ORn government and parliament professional with a compound surname, now deceased, told me one day, fixing his tiny eyes on mine as an astonished listener: “In politics you have to be willing to die for your loved ones, but also to kill them.” The crudest version of German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer’s distinction, which he differentiated between “just plain enemies, deadly enemies and party comrades”. Or the most widespread of the Italian Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti, for whom in life we come across “friends, acquaintances, adversaries, enemies and party colleagues.” Pablo Casado is the latest incarnation of that always latent fratricidal struggle, as a victim of the express guillotine enabled in a matter of hours in the Genoese patio after this tender David threw an ethical stone at Goliath Ayuso and ended up crushed by her. Without undermining the inconsistency of Casado himself, both ideological and personal, plus the blunder of confusing the power of the gallon with effective authority. The elementary teaching is repeated, that the betrayal of one’s own will chill your blood, and also the subsidiary that there is no lasting leadership without a team as capable as the leader or more, just to make it better. A group of true collaborators, instead of those palmeros with no more guarantee than the card in their mouths, people with criteria and loyal in critics to put that leader in front of the mirror no matter how much the reflected image hurts. A competent staff as far as shrewd in the diagnosis and accurate in the proposal, major plumbing to anticipate problems and, where appropriate, find urgent solutions, with dialogue in hell itself. Married to Ana Beltrán had none of that on his campus and much of that returned Pedro Sánchez, for example, to the socialist throne after the baronies banished him without counting on the reconquest, with Santos Cerdán among the main squires. Beyond specific names, the root evil lies in the fact that in the parties with a vocation for government there are usually many mediocre ones who dream of the remuneration that institutional activity entails, unattainable for them in private enterprise. Because when it comes to distributing positions, fidelity prevails, understood as submission to objective merits, without a radical screening of those who cannot earn the beans with sufficiency outside of politics. Then let’s not complain about so much petty public pay, clinging to the easy chair tooth and nail. Nor of the murders in the matches in broad daylight, in UPN without going much further. As the next scene of the deadliest cainism.
The petty people on public pay abound because when distributing positions, those who cannot earn the beans with sufficiency outside of politics are not screened