Critics of the push to distance the PSOE from Zapatero warn that such a move could alienate a significant portion of the party's base and undermine its historical identity. They argue that a party which turns its back on its former leaders risks appearing opportunistic and lacking in loyalty. By distancing themselves from a figure who led the country for eight years, current officials may inadvertently signal that they are ashamed of their own party's past accomplishments.
There is also a concern that this strategy will fail to achieve its intended goal of silencing critics. Opponents of the PSOE are unlikely to stop their attacks simply because the party tries to distance itself from a former president. Instead, this internal friction may be perceived as a sign of weakness or division, which could be exploited by political rivals to suggest that the party is fractured and unable to stand by its own record. This could ultimately damage the party's credibility more than the association with Zapatero ever did.
Furthermore, many party members believe that Zapatero’s experience and international connections remain valuable assets. By isolating him, the party may lose access to a wealth of institutional knowledge and diplomatic influence that could be used to benefit the country. This perspective suggests that the party should be able to manage disagreements with former leaders without resorting to public distancing, which creates unnecessary drama and internal conflict.
Finally, this view emphasizes the importance of unity. A party that is seen to be purging its past is often viewed as unstable. Rather than focusing on distancing, critics argue that the leadership should focus on integrating different generations and viewpoints to create a stronger, more inclusive organization. Abandoning a former leader is seen as a short-sighted tactic that ignores the long-term value of party continuity and collective identity.