Just yesterday a feminist veteran complained that Sanchez "did not" in his round to the historic Feminist Party. Then, Lidia Falcón , author of the complaint, criticized that in the alleged consultation of the acting president what he calls "civil society" (or, in liberal, "third sector") only convene groups in the orbit of the socialist party itself whose mission, declared or not, is to give the reason for the failed investiture program. That is to say, the idea was not so much to contrast any idea as to massage the high back of the leader in pectore or, as the different associations had been summoned seconds in advance and therefore it is unfair to read bad faith in their appearance, become tools of a self-regulation whose mission, obviously, is none other than to discredit the other: United We Can. And so.

The matter has several fronts of analysis. And everyone, and I'm sorry to be the bearer of such obvious news, end up throwing a fairly bungling image of the PSOE's acting strategy. On the one hand, if we understand that civil society is necessary in a world that is increasingly confusing as a carrier that is of more concrete and less monolithic demands (say transversal), perhaps a party like the socialist would have to be requested a little more modesty. Or please. Do you really have to do the theater a second before the curtain is lowered? Given Calvo's obvious and declared connection with feminism or Pedro Duque with science, could they not have spoken before and more with the boss? And what counts for the first meetings, serves for all.

Then there is the other issue, with a worse summary, of someone taking the trouble to clarify, with some rigor and regardless of ideological whim, what exactly (not transversely) civil society is . If we understand that politics is the regulated way of articulating the different interests and concerns of a collective, why do we have to go to a parallel regime (civil) to solve the mess in which Sánchez and his personal civil society have locked us called Iván Redondo ? Does all this mean that from now on we must divert each of our taxes to that civil society (unions, NGOs, foundations or, already in positions, business organizations that in turn fund foundations and donate resources to NGOs) instead of the State ? With this, be careful, far from my intention to question the need of civil society, but why this commitment of the first of the politicians (that position occupies Sanchez) in leaving aside the politics of the politicians to claim the protagonism of the other policy that even abominates the term "politics"? If they get lost, I suspect it is what it is .

According to the criteria of The Trust Project

Know more

  • PSOE
  • Pedro Duque
  • United We Can
  • Columnists
  • Pedro Sanchez

Terral blowCourse: civil society

THE NOISE OF THE STREETS Sanchez: yes because yes

Café Steiner 'Ramming' Session