On the other hand, the Spanish reactions have quickly evolved from silence and disdain to menaces. The Spanish newspaper El Mundo proposed to legally typify the call for a referendum on independence as an offence. If we remember, it was the former Spanish President José María Aznar who reformed the Penal Code to punish the call of “illegal” referenda. In those moments, the reform was designed in order to stop a new Basque Statute –contemptuously called “Ibarretxe’s plan”– right away. When, later on, the socialists from PSOE came to power, the reform was cancelled… until a few days ago, when the secretary general of the Popular Party (PP), María Dolores de Cospedal, took up El Mundo's proposal and suggested bringing back the law in order to stop Mr. Mas and the Catalan Government.
This is a good point to pause and think for a moment. We are told we cannot hold a referendum without Madrid's consent because it would be contrary to the Spanish constitution and, therefore, illegal. But now we are told that, even though it is not really illegal, the mere fact of calling for a referendum will be illegal—after conveniently changing the law. Where is, then, the classical speech of PP about the “framework we have created for living together” in reference to immutable laws like the Constitution?. What is the message?. To a neutral observer it is crystal clear: the true barrier is not the law, but political agendas. It is well known that frameworks for living together are more flexible when there is a need to adapt them to specific needs. Canadian laws were adapted in order to allow for referenda in Quebec, and, more recently, British laws underwent the same to make room for the Scottish referendum, but these two countries are light years away from Spain in terms of democracy.
The fact that the problem is not the law was also clear in the recent words of the vice-president of the Spanish Government, Soraya Sáenz de Santamaría, when, during a press conference, stated that a Catalan referendum would not only need Spain's authorization, but would need to include all voters in Spain. What law states such a thing? Catalonia already has a law on popular votes –a sort of referenda– that requires the authorization from Madrid in order to organize them, but allows holding them within the Catalan territorial limits. Does Sáenz de Santamaría not know the law? In fact, this is one of the two main reasons thrown around by Spanish unionists in their search for arguments against the holding of a referendum. The other one, defended by the leader of Ciudadanos Albert Rivera, is that provinces –or cities, for that matter, they have not agreed yet– not having a majority for independence should remain in Spain. In the end, these are just two desperate justifications to avoid holding a democratic referendum. Both ways have in common the fact of denying the consideration of Catalonia as a political subject, a point that is up for debate. However, there is a problem with their logic, because both arguments contradict each other. What can be done if Spain decides that Catalonia should be independent but just one city in Catalonia decides it wants to stay in Spain? Or if the Spaniards want Catalonia to stay but the same city wants to secede? Here we have a problem of priorities that the proponents should clarify.
In fact, the problem boils down to Partido Popular's badly digested concepts of freedom and democracy. The laws? They only believe in laws when they favor their interests. Otherwise, they change them quickly or, as is the case with the money they owe to Catalonia according to their own laws, they just ignore them.
Ph.D. in Computer Science.
Associate Professor at Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya-Barcelona Tech
0 comentaris:
Publica un comentari a l'entrada