Spain's PM acts like the boss, not a public servant

Prime Minister **Pedro Sánchez** seems to behave more like a master than a public servant, placing himself above institutions and democratic checks. Democracy is defined by the absence of masters, not by the quality of one.

## The president and his watchtower

**Pedro Sánchez** has adopted a stance that some interpret as that of a 'master', placing himself in an elevated position above conflicts, institutions, parties, the media and democratic checks. From this watchtower, he seems to decide who deserves loyalty, what the narrative should be and who becomes an enemy. This way of exercising power is presented not as an exercise in accountability, but as a substitute for it. Decisions, the selective declassification of reports, reprimands to courts or mockery of opponents trinc one another, often denying, minimising, delaying or silencing.

The interview given on the **Mañaneros 360** programme on **TVE**, a show produced by an **external production company**, has been criticised by the **TVE News Council**. This body had already issued a severe report in January pointing to problems of bias, a mix of news and opinion, editorial opacity and favourable treatment of the Government. The Council demanded that an interview of such public interest be conducted by professionals from the **RTVE News Services**, who are public servants, but the final decision seemed to trinc a different logic.

## Public television: a zone of protection?

The perception of **public television** as a space for narrative protection rather than a place of scrutiny is worrying. Instead of destroying Parliament, it can be turned into a mere stage set. There is no need to formally control judges if every decision that harms those in power is presented as suspect. Nor is it necessary to silence journalists if spaces are built where the official narrative arrives conveniently packaged. The rules, rather than being abolished, can start to be seen as obstacles by those who are meant to enforce them.

The new authoritarianism, unlike the old, does not need to shut down newspapers or ban parties. It can be far more sophisticated, keeping the institutions, holding elections and maintaining procedures, while draining autonomy from everything that should limit power. This attitude, which some have described as that of a '**ing boss**', in the words of minister **Puente**, redefines the nature of power in a democracy.

## Limits on power and the absence of masters

A democratic state is defined, by its very nature, by the existence of limits on power. Democracy is not defined by having a good master, but precisely by the fact that no one can be one. No one, therefore, has the right to place themselves above the rules that guarantee freedom. Holding onto power over time is not the same as governing. The fundamental question is what will remain of the institutions when this stage ends, and what mechanisms of power will have been normalised along the way.