A leader in doubt
In principle, for a leader to make it known that he is not convinced to exercise leadership, for a leader to question his continuity, for a leader to take a few days in which he publicly abandons this function, a priori, this is recklessness and a irresponsibility It’s frivolity. The leader must project solidity, solvency, resilience, conviction, ability; and if you state that you are not clear that you want to remain in this role, you are projecting just the opposite. Therefore, in theory, Pedro Sánchez’s move should be clearly negative for his leadership and should take its toll.
A paradox
It gives me the impression that just the opposite happens. That Sánchez comes out strengthened. And this paradox? It’s been a while since much of politics is done not from rationality but from emotion. Thus, things that from a rational point of view are pure frivolity (a president of the government cannot show weakness, cannot pretend that he is touched, that he is not going for everything, and suspend his agenda because he has to reflect), now , from the point of view of emotionality, it can mean reversing a trend of antipathy and going on to achieve the role of the victim which generates a feeling of solidarity, humanizing the character… It is clear that this only happens to a certain range of the population, there is a majority that is very clear whether they are for or against Sánchez and, therefore, this whole show does not change their position, but there is a more indefinite band that in this episode feels closer of Sánchez person/family than of his hungry attackers.
Populism and its influence
Populism is frivolous because it gives simple answers to enormously complex conflicts. In the last legislature, Vox attacked Armengol for the arrival of shepherds with immigrants who wanted to enter Europe illegally, or attacked him for the illegal occupation of real estate, situations that remain basically the same but are no longer imputed to the Prohens Government. Because, as we all know, these issues are essentially not of regional competence, but to populism these details are inconsequential when it is interested in using them. People prize populism and that’s why all parties experience a certain drag effect.
The triumph of populism
In these moments populism triumphs. People and the media are not looking for seriousness, they are looking for forcefulness and radicality, they are looking for spectacle. And Sánchez is a master of contortionism and adaptation to what suits each moment. Podemos had to put an end to the socialists and it turns out that the finalities have been those of the new policy. The socialist apparatus had to end with Sànchez and the old glories are closer to the PP than to their own party. Sanchez’s play is fireworks, his task is not to play tricks but to govern a state, fireworks are expensive and very short-lived, but how do you like fireworks.
The importance of consistency
The rational argument is that Sánchez makes the motion of censure based on the mud (corruption) but now the mud bothers him, but who remembers how and why he got to Moncloa. Just like who remembers if he supported 155 in Catalonia against his legislative partners or who considered amnesty a heresy before needing the votes of which party. All these are eights and new and cards that do not connect, because they are part of past and consumed shows and the important thing is to make new shows. As those cartoons used to say: Don’t go away even though there’s more!
