Esperanza Aguirre attended a highly watched rally outside the door of the Socialist Party yesterday evening, joining a crowd that gathered to protest a controversial amnesty proposal. The plan would assist Pedro Sánchez in solidifying his position as head of government, with backing from parties like ERC and Junts. In a moment that drew mixed reactions, Aguirre stepped into the street to urge the demonstrators to slow or halt traffic along Ferraz Street, signaling her willingness to push for a visible, nonviolent show of dissent within the limits of public assembly.
Nevertheless, Aguirre’s actions did not sit well with Celia Villalobos, a former colleague who aired her criticisms during a broadcast on laSexta. Villalobos argued that demonstrations placed directly at the doorstep of the PSOE headquarters were not a constructive form of protest and did not align with the principles she associates with the party she once belonged to.
Villalobos went on to explain that the approach of displaying disapproval at the headquarters could be interpreted as a provocative tactic that undermines rather than supports democratic dialogue. She also remarked that the ongoing method of protesting near the party’s main offices could escalate tensions rather than clarify the public’s concerns. The former representative pointed out that the political channel of protest should be rooted in lawful action, dialogue with fellow citizens, and clear messages about policy, not in dramatic demonstrations at the doorstep of a single party building.
Her comments touched on a broader worry she has about the current environment: a rising intensity in societal debate that seems to cross lines between dissent and hostility. Referring to discussions about the political climate, she highlighted a perception that some factions across the spectrum are adopting extreme rhetoric, while others strive to stay within the boundaries of constructive, civic discourse. She warned that when the conversation moves toward polarization, the middle ground becomes increasingly difficult to identify, and the danger lies in fueling a cycle where disagreement hardens into confrontation. In this context, she reminded viewers that public disagreements should aim to illuminate issues rather than to intimidate opponents, and that the resilience of democratic processes depends on everyone’s ability to engage with civility and accountability.
Returning to the topic of the broadcast, the former member of parliament emphasized that democracy has other, healthier mechanisms to defend itself and to channel public discontent. She suggested that peaceful, lawful protest, robust debate, and transparent policymaking offer channels for expressing concerns without sacrificing social cohesion. In her view, political contest should strengthen institutions rather than erode trust, and it should cultivate a climate where citizens feel heard while public order is preserved. Her reflections underscored a commitment to reminding audiences that the health of a democracy lies in a balance between free expression and the responsibilities that accompany it, including the duty to avoid escalating confrontations that can obscure policy discussions or alienate potential supporters of reform.