The intention of those of us who approved the Code of Conduct of the Cortes Generales on October 1, 2020, which, by the way, is unknown to PP senators with high responsibilities, is expressed from its preamble when we explicitly stated that the ratio decidendi of that regulation was to guarantee that exemplary behavior and transparency constituted the basic principles of conduct of parliamentarians. Logical, since, as representatives of our people, we had to respond with our behavior to the most demanding ethical imperatives.
Already within the articles, in its Art. 1, section 1, we specified the requirement of a conduct that responded to high standards of integrity and transparency, in order to maintain and strengthen citizen confidence in the Cortes Generales. In its section 2, we gave it the character of binding for the members of the Cortes Generales in the exercise of their functions and during the entire period of their mandate. Finally, in Art. 2, dedicated to principles, we established as those of a general nature, integrity, transparency, diligence, honesty, responsibility and respect, both to the other members of the Chambers and to the citizenry in general.
The existential despair of the right wing
I make the preceding introduction because, in the last plenary session of the Senate, a senator from the PP, not as a consequence of a sudden outburst resulting from a debate because she was the first to speak, but in a perfectly prepared and deliberate manner, addressed the Socialist Group, of which I am a part, with the following words: "That's the only way I can explain why there are so many pimps, so many sycophants, so many machists and so many whoremongers in La Moncloa and in the PSOE." The intervention received applause in the seats of her group. I leave it to each reader to assess the conduct of the senator and those who applauded her, but for me what happened clashes head-on with the Code of Conduct, since it attacks its foundations.
It seems that we have not learned anything and that we are going against what was intended, especially with regard to maintaining or recovering the confidence of citizens in their representatives. Citizen disaffection towards democratic institutions was not an anecdotal phenomenon, but a structural one. As Aguilar García (2022) points out, citing Linz (2012), until recently there was a generalized criticism of the parties, but not of democracy, so it was deduced that the problem was not the system, but its ethical application. However, in my modest opinion, the situation has worsened, encouraged by the existential despair of the right and the extreme right, since now the democratic system itself is being questioned.
The Code of Conduct is a model of political civility
In my opinion, the Code of Conduct is a model of political civility. It is not a control measure, but an act of democratic dignity in which disagreement does not become verbal violence, criticism is not slander and political passion does not replace human dignity. Insult, disqualification and media manipulation are forms of symbolic corruption. Of course, harsh criticism, denunciation and political irony are allowed, but always as long as they do not attack the human dignity of the interlocutor. To soak up what high parliamentarianism is, I recommend reading the master Luis Carandell.
I know that there will be those who raise the dichotomy of the struggle of what is written above with the right to freedom of expression, ex article 20.1 of the Constitution, or the inviolability of parliamentarians, ex article 71.2. But we were clear, it is not about restricting freedom of expression, but about defining what is legitimate political expression, as Jürgen Habermas would say: "Freedom of expression is only legitimate when it is exercised within the framework of non-coercive communication" - that is, without humiliating, without dehumanizing, without reducing the other to an enemy.
Our Constitution never granted permission to insult, slander or libel, to discredit or to incite hatred. The jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights makes it clear: "Freedom of expression is one of the essential foundations of a democratic society, but only if it is exercised with pluralism, tolerance and a spirit of openness" (Hadyside Judgment, 1976), and inviolability is not a shield to insult, but a privilege to speak with freedom and responsibility. It is a shield for the truth, not a shield for the lie.
I expect an act of political dignity
I am also aware that this contrasts with the logic of the "star parliamentarian" that predominates in the Spanish right, in that continuous contest to see who says or writes the greatest barbarity against the political adversary, appealing to the emotional and moving away from the effort to reason. And all this with the aim of winning the favors of their dome, achieving virality on social networks and developing politics as a spectacle, forgetting that we are not measured by the "likes", but by the positive impact we can generate in people's lives. However, citizens not only judge Parliament for what it legislates, but also for its behavior.
In short, I believe that it is worth it for all of us to reach the conclusion that, if we parliamentarians do not respect each other, we are not respecting the citizens we represent. Therefore, I expect an act of political dignity on the part of the senator or the president of the Chamber at the beginning of the next plenary session of the Senate, which will be held on September 30, to put a stop to it and open a path of understanding that avoids so many disrespects, practicing something as simple as good education.