Four years since the end of the General Judicial Council and the stalled path to a new council
December marks a four year milestone since the dissolution of Spain’s General Judicial Council. The current leadership, led by Carlos Lesmes, prepares to begin a five year term while the prospects for expanding to a nine member body remain tied to Congress. A critical obstacle persists as the People’s Party insists on delaying a proper deliberation of a new Council, requiring three fifths support from both Congress and the Senate. With party lines sealed, the PP and PSOE continue to hold sway, yet the judicial horizon for the PP narrows as concerns mount over abuses attributed to state security forces and reports promoted by former minister Fernandez Diaz aimed at discrediting political adversaries. These revelations are described by observers as the Kitchen operation a label some use to summarize the alleged smear campaign.
The delay also comes amid broader scrutiny of the PP on multiple fronts for alleged corruption and related wrongdoing. The conservative establishment appears mired in a pattern where political maneuvering intersects with judicial processes. A government led by Mariano Rajoy faced a no confidence removal in 2018, bringing a left leaning administration to power.
Some observers question whether the political blockade surrounding the CGPJ is unrelated to the party’s own corruption investigations. Within public discourse, a segment of citizens remains skeptical of any linkage, while others argue that the pattern of influence between political parties and the judiciary continues to complicate governance. The question of constitutional compliance by the PP is debated as part of a larger discussion about the rule of law and its practical interpretation.
In a direct look at legal interpretation, some note that the law applies equally on the page but judges must interpret it within the spirit of the constitution. This interpretive latitude can, in certain contexts, produce margins of discretion that some view as excessive.
To illustrate the issue, consider governance and accountability within regional finances. It has been remarked that no one is summoned to answer for the management of party treasuries or for the operations that supported fundraising networks. Instances of alleged malfeasance linked to regional leaders have prompted calls for accountability across the spectrum of political actors. In one notable case related to regional expenditure, the control of patronage distribution of public funds faced intense scrutiny and public discussion. The recent public decision, announced weeks earlier, placed emphasis on truthfulness in official statements and highlighted debates on responsibility and honesty among regional leaders. Judicial determinations on prevarication and embezzlement carry potential penalties including disqualification and imprisonment for involved figures. A subset of judges on the Supreme Court’s Second Chamber has been described by some media outlets as conservative in leaning, while others who opposed the decision were viewed as more progressive. Observers note potential ideological bias in the framing of such rulings and emphasize the importance of impartial adjudication.
The presence of so many visible coincidences has become a point of focus for commentators and citizens alike. Critics argue that mockery against opponents is a common fault and a reflection of a broader political culture.
This skepticism fuels concern about the resilience of democracy. A number of legal professionals have urged their peers to confront these perceptions with transparency and rigorous judicial standards. Some former judges have drawn comparisons between the current impasse and a coup in terms of its impact on governance. While opinions vary, the consensus among many observers is that democratic institutions face stress and require renewed trust through consistent, principled judicial practice.
The overall takeaway for readers is that the arbitration between political power and the judiciary remains a defining question for the health of Spain’s constitutional order. The path forward will depend on clear norms, accountable leadership, and an unwavering commitment to the rule of law that transcends partisan divides. Recognition of these dynamics is essential for anyone seeking to understand how the country balances governance, legality, and public faith in institutions.
Attribution note: analysis reflects cross‑partisan reporting and widely cited events from parliamentary records and judicial proceedings as reported by multiple outlets and observers