This last case of Minister Eduardo Cabrita should be an example of the school: the lack of a direct understanding of what political responsibility is ultimately leads to its late application in much worse conditions and circumstances. Perhaps the former minister has already seen this; and the prime minister too. It is important to understand two facts: first, political responsibility exists independently of guilt; secondly, political responsibility, if not taken on in time, tends to increase over time and can even cause feelings of guilt.
On June 18, the Minister of the Interior was implicated in the death of a worker in the service car in which he was traveling on duty. Misfortune. Nobody suggested that the minister was to blame. To say that would be a monster. But if the minister immediately resigned, immediately – and well – intuitively realizing the inevitable painfulness of the situation for the government and for himself, he would not have to do it now, under pressure and after unacceptable statements.
On June 18th, that would have saved a lot of embarrassment. Many (if not all) would welcome the “exemplary dignity” of this gesture and the minister’s amnesty in his past absences – a kind of “reset”. Perhaps in almost six months he will be ready to return to the government. The accident should be investigated normally, preferably without interference or pressure. The victim’s family would receive compensation from justice. The minister would show grief and human respect for the victim and, at the same time, realize that the accident would jeopardize his government’s responsibility for road safety.
The problem was the speeding, which was obvious to everyone from the very beginning. Even worse with a fatal sacrifice. Now, from the prosecution, everyone knew about the speed of 163 km / h, which led to the minister’s resignation on the same day. But the driver and the minister knew this from the very beginning, perhaps not with an accuracy of km / h, but with the indisputable texture of overspeeding. And everyone knew what they knew.
The pressure was building not only on this case, but also on government officials, including the prime minister, to get an intuitive sense of the speed at which they could drive in a few days and to demonstrate flagrant traffic violations with regard to speeding. There were several articles in the newspapers. And we saw thought-provoking footage of these road violations on TV.
What sparked media interest in the speed of government cars? Eduardo Cabrita’s misunderstanding that the accident placed him politically responsible. And what would the Minister of the Interior do, suddenly faced with an outbreak of violations of the Road Code by official cars of colleagues from the government? It will need to take measures to establish general respect (“the law is the same for all”) or to define a specific exceptional framework. Why didn’t it happen? Because since June 18, the minister has been politically prohibited from taking any active steps in this area, especially when it comes to speeding by members of the government.
Finally, it is incorrect to claim that the case was used for political purposes. Rather, it was the other way around. It is a fact that awkward questions about the speed at which the car would move were repeated. It was inevitable. But given the deadly trample, let’s pretend it happened in a different government with a PSD or CDS minister. I believe he would have resigned immediately. But if he wanted to continue, he would be roasted alive every day with popular statements in the media and shouts of parliamentarians until he fell. Relentless.
One thing is true. PS must define once and for all what his paradigm is: Jorge Coelho’s paradigm? Or the paradigm that Eduardo Cabrita established in this case? One of them is a good paradigm. The other is so bad that there cannot be a single paradigm. It doesn’t take a lot of theory to do this. The facts speak for themselves.
Lawyer and former leader of CDS
Use the old spelling
Top News4 years ago
Top News4 years ago
Tech4 years ago
