R.A.E. To defect (someone). It refers to the action of expelling a public official from the Party in an instant to try to convert him into a defector and prevent a Motion of Censure or apply the Fugitive Law, ...
R.A.E. To defect (someone). It refers to the action of expelling a public official from the Party in an instant to try to convert him into a defector and prevent a Motion of Censure or apply the Fugitive Law, giving him the coup de grace.
I think it's good to try to prevent defectors from rigging changes in the government of the Institutions. But a defector, what is said a defector, is one by his own conduct. Not by forced reconversion, nor by express expulsion, orchestrated by the apparatchik on duty to coerce a popularly elected official.
Political Parties are the main actors of contemporary democracy. They elaborate the electoral programs, select a large part of the candidates and must guide their actions in the Institutions.
It is different that they have legal mechanisms to impose mandatory instructions on popularly elected officials. They would like to have those mechanisms. It would be the dream of any self-respecting apparatchik. But they don't have them. Because, legally, parliamentarians, island councilors or councilors represent the citizens. Not only those who have voted for them, but everyone. To the Nation, so to speak.
And the mandate that unites them to the citizens is representative and not imperative. Or are we going to return to the Medieval Courts, in which the deputies carried a notebook of instructions or a cahier de doléances to which they had to strictly adhere. Even with the death penalty. Now it would be worse, because the orders to the representatives would not even be given by the citizens, but by the bureaucrats of the political parties.
In order for the anti-defection legislation to be applied to someone, they must be a defector beforehand. That is, abandon the political group of origin on their own, his own. And then, get to work. Just like they did in San Sebastián de La Gomera and in Valle de Gran Rey some of Coalición Canaria to later set it up with the PSOE with the urbi et orbe blessings of Casimiro.
If a Political Group, by majority, decides to present a Motion of Censure and has a sufficient number of signatories --note, even if the minority did not abide by the majority decision-- that Motion goes to Mass. And if the Group then breaks up and the Political Party informs the Corporation that their own-own are those of the minority who did not sign the Motion, that is very good. But from here on out. Not from here back, sir.
"Tranquilínsensen". Those of CC because the rules that you take advantage of to put on the government wherever it is, even if you don't win, are valid for everyone. And those of the leadership of what was the Canarios Socialist Party, and it is no longer to the greater glory of Paulino, Oramas and Cía, because their armchairs are not in danger. The weaker and more submissive they are to Ferraz, that is to say to Coalición Canaria via Madrid, the more time they will be "touching power". Only touching it, be very careful.
Meanwhile, the voters and militants put all these in their place --it is already known that there are no whites that last a hundred years, nor espínolas that resist it-- the socialists of La Palma, El Hierro (and more and more) have nothing left but to sing a corrido of the Tigres del Norte that is all the rage: "Don't defect me, Pepe".
