Subscribe
The allegations against Íñigo Errejón, the young leader of the progressive Sumar coalition, and the responses from his party and the broader Spanish left have sparked a crisis that extends far beyond legal proceedings, prompting intense reflection on the values and principles upheld by those claiming to stand for justice. Initial accusations of psychological abuse by journalist Cristina Fallarás, followed by actress Elisa Mouliaá’s allegations of sexual assault, raise serious questions about Errejón’s integrity and Sumar’s leadership structure. Instead of addressing these serious accusations transparently, Errejón opted for an ambiguous departure, citing mental health reasons but offering neither an apology nor a clear acknowledgment of the gravity of the claims. His exit has widely been perceived by the public as evasive, leaving a troubling gap in accountability that his party has yet to address.
This brings the leadership of Yolanda Díaz’s–a top leader of Sumar and Spain’s Deputy PM–under scrutiny. As leader of the party to which Errejón belonged until recently, and as an advocate for women’s rights and social justice, Díaz has taken a notably passive stance on the matter. Her lack of a decisive response, failing to demand clear actions or accountability from her party colleague, has drawn significant criticism.
Díaz and other left-wing members, who have previously taken firm stances on similar cases within right-wing politics, now appear hesitant. This inconsistency casts doubt on their genuine commitment to the causes they champion, revealing a double standard within the Spanish left. By sidestepping the issue, Sumar reinforces the perception that its progressive agenda is selective and that, when the accused is one of their own, their position against abuses of power becomes diluted.
In addition to Mouliaá’s allegation, in which she describes an incident where Errejón allegedly assaulted her without consent, at least three other accusations of sexual violence have emerged and are currently under police investigation. This series of claims has introduced a legal dimension that could lead to formal proceedings if Congress authorizes the lifting of Errejón’s parliamentary immunity.
This situation highlights a further irony: Errejón and his party have previously criticized parliamentary privileges, yet he may now benefit from them to delay investigations against him. This paradox intensifies the conflict, especially given Sumar’s portrayal of itself as a party opposed to abuses of power in all forms.
As a result, the left faces a crisis of consistency, affecting not only Errejón’s image but also undermining the credibility of its rhetoric on social justice and other rights. Sumar has long advocated for values of equality and transparency—values that today seem hollow in light of its inability to act decisively in such a sensitive case. For many observers and supporters, Sumar’s silence suggests that its commitment to justice is superficial, prioritizing its reputation over adherence to the principles it publicly champions.
Sumar’s reluctance to investigate or openly condemn the situation weakens its moral authority and fosters disillusionment, potentially causing many of its supporters to reconsider their support in the future. As police and judicial authorities advance in their investigations, Sumar must decide whether it will allow the principles it has promoted to be overshadowed by scandal or if it will rise to meet the standards it has set for itself.
The outcome of this case could shape not only the future of Íñigo Errejón but also that of Sumar and Yolanda Díaz. With a public increasingly attentive and critical, Díaz and her party have the opportunity to demonstrate that their values hold true—or risk losing the trust of those who have viewed them as an honest alternative in Spanish politics. This situation tests the left’s ability to uphold its own standards and to prove that its commitment to justice is more than rhetorical.