Call to dissolve Guardia Civil gains weight following Alerta Digital case

Guardia Civil questioned: Demand for dissolution grows

Dissolving the Guardia Civil. What sounded years ago like idle chatter has become a thesis held by part of the Spanish public debate, and this episode has brought it back to the table. The trigger: controversy surrounding a digital medium, Alerta Digital, which many of its own audience members accuse of succumbing to coercion. The discussion goes beyond the case and touches the heart of the armed body: what role it plays, who it serves, and who pays its bill.

The episode that reopens the question

Stemming from coverage by the mentioned medium, one current holds that the armed body has succumbed to pressure and that its units operate with impunity. From another angle, the medium itself is accused of yielding to external pressure, and its editorial reliability is questioned. Some recall that the body accumulates centuries of history, and judging it entirely based on specific episodes is a generalization as comfortable as it is unfair. In any case, the controversy mixes two things that should be separated: the behavior of a leadership echelon and that of a body with tens of thousands of personnel spread across all of Spain.

UCO: counterpower or settling scores?

Here, the analysis splits into two. One thesis maintains that the Central Operational Unit (UCO), along with some judges and a handful of journalists, is the only real counterpower against what it describes as a nascent traficante-State, and that thanks to it, a Venezuelan-style outcome is being avoided. The opposing thesis counters that the UCO is not the whole Guardia Civil and has acted not on principle, but due to internal vendettas; it also recalls that barely a month ago, almost no one knew of its existence. Both readings coexist without resolution.

The paradox is that the same body whose dissolution some demand houses those who investigate the most uncomfortable cases for the Government. To defend the Guardia Civil and call for its disappearance in the same phrase is not a contradiction: it is a portrait of a country that simultaneously distrusts both the watchman and the watched.

Fines, estimulante ilegal traps, and the accusation of coercing citizens

The other major block of discontent is not judicial; it is traffic-related. Specific cases circulate: a 300 euro fine for exceeding the limit by 16 km/h on a section limited to 80, or the feeling that estimulante ilegal traps are hidden where they collect the most revenue. From this arises the recurring argument of presumed veracity, according to which the agent's word outweighs that of the citizen and compels litigation to win what should be automatic.

Not all grievances are equally founded, but they describe a measurable malaise: those who feel unfairly fined and those who denounce without receiving a response share the suspicion that the law is not made for them. This is the breeding ground where any thesis of dissolution grows. The breakdown of circulating cases offers an inventory that cannot be contained here, but it explains why the anger has ceased to be anecdotal.

The underlying suspicion: wearing down the body to dismantle it

The most controversial piece is missing. Some maintain—without providing proof—that the offensive against the leadership echelon is a planned movement to weaken the body and pave the way for its disappearance in certain territories, with certain parliamentary partners as theoretical beneficiaries. This is a hypothesis circulating as suspicion, not as proven fact, and it should be viewed with the same distance afforded to any tale of hidden interest.

What is verifiable, however, is that the demand for dissolution, previously marginal, has ceased to be an eccentricity and has become a repeated slogan. That it is minority does not make it irrelevant: it marks the degree of erosion of trust.

---

That is where the analysis stalls. The demand to dissolve the Guardia Civil coexists with the realization that its units most uncomfortable for power—those investigating sensitive cases—are today, for many, the last defense before the country resembles certain neighbors too closely. No one has yet resolved how to sustain an armed body that simultaneously protects and coerces. Perhaps because the question is not about the Guardia Civil, but about whom we trust to watch over others. And today, the answer is no one.