El franquismo como actualidad. Reflexiones psicosociológicas para una crónica del nosotros a través de una lectura del tiempo en la STS 101/2012, de 27 de febrero

Abstract

As from the philosophy in Paul Rincoeur’s text, the system sociology of Niklas Luhmann and the biopolitic of Michael Focault, we explore the verdict of the “101/2012” sentence of February 27th; with the objective of identifying subjects and political voids inherent to its jurisdiction. This is, correlative to the temporality that outlines the legality, the ordinance and the amnesty, in the legal reasonings that are exposed in the judgment to resolve the dilemma of principles, duty to investigate and judicial banning of sanctioning. The resolution of the dilemma that favors this last one, makes us come face to face with a paradox of difficult fracture which can be found, according to our point of view, in the constitutional base of the Spanish contemporary state. But this is precisely the point at issue that´s open in the debate set out by this investigation, when framing a question about the function of impunity, precisely from the former identification of its constitutive subjects. Throughout this work, we’ll maintain that the effectiveness of the verdict doesn't reside in the deactivation of the ius punendi but on the activations and/or creations of meaning that unleash from its emergency. For the time being, voids have been effectively activated for the legal and political existence and victims get deactivated; simultaneously allowing us to speculate about the reason of state implied in these operations. This argument would force to restore the problem to the forum affairs from which its been expelled, turrning it into a mere issue of victims and family members, for example, by the Law of the Historical Memory. Consequently, facing the Francoist matter, the investigation responds with this thesis which proposes to go further by situating the verdict as a singularity in a broader network of episodes, in which the victim’s government is an object of domination. From that point of view, the thesis of reason of state gets transformed though this channel into biopolitics, in its conjecture, warning us about its possible absorption/comprehension of the duty of the Spanish contemporary state. The point of issue for the “us” rises as a final reflection: Who or what is the “us” of this biopolitic of vulnerability and victimisation? With this, we possibly find an open road for the matter of state, so prominent in the political conflict of the Spanish contemporary state.