I accuse Socrates

The trial of the regime has begun, and it's been a depressing spectacle. I know more or less what all Portuguese people know about the process. I haven't read the indictment, nor do I intend to. That's what lawyers, judges, and journalists who follow the case closely are for.

As a Portuguese citizen, I evaluate the political behavior of a former prime minister who governed arrogantly, persecuting anyone who questioned him or sought clarification on reasonable suspicions. José Sócrates' entire life, before and after leading the government, is a succession of lies and blunders. Starting with the fake degree, through the fraudulent signing of projects, culminating in the acts of which he is now accused. To all of this, Sócrates responded with a lot of rudeness and few explanations.

As a voter, I make a judgment about the irresponsibility of a man who left the country bankrupt and continued to live a life of luxury, with who knows what money.

Since 2014—the year he was arrested following an investigation into his practices as prime minister—Sócrates has been pushing the ridiculous theory that he's a political prisoner persecuted by his opponents. Confronted with facts, such as the origin of the money he spends lavishly to this day, he responds with wild stories. The most scandalous is the one about his reliance on a bottomless safe, where his mother, at home, had a supposed family fortune, all in cash, ready to be spent.

Listening to Socrates is listening to a compulsive liar. Either he has a lost talent for acting, or he's one of those people who convinces himself of his own lies. The aggressive and threatening tone in which he speaks, even in court, shows how Socrates despises everything and everyone. For someone seeking to prove his innocence, he couldn't have found a worse strategy. There's no one who can feel the slightest empathy for someone who behaves this way, especially someone who once governed the country.

Looking at the spectacle of recent years, and especially the last few days, no one doubts the former head of government's intentions: to prevent a trial at any cost. To this end, Sócrates has already spent thousands of euros and is willing to spend many more. He himself said as he left the first session: "I will do everything to prevent this trial." This doesn't seem like the typical attitude of someone who claims to be innocent.

The man who, whenever possible, invokes the purity of democracy, makes no bones about tarnishing the justice system and disrespecting the judge, who, in a democratic regime, should administer justice. We could even admit that this was a problem with this specific judge, but from what we've seen in recent years, Sócrates challenges every judge who gets in his way. Even Ivo Rosa—whom he now holds up as an example of an impartial judge—was mistreated by Sócrates after reading the conclusions of the preliminary ruling. At that time, he was outraged that Ivo Rosa, who had debunked almost the entire accusation, didn't drop it all. "Unacceptable," he cried.

Socrates should have a fair trial, with all the necessary defenses guaranteed to any citizen. But that doesn't give him the right to behave as he has. It seems to me that Socrates is making a mockery of justice. Anyone who behaves like this is guilty, whatever the evidence may prove in court.