What does “lawfare” mean? Or the manipulation of Laws for political purposes.

What does “lawfare” mean? Or the manipulation of Laws for political purposes. We write as a way of resisting, of existing, of shouting or, if you want, of fighting. “Courage is not the absence of fear, but the triumph over it. The brave man is not the one who does not feel fear, but the one who conquers that fear.” (Nelson Mandela) The term refers to the combination of the word law and the word warfare, and, in literal translation, means “legal war”. We can understand lawfare as follows: use or manipulation of laws as an instrument to combat an opponent, disrespecting legal procedures and the rights of the individual who is intended to be eliminated. In even more general terms, it can be understood as the use of laws as a weapon to achieve a social political purpose, which normally would not be achieved if not through the use of lawfare, THAT IS THE MANIPULATION OF LAWS! We will say that it is a practice that is planned to have an appearance of legality and, often, this appearance is created with the help of journalists. Therefore, the term is used on most occasions with a negative connotation, as it gives the idea of an abusive and illegitimate (illegal) use of the law to harm a certain political opponent. This is clearly what is happening in Portugal. Making a little history was an American general Charles Dunlap considered the creator of this concept. In 2001 he published an article in which he defined this word as the use of law to achieve political and military objectives. Since the end of the 20th century, but with greater intensity in the last two decades, the lawfare concept began to replace coups d'état and military pronouncements. In this way, they do not face popular protest and the rejection of international public opinion regarding violent ways of resolving political problems, instead creating a moralistic and anti-corruption image. This concept was widely used in Latin America and then spread to several European countries, rigorously repeating the same forms of action. In Latin America, the cases of Lula da Silva and Dilma Roussef (Brazil), Cristina Kirchner (Argentina), Fernando Lugo (Paraguay), Evo Morales (Bolivia), and Lopez Obrador (Mexico) are widely known. If we notice, in many of the known cases, accusations, insinuations and supposed legal offenses were widely publicized with the aim of creating an image of wear and tear and discredit in society that determines their political liquidation, with or without imprisonment in the process. In the vast majority, in general, of these cases, the facts of the alleged illegalities were not proven, but the respective political eliminations were irreversible. The most blatant case was the arrest of Lula da Silva on charges of having received a lot of bribes, which later turned out not to belong to him. The central aspect of this lawfare is that all political leaders who do not submit to neoliberal policies and develop social policies are preferential targets of these antisocial political and economic forces. A large part of the media plays a fundamental, even essential, role in these processes, as they are concentrated in a few hands, triggering an action that legitimizes the entire operation. The general mechanism is based on detecting alleged crimes or behaviors that may arouse condemnation or that arouse widespread indignation in public opinion. We have no doubt whatsoever that it is a “judicial coup d’état” that we are experiencing in Portugal and a government of magistrates that is approaching!