While the eleven horsemen of the apocalypse were turning their heads when the duo, whose term of office did not even consider it appropriate to abstain, today I take refuge in the arms of Manuel Alcaraz, professor of constitutional law, who turned the issue into a tomato. When he sees the calm soul with which he moves, staggers, he clings to his firm beliefs, clings to them, transcends them and goes beyond. There is a chapel for that. Of course more and more.
He’s in the middle of a tour to present his latest book, “El oficio de Casandra,” a compendium of great articles in which he discusses concerns about the quality and future of democracy and other derivatives. And what this gentleman from the Enlightenment is doing is advising the one thing that doesn’t belong to him: the preface. So I have no plans to contradict him and I’d happily let it happen. Joan RomeroOne who describes his former colleague in the ups and downs of public affairs as “a moderate leftist who rejects anti-political as a way to progress through life”, emphasizing some of the essence the work instills in the future of the future. At hand, this is no less: «The author knows very well that democracy is conflict, but also agreement. There are also moments when the agreement is the message, the task of parties and governments is to compromise in times of institutional fatigue, political fragility and turmoil… Therefore, he expresses his pain while approving judicialization. politics, which is nothing more than an affirmation of a failure and somehow a collective failure». I agree with Alcaraz even in the preface. It worries me.
The longing sustained throughout his writings is a firm call to common sense. The evidence is that, as you will notice from the aroma of the above, no mention was made of the court pirouette or how it got to this point during the presentation. If done…