There is an unhealthy obsession among certain politicians and rulers with knowing what citizens do, with whom they meet, what conversations they have, and what their opinions are about those in power. An obsession that, far from being the exclusive patrimony of dictatorships, also manifests itself in our democracies, where some public officials seem to confuse the legitimacy granted to them by the ballot box with an authorization to meddle in the lives of others. It is especially worrying that those who should guarantee our rights and freedoms are precisely those who, on certain occasions, show a greater interest in monitoring us. And the most paradoxical thing is that this almost unlimited curiosity to know the movements of others contrasts with the extraordinary resistance that many of them offer when citizens try to find out how public money is managed or what decisions are made in official offices.
Spain accumulates too many episodes that should invite us to reflect on this dangerous drift. It is not an ideological issue nor a behavior exclusive to a particular political party. The Popular Party and the Socialist Party have been involved in controversies related to espionage operations, partisan use of information, and actions carried out from the shadows of power. The protagonists, circumstances, and procedures change, but a common temptation remains: to use institutional levers to obtain information that may be useful in political confrontation, instead of putting them exclusively at the service of the general interest.
One of the most remembered episodes occurred during the presidency of Esperanza Aguirre in the Community of Madrid. In 2009, Manuel Cobo, then deputy mayor of Madrid, publicly denounced the espionage maneuvers that had affected leaders of his own party and popularized the expression "Gestapillo" to refer to that network. The investigation brought to light surveillance of political officials, including Cobo himself and Alfredo Prada, in a context of internal clashes within the Popular Party. Although the judicial case was eventually shelved, the scandal left a disturbing question: how could a structure linked to a public administration be used to control the movements of party colleagues?
Years later, during the Government of Mariano Rajoy, we learned about the actions attributed to the so-called patriotic police, with Commissioner José Manuel Villarejo as one of its best-known figures. Operation Kitchen, whose trial was adjourned for sentencing in July 2026, has investigated the alleged use of police resources and reserved funds to obtain compromising documentation from the former treasurer of the Popular Party, Luis Bárcenas. The seriousness of the matter does not lie solely in the possible criminal liabilities, which it is up to the courts to determine, but in the suspicion that instruments designed to protect citizens could have been used to defend partisan interests.
Nor can the PSOE present itself as alien to these practices. Judicial investigations into the alleged maneuvers of Leire Díez and other people linked to the socialist environment have once again brought the so-called sewers of power to the forefront. According to the known investigations, compromising information would have been sought about judges, prosecutors, and police officials with the aim of interfering in investigations detrimental to certain political interests. These are facts subject to investigation, whose responsibilities still need to be clarified, but which show to what extent obtaining sensitive information can become a tool of pressure.
Even Vox, which has not yet held major government responsibilities, seems not to escape this worrying temptation to control the movements of others. In March 2026, the newspaper La Razón published an investigation in which former leaders of the party denounced the existence of an alleged internal surveillance network aimed at monitoring the movements and actions of its own territorial officials. According to these accusations, certain individuals would have carried out political control tasks while occupying positions remunerated with public funds. Among the cases highlighted was that of Antonio Candel, who had worked in the regional governments of Castilla y León and Murcia. Although these complaints cannot be considered judicially proven, it is particularly significant that suspicions of espionage also extend to a party that has made political regeneration one of its main demands.
The truly worrying thing is that this way of understanding power is not limited to the great institutions of the State. It can also manifest itself in city councils and administrations close to the citizen, precisely where the relationship between rulers and governed should be characterized by greater proximity, trust, and transparency.
The latest example can be found in Huelva, where the mayor, Pilar Miranda, of the Popular Party, is at the center of a controversy related to police actions in response to the mobilizations of different neighborhood groups. According to the magazine La Mar de Onuba, the City Council sent an unfavorable police report to the Government Subdelegation about members of the Huelva Distritos platform, which brings together associations and citizens concerned about different problems in their neighborhoods. The publication maintains that this report preceded an intervention by plainclothes National Police officers during a peaceful protest held last October 8 in the Juan Ceada park. The officers identified participants, made recordings, and warned of possible sanctions.
It is important to distinguish between the published information, the responsibilities that can be accredited, and the explanations that the implicated administrations should offer. But, if it is confirmed that police assessments were made about citizens simply for organizing and expressing their demands, we would be facing an extraordinarily worrying situation. Since when does meeting to defend a park, demand improvements in a neighborhood, or question a municipal decision turn a citizen into someone deserving of political surveillance? Neighborhood associations are not suspicious organizations for exercising their rights. They are an essential expression of democratic participation
And here appears a contradiction that I consider especially revealing. While some rulers seem determined to know the meetings, movements, and activities of citizens, they show a surprising lack of enthusiasm for providing information about their own management. For this, there are transparency portals, requests for access to public information, and institutional control mechanisms. However, too often citizens encounter evasive answers, unjustified delays, incomplete documents, or restrictive interpretations of their right to know.
Transparency cannot become a propaganda showcase where administrations only publish what interests them. Its true utility lies precisely in allowing citizens to know decisions, contracts, expenses, reports, and actions that affect the general interest, within the limits established by law. Nor can it be accepted that a political leader considers it normal to investigate who participates in a neighborhood meeting while making it difficult to explain how certain public resources have been used.
There is a fundamental difference that some politicians seem to have forgotten: citizens have the right to preserve their private life, while rulers have the obligation to account for their public activity. It is not a minor issue. It is one of the essential principles on which any democracy worthy of that name rests. Naturally, security forces must intervene when there are legal reasons that justify it, but they should never become instruments to intimidate those who peacefully disagree with the decisions of their rulers.
Perhaps the underlying problem is that certain public officials continue to interpret power as personal property and not as a temporary responsibility. They are uncomfortable with criticism, distrust independent organizations, and view any citizen movement that escapes their control as a threat. They forget that a neighborhood association, a protest platform, or a group of citizens gathered to defend their interests do not need anyone's political approval to exercise their rights.
Democracy is not measured solely by the periodic holding of elections. It is also measured by the freedom of citizens to organize, disagree, and scrutinize their representatives without feeling observed, singled out, or intimidated. Therefore, every time we learn of an episode of unjustified surveillance or partisan use of public resources, we should demand explanations regardless of the acronyms of its protagonists.
Because, ultimately, politicians should worry much less about knowing with whom we citizens meet and much more about explaining what they do when they meet, what decisions they make, and how they manage our money. That would be a magnificent way to demonstrate their commitment to transparency and, above all, to democracy.