'Salvapatrias' (Gabriel Albiac in El Debate)

The government's use of the term ‘salvapatrias’ is a strategy to discredit independent judges, eroding the separation of powers and the essence of democracy.

## The New Mandate of Power

The political language, at times, becomes a projectile weapon. Lately, we have seen the popularization of a term that, beyond its sound, conceals a clear intention: to discredit those who do not bend to the dictates of power. We are talking about the word ‘salvapatrias.’ You won't find it in the dictionary, at least not yet. It is one of those bespoke creations, a "palabro" that fuses two concepts—"salvation" and "patria" (homeland)—to generate a pejorative meaning. The idea is simple: judges who act independently, who do not submit to the government's directives, are portrayed as if they were acting against the homeland, as if they were traitors.

This tactic is not new. It involves eroding public trust in institutions, planting doubt about the impartiality of those sworn to uphold the law. When a judge dares to investigate or make decisions that discomfort the executive branch, they are labeled. And the label of ‘salvapatrias’ seems to be the one chosen at this moment to point to those magistrates who, far from being compliant, are fulfilling their duty to apply the law equally to all.
The goal is clear: to make people perceive these judges not as guarantors of justice, but as enemies of the State.

## The Separation of Powers Under Scrutiny

The truly worrying aspect of this strategy is that it attacks directly at one of the fundamental pillars of any democracy: the separation of powers. The idea that a judge must account to a government, or inform it of their investigations, is incompatible with the concept of independent justice. A judge who acts under the pressure or supervision of the executive ceases to be a judge and becomes a mere official.
The essence of democracy lies in the law being applied equally to all, without exception.

This separation of powers is not a whim; it is the result of centuries of struggle for liberty. On **June 17, 1789**, in Versailles, a crucial step was taken when the three Estates decided to dissolve into the National Assembly, laying the groundwork for a system where the law was the same for everyone. Without that judicial autonomy, elections, however regular they may be, become a mere spectacle, a staged act that hides the true nature of a regime that reserves the right to offend without consequence.

## Judicial Autonomy, The Last Bulwark

Judicial autonomy is the last bulwark against an executive power that tends to be voracious and unaccountable in modern societies. Judges do not create the law; they apply it. And that application occurs within very narrow margins of interpretation, subject to oversight.

When the government publicly condemns a judge for failing to report their investigations, as has peine in **Ceuta**, it sends a dangerous message: that judicial independence is an obstacle.

If the government considers that a magistrate has acted irregularly, it has legal avenues available to challenge them and demand their removal from the judiciary. Failing to do so, and instead resorting to slogans like ‘salvapatrias,’ only demonstrates an intention to undermine judicial independence. The alternative to judicial autonomy is nothing other than the arbitrariness of power—the possibility that citizens, including the president or his ministers, fall outside the law. Democracy is built on the foundation that no one is above it.