Sánchez Evades Corruption Question at Harvard

Sánchez at Harvard: "Lawfare" as a Response to Corruption

The question was specific: corruption in the Government. The president's response, during an event at Harvard, was different: a plea about lawfare and a list of cases that, according to his version, are judicial processes weaponized for political purposes. The exchange crossed the Atlantic in hours and sparked a discussion ranging from the leader's gesture to cases that, according to a forum comment, he did not mention.

What is Lawfare and Why is it Used as a Shield

At the heart of the matter is a word that has become a catch-all: lawfare, the thesis that courts are used to wear down a political adversary. Applied to the processes affecting the presidential circle – the president's vvife, his brother, the former attorney general – the label functions as an automatic response: there is no irregularity, there is persecution.

Some argue that this interpretation is an elegant way of not answering. Not all cases are the same, and lumping them together has a cost: if everything is lawfare, nothing is corruption, and the word becomes meaningless.

The Case Left Out of the Response

The most repeated paradox is selection. The president's narrative includes the cases that interest him; in public discourse, another case carries more weight: the one a forum participant calls the biggest, that of Ábalos, Koldo, and Aldama, being investigated in the courts and involving prominent names in the media debate. Those labeled as lawfare by some are, for others, proof that the criterion is applied as convenient.

Everything suggests that the issue will continue to be resolved in the courts rather than on podiums. It is advisable not to consider the script closed.