When partisan interest conflicts with the public good

This article was exclusively written for The European Sting by one of our passionate readers, Mr. Antonio Cristóbal Luque Ambrosiani. The opinions expressed within reflect only the writer’s views and not necessarily The European Sting’s position on the issue.

Our European society is founded on the principle of the separation of powers, which ensures that those who decide how to administer justice do not coincide with those who debate what we understand as just and unjust.

However, in numerous institutions, we can observe that as a professional from a specific field, whether legal, medical, or administrative, ascends to higher ranks, they come into contact with political influences in various ways.

In the region where I live, the case of hospitals serves as a prime example. It is striking that the management of a hospital center is decided by a counselor from an administration that is inherently political. It is surprising that the decision of who manages the resources of a hospital center falls upon a person who is not necessarily required to understand how the healthcare system functions.

Another example can be found in the bodies controlling the judicial power in my country. While frontline judges enter a court through competitive examinations based on merit, free from external influences, when they reach positions of power where they are mandated to direct how the judicial power is organized, precisely requiring greater impartiality, it is at that exact moment that we see these positions being decided by political power.

While the fact that a person is chosen by a politician does not imply poor management or anything inherently abnormal, it intrinsically generates a conflict of interest. This creates a situation where an entity, the politician, has decided to grant a professional the status of manager, which can collide during the exercise of their duties with the interests of the very person who chose them.

This leads to a high risk of generating multiple conflicts, the risk of manipulation, and a tendency toward complacency with the operating power of the moment. There are examples of magnificent professionals who, when dealing with this situation, sadly tarnish their professional careers by failing to face the collision that often involves the impartial management of the desires of the current political power.

Faced with this circumstance, I wonder if, under the flag of our Union, a reflection on this matter should not be considered. Let me explain: Do we truly have a separation of powers? Can we afford to maintain the influence of political power over professional institutions, precisely in their highest positions, with the associated risk of manipulating these roles?

Perhaps we should carefully review whether there is truly impartiality for professionals to manage their fields. It is not about isolating politicians from the areas over which they must, in fact, draft laws with the will of the people, but rather about allowing those who must perform the work to do so with absolute freedom based on scientific and technical criteria, rather than on other natures. In cases where a collegial body is needed in professional fields, it should be elected by the professionals themselves without external interference. Otherwise, as is said in my region, you will end up not biting the hand that feeds you.