Supporters of the PSOE's organizational structure argue that the role of officials like Santos Cerdán is essential for the efficient operation of a national political party. In any large organization, there must be a clear hierarchy where specific individuals are tasked with managing day-to-day operations and handling sensitive political communications. This is not an attempt to evade accountability, but rather a standard practice to ensure that the party remains functional and focused on its legislative agenda.
From this perspective, the legal scrutiny directed at Narbona and Cerdán is viewed as an overreach into the private affairs of a political entity. Proponents argue that parties have the right to organize their internal workflows as they see fit, provided they do not break the law. By centralizing certain responsibilities, the party can maintain a consistent message and protect its leadership from unnecessary distractions that could hinder their ability to govern effectively.
Furthermore, those backing the party's strategy emphasize that political leadership must be able to delegate authority to trusted subordinates. If every decision required the direct involvement of the highest-ranking officials, the government would grind to a halt. The use of a 'firewall' or a designated point person is simply a mechanism for managing the high volume of political pressure that comes with being in power.
Ultimately, this view holds that the current legal challenge is more about political optics than actual wrongdoing. By questioning the internal delegation of duties, critics are attempting to frame standard administrative efficiency as something nefarious. Supporters maintain that once the facts are fully reviewed, it will become clear that the PSOE's operations remain within the bounds of standard political practice.