Will Catalonia Come to Its Senses?

Secession is dynamite. And the Catalonian separatists are playing with fire. Other Spanish regions may want to take on the challenge to go it alone, and not only the Basque country. In France there is the Catalonian region of Languedoc, just across the border from Spanish Catalonia. There is unrest in Corsica. Italy struggles with numerous calls for a referendum on devolution. Several other European countries have latent nationalisms to cope with, the Belgian case possibly beyond repair. All have the potential to shake the present European interstate order, which rests on the assumption that borders are sacred and not to be altered, except by negotiation and mutual agreement. That is why the separation of Czechia and Slovakia was no problem, nor was the Scottish case, since that referendum was previously agreed with the UK government. Northern Ireland and former Yugoslavia illustrate the complexities.

The Catalonian parliament unilaterally declared independence for Catalonia in late October. Early regional elections for Catalonia are now taking place on December 21, ordered by the central government in Madrid as part of their response to the Catalonian rebellion. The central government has taken a moderate approach, after the unfortunate turn of events on October 1^st. Although court cases are underway against the leaders of that movement, the independence parties will participate in the elections again this time around. After three weeks of campaigning, with some of the leading figures in jail, others in self-imposed exile, the two sides, pro- and anti-secession, appear – incredibly - to be as before, neck and neck. Note that I am not counting the illegal referendum results, which were utterly unreliable, since voters knew far ahead of time that they would be breaking the law by trying to vote, and the conditions surrounding the vote were marked by unruly mobs and nervous police. The results to compare with are rather those of the regional elections in Catalonia in 2015, when the separatist parties gained 47% of the vote and got the slimmest of majorities (just one seat) in the parliament. On that shaky basis they formed the government which forged ahead to create an independent state, with or without the blessing of Madrid.

At this very sensitive moment, the first hurdle once the polls close is to have the results verified and legitimated. Any reduced support for the separatists will meet another test in the streets, with demands that votes be recounted by "neutral parties", in other words not by Madrid.

The second hurdle is to establish a government with a majority in parliament. Should the unionists win, their problem will be how to reintegrate the region, psychologically, socially and emotionally. Years of indoctrination by nationalists, entering all corners of daily life, will make this a chore more for generations than for electoral periods. Should the separatists win, we must brace ourselves for a continuation of the previous process of demanding independence. Some smartness might help the secessionists if they refrain from going it alone and open the door for dialogue. Madrid's most difficult challenge in this case will be to talk them back from the ultimate move and settle for something less. Use of force is not always avoidable in Spain, but the government in Madrid appear to have understood the seriousness of international reactions to October 1^st, regardless of how ill informed those reactions may have been.

That leads me to the third challenge, which is for all of the media observers to learn more about the basics of the Catalonian conflict and not jump to conclusions about who is to blame. The level of tendentious reporting in leading western news media outside Spain this fall has been baffling. Several international media have apparently decided to side with the rebels. The Guardian has had several very biased stories, but rectified that with a few recent inputs, excellent among them Peter Preston's lament on the difficulty of reporting fairly. (Peter Preston, the Guardian Dec. 10, 2017) The New York Times ran an editorial that fell for the claimed 92% for independence in the October 1^st illegal referendum, arguing that with such support one would have to take the separatists seriously, thus forgetting the other half of the electorate who did not vote. The Washington Post more recently published an op-ed with a poisonous rendering of the role of Madrid. Politico gave the jailed vice president of the defunct government, Oriol Junqueras, a front page article with a blazing headline (in politico.eu, the European edition of the US web journal Politico). Screaming at the reader, the imprisoned vice-president signals his approach to democracy: “We can’t trust Madrid to oversee Catalonia’s election — the EU must step in”.

In assessing this situation, some degree of reasonableness needs to enter into the evaluation. I close by recommending a rare and concise assessment by Quartz Media. 

No, Catalonia won't go away just yet. And secession is not a "right". (See my previous blogs.)

Catalonia Must Return to the Fold

The Spanish Government under Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy has just announced the way it intends to bring Catalonia back to a normal legal status. Invoking the constitution's article 155, the Government asks the Senate's permission to intervene in the government of Catalonia with steps to remove the Catalonian leadership and restrict its decision-making powers until elections can be held. The measures are moderate and clearly aim to bring down the temperature and allow the resumption of democratic order. 

Here (once more, for those who have read my previous blogs on Catalonia) are the main reasons why Catalonia cannot rightfully claim independence: 

1. One cannot make such a drastic claim without a clear majority backing. This is not the case in Catalonia. The government of Catalonia is based on a parliamentary minority, 47% of the voters in the 2015 elections. The remaining 52 % have not asked for independence. All opinion polls in recent years have shown separatists to be in the minority. The conduct and results of the October 1^st referendum are in serious doubt due to the turbulent circumstances under which it was held and the disregard shown for internationally accepted procedures, considered inacceptable by international observers, as well as being deemed illegal by the Spanish Constitutional Court.
2. Catalonia has never suffered acts of repression by the Spanish state in the democratic era since Franco's death.
3. Catalonia voted by over 90% in the 1978 referendum to accept the Spanish constitution.
4. Catalonia has a high degree of autonomy by international standards, including its own official language. 
5. The Catalonian government used its parliament to knowingly break the law by passing two measures on September 6 and 7 intended to guide the implementation of the independence process, taking for granted that the planned referendum was legal in spite of the high court's decision to the contrary many months before.

Post-inauguration - Falling into Line

In your mind you can see the image of a policeman dispersing the crowd after an accident: “Okay folks, it's over. Time to go home.” Disaster complete, Trump now occupies the White House. No need for further drama. Normalcy descends on Washington. No cause for alarm. Dictatorship is elsewhere. It can't happen here.

Perhaps. New York Times blogger Charles Blow recently asked if we are not alarmed (New York Times, Jan 19). For sure I am alarmed, but I am not an American, not a US citizen. Americans are proud of their democracy. They also seem to expect a few hiccups to occur in the process without getting overly excited about it. Having objections becomes akin to extremism, crying wolf. Don't rock the boat. 

So if I have held my tongue since November it has also been to avoid stepping on toes in expressing my concerns. I remember how it was talking to colleagues in Washington in early 2003 - hardly a single voice dared challenge the rush to war. I thought, this is America, the land of freedom, of free speech, of devil-may-care opposition to "the establishment". Why this silence? The best explanation I heard, from a senior scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center, was that in his reading of the prevailing consensus, it 'would be seen to be unpatriotic' to object. He did not appear to be a Republican. I remember thinking, "this must be how the Nazis got ordinary Germans to support their cause." But I kept this thought to myself, as it seemed exaggerated. Now I'm less sure. The election of the new president in 2016 shows US democracy going off the rails.

What else do I see? Large numbers of people who refuse to view governing as necessarily a complicated thing. It's simple, easy as abc. Trump reassured them. Breaking the stifling binds of political correctness was enough for many to flock to him. The few who supported him out of a concern with issues must have thought the flaws of the candidate would be rectified by the system.

That is now our only hope. And I say "our", because the way the world works these days a US president is also the unofficial leader of the industrialized world. Not "leader of the free world" the way US presidents and many Americans take that label for granted, because such arrogance has never been accepted outside the US. Rather, what we outsiders want is an elected US leader which even a majority of Europeans, Aussies, Canadians and Japanese could have wanted and would accept. When the US electoral system shows its dysfunctionality the way it did in 2016, that worldwide legitimacy goes out the window. The overall US system of checks and balances is presently faced with, historically, its most serious test.

A friend just made me aware of a prediction made as much as a century ago: “On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." (H.L. Mencken, writer, editor, and critic, 1880-1956 – thanks, John!). That day has arrived. The ignorance of this man is dangerous. His mind is somewhere else, totally consumed by his own person.

Most dangerously, as emphasized by Blow, is the military aspect. Military power is presently a part of his ego. War by accident or by sheer shortsighted stupidity is suddenly on the horizon. Much responsibility, informal and unprecedented, will henceforth end up on the shoulders of military commanders in the field, to avoid needless clashes by correcting or holding back adventurous schemes espoused at the top. Dr. Strangelove is now in office.