An Examination of 'Lawfare' Allegations and Judicial Independence in Spain

Recently, a remarkable temporal and conceptual parallelism has been observed in Spain between some public opinion polls published by various media organizations and the CIS (Sociological Research Center) reports. These studies specifically focus on citizens' perception of the judicial system and their views on whether so-called 'lawfare' is being used in the country. Before questioning the validity of this sociological data, it should not be forgotten that such research must be examined in detail by experts. However, the main critical point here is that respecting the raw data does not automatically mean accepting the transformation of this data into a political argument. Because when citizens are asked questions through the concept of 'lawfare', which carries a heavy political load, the responses received may reflect different and multi-layered concerns in public opinion.

The public's reactions to such issues generally represent a deep concern over the excessive politicization of public life or a strong rejection of the instrumentalization of institutions. In addition, the fatigue created by endless political scandals and the perception that the justice system has been turned into a battlefield are also among the factors directly affecting these survey results. Despite all these legitimate public concerns and the criticisms directed at the judicial system, it is highly erroneous to conclude that Spanish judges are waging a coordinated legal war against any individual. Criticisms regarding the slowness in the functioning of the judiciary in the country or that some constitutional bodies are politicized are completely legitimate and debatable issues. However, claiming that Spanish judges act as instruments of political persecution based on these real problems is not only unjust but also an extremely dangerous approach for the democratic system.

In reality, the situation in Spain is quite the opposite; society has great confidence in its judges and courts. People have deep respect for members of the judiciary who resolve all kinds of disputes, protect the rights of victims, and apply the laws with independence and common sense every day. Undoubtedly, the attempts of some actors in the political scene to distort judicial narratives may weaken this trust from time to time. However, the people whom citizens distrust are not the judges who administer justice, but the political figures who try to pressure them or turn them into parts of partisan conflicts. The concept of 'lawfare' has become an extremely convenient and comfortable label today for those who want to escape debates, bypass legal analyses, and sow seeds of doubt instead of solid arguments. Such irrational and superficial approaches are absolutely incompatible with the requirements of a mature democracy.

Of course, no judge is infallible and free from error; their decisions can be criticized within legal processes, appealed, and annulled by higher courts. However, for legal criticism to gain credibility, it must be based on scientific criteria such as seriousness, objectivity, legal norms, case law, and judicial review. Speculative evaluations made outside these fundamental rules are nothing but propaganda and malicious slander. This is probably the situation that truly disturbs some political circles; because despite all media pressure and smear campaigns, Spanish society is mature enough to distinguish the judicial institution from political manipulation. Society continues to expect impartiality, independence, and loyalty solely to the rule of law from members of the judiciary, just as it always has.

The famous thinker Montesquieu expressed this sensitive balance in a philosophical language centuries ago, stating that there can be no true liberty in any place where the judicial power is not strictly separated from the legislative and executive branches. In this context, defending the principle of separation of powers does not mean weakening the moral authority of judges when a given judicial decision is found politically disturbing. On the contrary, it must be defended by respecting judicial independence, accepting the oversight of the courts, and remembering that the primacy of the rule of law is not to side with the powerful, but to protect citizens against the arbitrary actions of the government or pressure groups. As a result, the judicial system and the concept of justice actually only cause discomfort to those who break the laws, fail to fulfill their responsibilities, and fear being held accountable for their actions.