Piquetes violentos que quieren imponer la huelga por la fuerza
Pedro Sánchez tenía ya sobrados motivos para ocupar un lugar destacado en el catálogo de los políticos más cuestionados de la democracia española. Su entorno político, familiar y personal acumula demasiados escándalos, investigaciones y sospechas como para que su Gobierno pueda presumir de ejemplaridad. Pero el presidente parece empeñado en ampliar su repertorio.
Hasta ahora, muchos lo consideraban el capo de la corrupción política en España. Desde hoy, también puede aspirar al título de capo de la violencia callejera.
La huelga que su Gobierno ha alentado y respaldado ha terminado convirtiendo las calles en escenarios de intimidación, coacción y violencia. Los piquetes, que deberían limitarse a informar y convencer, se han convertido en demasiados lugares en instrumentos de presión contra quienes quieren trabajar, abrir sus negocios, prestar sus servicios o simplemente ejercer su libertad.
Comercios, empresas, instalaciones públicas y, de manera especialmente preocupante, servicios de transporte sufrieron las consecuencias de unas actuaciones que nada tienen que ver con el ejercicio legítimo de un derecho democrático.
Conviene recordar algo que el sanchismo parece haber olvidado interesadamente: el derecho a la huelga no incluye el derecho a impedir que otros trabajen. La libertad sindical no concede patente de corso para amenazar, agredir, destrozar instalaciones, bloquear infraestructuras o someter a los ciudadanos a la voluntad de una minoría organizada.
Quien quiera secundar una huelga está en su derecho. Quien quiera trabajar también. Y el Estado, en lugar de alentar los destrozos y el miedo, tiene la obligación de garantizar ambos derechos.
Lo verdaderamente inquietante es la actitud del Gobierno. Cuando un Ejecutivo respalda políticamente una movilización y después contempla con indulgencia los excesos de quienes la protagonizan, está enviando un mensaje devastador: hay ciudadanos a los que se les exige cumplir la ley y otros a los que se les permite desafiarla cuando sus actuaciones favorecen los intereses políticos del poder.
Esa doble vara de medir es una de las enfermedades más graves del sanchismo. La ley parece tener una aplicación distinta dependiendo de quién protesta, a quién beneficia la protesta y qué intereses políticos están en juego.
No se trata de cuestionar el derecho a la huelga. Se trata precisamente de defenderlo de quienes lo desnaturalizan. Una huelga democrática es un instrumento de reivindicación, no un mecanismo de sometimiento social ni de apoyo al voto socialista.
Los sindicatos pueden convocar, los trabajadores pueden secundar y los ciudadanos pueden solidarizarse. Pero nadie tiene derecho a convertir la calle en territorio propio ni a imponer por la fuerza una decisión colectiva.
La alianza política entre el sanchismo y los sectores que recurren a la intimidación callejera constituye una barbaridad antidemocrática.
España no puede convertirse en un país donde trabajar sea una provocación, abrir un comercio sea un acto de resistencia y utilizar el transporte público dependa del permiso de un piquete. Tampoco puede aceptar que la violencia se disfrace de reivindicación social.
Pedro Sánchez ha construido buena parte de su supervivencia política sobre alianzas de conveniencia, concesiones y una utilización partidista de las instituciones que ha deteriorado la confianza de muchos españoles en el sistema. Ahora aparece un nuevo peligro: que esa política de alianzas termine legitimando, por acción u omisión, comportamientos violentos en las calles.
Un presidente del Gobierno no está para organizar bloques de ciudadanos enfrentados ni para repartir indulgencias entre los grupos que le apoyan. Está para garantizar la libertad, la seguridad y la igualdad ante la ley de todos los españoles, incluidos aquellos que no le votan, que no comparten sus ideas y que no quieren secundar sus huelgas.
La democracia no consiste en que los amigos del poder puedan hacer lo que quieran mientras los demás soportan las consecuencias. Consiste en que nadie esté por encima de la ley.
Y si Pedro Sánchez no entiende esa diferencia, el problema ya no es solamente su deterioro político. Es el deterioro democrático y la burla de las leyes.
De capo de la corrupción, Sánchez ha pasado a ser, también, capo de la violencia callejera.
España no necesita un Gobierno que ampare a quienes coaccionan. Necesita uno que proteja a quienes quieren vivir y trabajar en paz y libertad.
Francisco Rubiales
English version:
Pedro Sánchez: From Godfather of Corruption to Godfather of Street Violence
The desperate general strike promoted by Sánchez failed, but it filled the streets with violent hooded pickets engaged in vandalism and looting.
His feverish backing of the general strike with the lowest participation in Spain's democratic history was a serious misstep that will surely backfire on him.
Spaniards saw that they are governed by a man who is dangerous, one who does not hesitate to pour petrol on the fire if that helps him remain in power.
Pedro Sánchez is becoming increasingly desperate at the prospect of losing power. He knows that if he ceases to be prime minister, his future will be full of legal problems, trials and, quite possibly, convictions.
That is why he is becoming more radical and crossing new red lines every day.
Yesterday, Sanchismo crossed another dangerous boundary: that of political collusion with those who use intimidation, vandalism and coercion to impose their objectives in the streets.
Pickets are legal, provided they are informative and peaceful. But many of the pickets during this strike were intimidating, and their members had their faces covered so they could use violence without being identified.
These illegal pickets, like the strike itself, which was an election campaign act in disguise, have caused many businesses to close for fear of vandalism.
It was a lamentable, anti-democratic and criminal aberration promoted and sponsored by Sanchismo.
A democracy cannot tolerate the right to strike becoming a licence to trample on other people's rights.
Pedro Sánchez already had more than enough reasons to occupy a prominent place in the catalogue of Spain's most controversial democratic politicians.
His political, family and personal circle has accumulated too many scandals, investigations and suspicions for his government to claim any exemplary conduct. Yet the prime minister seems determined to expand his repertoire.
Until now, many considered him the godfather of political corruption in Spain. From today, he can also aspire to the title of godfather of street violence.
The strike encouraged and backed by his government ended up turning the streets, in too many places, into scenes of intimidation, coercion and violence. Pickets, whose role should be limited to informing and persuading, became instruments of pressure against those who wanted to work, open their businesses, provide their services or simply exercise their freedom.
Shops, companies, public facilities and, particularly worryingly, transport services suffered the consequences of actions that have nothing to do with the legitimate exercise of a democratic right.
It is worth recalling something Sanchismo seems to have deliberately forgotten: the right to strike does not include the right to prevent others from working. Trade-union freedom does not grant carte blanche to threaten, assault, damage facilities, block infrastructure or subject citizens to the will of an organised minority.
Anyone who wishes to join a strike has that right. Anyone who wishes to work has that right too. And the State, rather than encouraging destruction and fear, has a duty to guarantee both rights.
What is truly disturbing is the government's attitude. When an executive politically backs a mobilisation and then looks indulgently upon the excesses of those taking part, it sends a devastating message: some citizens are required to obey the law, while others are allowed to defy it when their actions serve the political interests of those in power.
That double standard is one of Sanchismo's most serious ills. The law seems to be applied differently depending on who is protesting, whom the protest benefits and what political interests are at stake.
This is not about questioning the right to strike. It is precisely about defending that right against those who distort it. A democratic strike is a means of making demands, not a mechanism for social subjugation or for supporting the Socialist vote.
Unions may call strikes, workers may join them and citizens may show solidarity. But no one has the right to claim the streets as their own or to impose a collective decision by force.
The political alliance between Sanchismo and groups that resort to street intimidation is an anti-democratic outrage.
Spain cannot become a country where going to work is a provocation, opening a shop is an act of resistance and using public transport depends on a picket's permission. Nor can it accept violence being disguised as social protest.
Pedro Sánchez has built much of his political survival on alliances of convenience, concessions and the partisan use of institutions, all of which have eroded many Spaniards' confidence in the system. Now a new danger is emerging: that this policy of alliances may end up legitimising, through action or omission, violent behaviour in the streets.
A prime minister is not there to organise opposing camps of citizens or to grant indulgences to groups that support him. He is there to guarantee the freedom, security and equality before the law of all Spaniards, including those who do not vote for him, do not share his ideas and do not wish to join his strikes.
Democracy does not mean that the friends of those in power can do whatever they please while everyone else bears the consequences. It means that no one is above the law.
And if Pedro Sánchez does not understand that distinction, the problem is no longer merely his political deterioration. It is the deterioration of democracy and the mockery of the law.
From godfather of corruption, Sánchez has also become the godfather of street violence.
Spain does not need a government that protects those who use coercion. It needs one that protects those who want to live and work in peace and freedom.
Francisco Rubiales
Hasta ahora, muchos lo consideraban el capo de la corrupción política en España. Desde hoy, también puede aspirar al título de capo de la violencia callejera.
La huelga que su Gobierno ha alentado y respaldado ha terminado convirtiendo las calles en escenarios de intimidación, coacción y violencia. Los piquetes, que deberían limitarse a informar y convencer, se han convertido en demasiados lugares en instrumentos de presión contra quienes quieren trabajar, abrir sus negocios, prestar sus servicios o simplemente ejercer su libertad.
Comercios, empresas, instalaciones públicas y, de manera especialmente preocupante, servicios de transporte sufrieron las consecuencias de unas actuaciones que nada tienen que ver con el ejercicio legítimo de un derecho democrático.
Conviene recordar algo que el sanchismo parece haber olvidado interesadamente: el derecho a la huelga no incluye el derecho a impedir que otros trabajen. La libertad sindical no concede patente de corso para amenazar, agredir, destrozar instalaciones, bloquear infraestructuras o someter a los ciudadanos a la voluntad de una minoría organizada.
Quien quiera secundar una huelga está en su derecho. Quien quiera trabajar también. Y el Estado, en lugar de alentar los destrozos y el miedo, tiene la obligación de garantizar ambos derechos.
Lo verdaderamente inquietante es la actitud del Gobierno. Cuando un Ejecutivo respalda políticamente una movilización y después contempla con indulgencia los excesos de quienes la protagonizan, está enviando un mensaje devastador: hay ciudadanos a los que se les exige cumplir la ley y otros a los que se les permite desafiarla cuando sus actuaciones favorecen los intereses políticos del poder.
Esa doble vara de medir es una de las enfermedades más graves del sanchismo. La ley parece tener una aplicación distinta dependiendo de quién protesta, a quién beneficia la protesta y qué intereses políticos están en juego.
No se trata de cuestionar el derecho a la huelga. Se trata precisamente de defenderlo de quienes lo desnaturalizan. Una huelga democrática es un instrumento de reivindicación, no un mecanismo de sometimiento social ni de apoyo al voto socialista.
Los sindicatos pueden convocar, los trabajadores pueden secundar y los ciudadanos pueden solidarizarse. Pero nadie tiene derecho a convertir la calle en territorio propio ni a imponer por la fuerza una decisión colectiva.
La alianza política entre el sanchismo y los sectores que recurren a la intimidación callejera constituye una barbaridad antidemocrática.
España no puede convertirse en un país donde trabajar sea una provocación, abrir un comercio sea un acto de resistencia y utilizar el transporte público dependa del permiso de un piquete. Tampoco puede aceptar que la violencia se disfrace de reivindicación social.
Pedro Sánchez ha construido buena parte de su supervivencia política sobre alianzas de conveniencia, concesiones y una utilización partidista de las instituciones que ha deteriorado la confianza de muchos españoles en el sistema. Ahora aparece un nuevo peligro: que esa política de alianzas termine legitimando, por acción u omisión, comportamientos violentos en las calles.
Un presidente del Gobierno no está para organizar bloques de ciudadanos enfrentados ni para repartir indulgencias entre los grupos que le apoyan. Está para garantizar la libertad, la seguridad y la igualdad ante la ley de todos los españoles, incluidos aquellos que no le votan, que no comparten sus ideas y que no quieren secundar sus huelgas.
La democracia no consiste en que los amigos del poder puedan hacer lo que quieran mientras los demás soportan las consecuencias. Consiste en que nadie esté por encima de la ley.
Y si Pedro Sánchez no entiende esa diferencia, el problema ya no es solamente su deterioro político. Es el deterioro democrático y la burla de las leyes.
De capo de la corrupción, Sánchez ha pasado a ser, también, capo de la violencia callejera.
España no necesita un Gobierno que ampare a quienes coaccionan. Necesita uno que proteja a quienes quieren vivir y trabajar en paz y libertad.
Francisco Rubiales
English version:
Pedro Sánchez: From Godfather of Corruption to Godfather of Street Violence
The desperate general strike promoted by Sánchez failed, but it filled the streets with violent hooded pickets engaged in vandalism and looting.
His feverish backing of the general strike with the lowest participation in Spain's democratic history was a serious misstep that will surely backfire on him.
Spaniards saw that they are governed by a man who is dangerous, one who does not hesitate to pour petrol on the fire if that helps him remain in power.
Pedro Sánchez is becoming increasingly desperate at the prospect of losing power. He knows that if he ceases to be prime minister, his future will be full of legal problems, trials and, quite possibly, convictions.
That is why he is becoming more radical and crossing new red lines every day.
Yesterday, Sanchismo crossed another dangerous boundary: that of political collusion with those who use intimidation, vandalism and coercion to impose their objectives in the streets.
Pickets are legal, provided they are informative and peaceful. But many of the pickets during this strike were intimidating, and their members had their faces covered so they could use violence without being identified.
These illegal pickets, like the strike itself, which was an election campaign act in disguise, have caused many businesses to close for fear of vandalism.
It was a lamentable, anti-democratic and criminal aberration promoted and sponsored by Sanchismo.
A democracy cannot tolerate the right to strike becoming a licence to trample on other people's rights.
Pedro Sánchez already had more than enough reasons to occupy a prominent place in the catalogue of Spain's most controversial democratic politicians.
His political, family and personal circle has accumulated too many scandals, investigations and suspicions for his government to claim any exemplary conduct. Yet the prime minister seems determined to expand his repertoire.
Until now, many considered him the godfather of political corruption in Spain. From today, he can also aspire to the title of godfather of street violence.
The strike encouraged and backed by his government ended up turning the streets, in too many places, into scenes of intimidation, coercion and violence. Pickets, whose role should be limited to informing and persuading, became instruments of pressure against those who wanted to work, open their businesses, provide their services or simply exercise their freedom.
Shops, companies, public facilities and, particularly worryingly, transport services suffered the consequences of actions that have nothing to do with the legitimate exercise of a democratic right.
It is worth recalling something Sanchismo seems to have deliberately forgotten: the right to strike does not include the right to prevent others from working. Trade-union freedom does not grant carte blanche to threaten, assault, damage facilities, block infrastructure or subject citizens to the will of an organised minority.
Anyone who wishes to join a strike has that right. Anyone who wishes to work has that right too. And the State, rather than encouraging destruction and fear, has a duty to guarantee both rights.
What is truly disturbing is the government's attitude. When an executive politically backs a mobilisation and then looks indulgently upon the excesses of those taking part, it sends a devastating message: some citizens are required to obey the law, while others are allowed to defy it when their actions serve the political interests of those in power.
That double standard is one of Sanchismo's most serious ills. The law seems to be applied differently depending on who is protesting, whom the protest benefits and what political interests are at stake.
This is not about questioning the right to strike. It is precisely about defending that right against those who distort it. A democratic strike is a means of making demands, not a mechanism for social subjugation or for supporting the Socialist vote.
Unions may call strikes, workers may join them and citizens may show solidarity. But no one has the right to claim the streets as their own or to impose a collective decision by force.
The political alliance between Sanchismo and groups that resort to street intimidation is an anti-democratic outrage.
Spain cannot become a country where going to work is a provocation, opening a shop is an act of resistance and using public transport depends on a picket's permission. Nor can it accept violence being disguised as social protest.
Pedro Sánchez has built much of his political survival on alliances of convenience, concessions and the partisan use of institutions, all of which have eroded many Spaniards' confidence in the system. Now a new danger is emerging: that this policy of alliances may end up legitimising, through action or omission, violent behaviour in the streets.
A prime minister is not there to organise opposing camps of citizens or to grant indulgences to groups that support him. He is there to guarantee the freedom, security and equality before the law of all Spaniards, including those who do not vote for him, do not share his ideas and do not wish to join his strikes.
Democracy does not mean that the friends of those in power can do whatever they please while everyone else bears the consequences. It means that no one is above the law.
And if Pedro Sánchez does not understand that distinction, the problem is no longer merely his political deterioration. It is the deterioration of democracy and the mockery of the law.
From godfather of corruption, Sánchez has also become the godfather of street violence.
Spain does not need a government that protects those who use coercion. It needs one that protects those who want to live and work in peace and freedom.
Francisco Rubiales