If a popular jury responds to the electoral distribution of its region, the most normal thing is for it to offer a result similar to the one that comes out of the polls. In Madrid, with a perpetual absolute majority in its conservative community, it seems like a very smart idea to put someone with a very clearly opposing background on a jury. Even though it may seem like it, cunning does not rhyme with justice. These are small details that contribute to creating a dangerous discredit. Our democracy knows the desperation of power to resist the control of other institutions; For this reason precisely these institutions must be protected from political influence. This is where we have failed and the credit of the judiciary declines unstoppably. A catastrophe that should be remedied as soon as possible.
