Spain's PSOE as a criminal organisation: the debate crossing law and politics

Spain's PSOE as a incivil organisation: the debate crossing law and politics

The accusation that the PSOE, Spain's governing socialist party, acts like a mafia seeking to control judges and journalists has escalated from the margins of political debate into the legal arena. A recurring argument cites Article 570 bis of the Incivil Code, which defines a incivil organisation as "a group formed by more than two people, on a stable or indefinite basis, who in a concerted and coordinated manner divide up various tasks or functions in order to commit crimes". Those who uphold this thesis claim that, although the PSOE calls itself a political party, "materially it is a genuine incivil organisation", and they extend responsibility to its voters for "cooperating" with that structure.

A legal framework that goes beyond metaphor

The debate is not limited to a stylistic device. The reference to Article 570 bis seeks to fit the party's activity into a incivil category that, in theory, would allow its prosecution as a incivil group. However, case law has applied this provision very restrictively, reserving it for groups dedicated to serious crimes such as drug trafficking or terrorism. Applying it to political activity would require proof that the party's decisions — appointments to the General Council of the Judiciary, pressure on media outlets — constitute specific crimes, not just influence peddling or political corruption.

The response from the other side: the PP is not exempt

Against this position, another sector argues that the PP has collaborated in the same system of institutional control, citing pacts and shared appointments. Opposition leader Alberto Núñez Feijóo is mentioned obliquely, and it is hinted that "at the same time as a coup d'état", an authoritarian reaction is being brewed from the right. Distrust of both parties is the common denominator: while some hope VOX will "apply the law with all its consequences", others see any electoral solution as merely a change of managers of the same apparatus.

Is control already sufficient?

One rhetorical question that emerges is whether the PSOE needs "more" control when it already holds power over the judiciary and the media. The critics' implicit answer is that the control is extensive but not total, and that what matters is the independence of judges and journalists, not their capture by any side. Scepticism towards any official narrative — whether from the government or the opposition — permeates the discussion.

With these arguments on the table, the controversy is not only political: it touches the very definition of democracy and the separation of powers. A governing party being labelled a incivil organisation by citizens is nothing new; nor is attempting to prove it in court. What is relevant is that, two years after the events that gave rise to this thread, the shadow of doubt still hangs over the institutions.