In a climate where politicians often discuss large-scale transport projects, Jerónimo Saavedra championed the importance of free and universal early childhood education in Parliament. He viewed these facilities not as mere temporary fixes but as essential social safety nets, aiming to offset inequalities before exclusion became inevitable.
During August, a time associated with holidays, family, and relaxation, I had the pleasure of attending the launch of Marta Saavedra’s book about her uncle, Jerónimo, in Agaete. The summer’s slower pace allowed for a special reunion as we paid tribute to the remarkable Jerónimo Saavedra.
Marta and I worked together during the “Pacto de las Flores” government, where she led the transparency department while I headed the Child Protection Directorate. Our shared responsibilities in complex areas brought us together as colleagues and friends. The warmth of Marta dedicating her book to me added a personal touch, prompting me to reflect deeply on its contents.
Finishing the book left a lingering impact that demands reflection. For those of us engaged in social vulnerability, focusing on child and adolescent protection, Jerónimo Saavedra’s legacy is both intriguing and unsettling. Marta presents her uncle with a familial affection, alongside insights from over forty voices. Yet, beyond the political homage lies a profound understanding of how state functions intersect with vulnerability.
I usually approach biographies with some detachment, searching for contradictions in public personas. However, Marta’s portrayal intertwined with Jerónimo’s documented tenure as a Deputy from 2011 to 2018 offers a different perception. In the latter part of his public life, he dealt not with vast budgets but with files concerning vulnerable children in the community’s care, family complaints, and unjustifiable administrative delays.
His approach to child rights advocacy was particularly striking. While official rhetoric emphasised the child’s best interests, his annual reports to the Canarian Parliament were direct and unflinching. Re-examining these reports reveals his sharp insight into systemic issues. He consistently criticised the stagnation during the creation of the second Child and Youth Plan and flagged the lack of unified IT tools for tracking the real status of children in care, along with excessive waiting lists for essential services like Family Meeting Points.
He wasn’t hesitant to point fingers at the Directorate General for Children. His reports captured frustrations regarding the painfully slow suitability assessments for foster care, often prioritising residential placements over family care, and highlighted deficiencies in protocols between foster care and adoption.
Additionally, he recorded the grave issue of information blockages from the administration when seeking transparency about centres housing minors in conflict with the law, demanding data on recidivism and disciplinary actions.
Experiencing the sluggish machinery of bureaucracy first-hand, I find both comfort and pain in reading Jerónimo’s institutional criticisms. Those of us evaluating the developmental environments of children know that institutional time does not correspond to the essential time of childhood. A six-month delay in a risk assessment or fostering resource means lost months of emotional development that can never be reclaimed. Jerónimo understood this clearly, perceiving bureaucratic inertia as a silent form of institutional violence.
His demands for early childhood education, particularly for children aged zero to three, were equally striking. While others focused on grand infrastructure, he reiterated in Parliament the importance of free and universal early years schools, not simply as a stopgap but as a vital social prevention measure.
As I conclude my reading of Jerónimo Saavedra and review my notes, I see that Marta is not calling for a nostalgic view of the past but rather urging a direct reflection on the present. Jerónimo’s life exemplified how to embrace diversity in public life without seeking permission or forgiveness, influencing his understanding of institutional support. Protecting children is not about authoritarian tutelage but ensuring every child’s dignity, voice, and time is respected above bureaucratic convenience. This is the genuine tribute we owe to his memory and the significant lesson that we must not forget.
