No demagogy, please

A multitude of analyses of the war in Ukraine have been and are being made from almost all perspectives: historical, psychiatric, political, military, economic, in short, from any angle that allows us to glimpse a more or less coherent explanation of the reasons for this war. In addition, there is an enormous amount of information in all known media that reaches almost any place on the planet.

So that any citizen, to a greater or lesser extent, has an idea of what is happening and, therefore, a political position on the matter. More or less profound, but clear to themselves. Although perhaps insufficient because it is necessary to have first-hand information at such a delicate time as the present.

In the democratic societies of the 21st century, I don't know who said that news comes to you, you don't have to go looking for it, which is quite true, especially in cases like this one. But this news is already filtered by the media and sometimes it is necessary to receive it from the decision-makers.

So now, immersed in Russia's military actions and the consequences of the war, the societies of the most affected democratic countries are seeing how our political leaders are taking action to try to stop or minimise the present and future damage that this war can cause us. And we know what they are doing, but in passing and through intermediaries.

What is lacking is clarity and anticipation, because as the days go by and the number of measures taken increases in line with changing circumstances, we will need fewer circumlocutions, fewer self-justifications and a greater number of well-explained, simple, clear and duly argued truths. And if possible before they are adopted, in order to have "public opinion" (a fundamental factor in democracies), with the capacity to exercise the right to discuss and deny or accept the Executive's decisions. Whether they are subsequently carried out or not.

States governed by the rule of law need adequate information and the acquiescence of their population in order to function properly. And as free societies, and on special occasions such as those we are experiencing or may experience, all the more so. We are at a time when the risks can be described as "major risks", here we do not have to decide whether to change the name of a street, whether to make a pact with one party or another, or whether the budget or reform "x or y" will be approved or not. All of this takes a back seat, because we are in a situation that, if it goes badly, puts lives, our own future, our children's future and our property at risk. And if it only goes half bad, it could lead us to spend an indeterminate period of time immersed in a crippling economic and social crisis. So no jokes.

It is therefore important that the various political and media players handle their messages and positions with exquisite care. There should be no demagogy, neither electoral nor partisan, nor the slightest gratuitous gesture, until this tragedy is over.

And the way to express things publicly is in Parliament, that is to say, in the institution of debate par excellence of democracies, that is the place where the Government should make a statement in a way that allows us all to know what is happening or is going to happen in a direct way and in accordance with the constitutional mandate. Both the rest of the political representatives and the people they represent, that is, the citizens in general. There we can see clearly whether what is to be decided is justified or not and in what way. Without the need for intermediaries such as the media, which will then play their part. There we can see, without any restrictions, who is demagoguing and who is hiding behind words, we can observe the positions as a whole and those who defend them, with nuances, which helps us to form a broader opinion than a simple unilateral declaration by the President of the Government, a representative of the Government or a simply refractory opposition.

What has been happening for years is that the executive has been taking on such a leading role that the legislative branch has practically been left as a simple place to count votes and settle their differences with the opposition, by means of high-sounding statements full of partisan reproaches from one side or the other. They have turned the parliament into a kind of cockfighting ring, where the one who makes the most noise and brags the most gets the prize of a prominent media profile. It is not the place where the representatives of National Sovereignty, i.e. the representatives of the people, the true owner of that Sovereignty, settle the opinions and positions of the different currents existing in society and judiciously agree on the way in which it is exercised. This, as is obvious, is studied in the first year of primary school, although many seem to have lost sight of it.

That is why the government must bring this issue of war and its consequences to Parliament day in and day out. It must oblige itself to give comprehensive and detailed explanations to all parliamentarians in the House. It must debate measures, positions, listen to its opponents, not disregard their assessments, and refute or incorporate into its policy proposals that merit it. And the opposition should propose and oppose those things it deems appropriate, not try to win votes by provoking a row. And even less so now.

It should also anticipate information on those issues that will go to the Council of the European Union, the Commission or the body that is competent at the time. The general perception and the existing atmosphere of what is happening inside and outside the Union should be expressed, apart from the official declarations of the Union, and, furthermore, the opportunity should be taken to bring the European Union closer to the citizens, which, by the way, is an excellent moment to bring it closer and to make everyone feel that it is not a distant, depersonalised bureaucracy that governs us.

So the government, the opposition and the rest of the parties in this House must rise to the occasion and demonstrate, if they have any, responsibility, capacity for dialogue, political honesty, clear-sightedness, moderation and a clear idea that what is happening is an event of enormous magnitude with unknown and unforeseeable risks, and for this reason it must be debated with the necessary rigour.

We shall see whether the skills they demonstrate are what is required or whether, as is to be feared, they are a political class incapable of representing us properly, in which case they will open the door to the "saviours" of one colour or another who are always fishing at the edge of the river.