As we learned in the Basque country, true democracy requires there to be peace on both sides
From The Guardian, Wednesday 23 October 2019
• Arnaldo Otegi is the leader of the Basque independence party EH Bildu

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/23/spanish-state-repression-catalonia-democracy-basque






 
Protest outside the Spanish government’s regional office in Barcelona on 21 October. Photograph: Pau Barrena/AFP via Getty

The Spanish supreme court’s deeply unjust verdict, handing out harsh prison sentences to nine Catalan government and civil society leaders for organising a peaceful referendum on self-determination in Catalonia, is for many the sign of a country slipping towards authoritarianism and away from western European-style democracy. But truth be told, for us Basques, this kind of behaviour is nothing new.

For years Spain was able to disguise its undemocratic essence under the cloak of the “fight against Basque terrorism”. Denial and rejection of the political nature of the armed conflict in the Basque country became quite easy for them, especially after 9/11. The line was that there was not a political problem in Spain, just a criminal one. “Spain is a democracy,” they used to tell us. “Everything is possible without violence” was the repeated mantra. We still remember the words of Spanish home secretary Alfredo P Rubalcaba: “They must decide: bombs or votes.”

 The truth is Basque violence was ended not thanks to the government's efforts but despite its persistent obstructions
Yet when some of us in the pro-independence Basque movement began to convince those who still believed in violence to continue our struggle for self-determination by peaceful and democratic means, we were arrested and sentenced to lengthy jail terms.

The truth is that Basque violence ended –not thanks to Spanish government efforts – but in spite of its persistent obstructions. (It is probably important here to clarify my position: many wrongs were done by the Basque side, many things happened that should not have done. We have acknowledged our share of the blame for the violence that was committed by both sides during years of conflict). My arrest – along with others – happened 10 years before the Catalan politicians were convicted of sedition, and it was only after we had served our prison term that the European court of human rights ruled our trial had been unfair (the second time the ECHR had ruled against Spain). The same could easily happen to the Catalans. The fact that the Spanish state still holds more than 240 Basque political prisoners in jail despite ETA ending its armed campaign in 2011 shows its lack of interest in a lasting peace.

The verdict against the Catalan pro-independence leadership for organising a democratic and peaceful referendum, and the subsequent violence the Spanish police used against peaceful Catalan demonstrations, shows us what we always knew: the Spanish state is not interested in democracy and will use violence to conceal its undemocratic nature.
​
This is why the state plays up, and at times instigates, violence in the region. The Spanish media and courts have even started talking about “terrorism” in the Catalan case. Spain will not hesitate to use this lie. Its government would love to transform Catalans’ legitimate and peaceful demand for self-determination into violence. That is what the police and military forces have been trying to do the last few days with their violent tactics.

Fortunately, the Catalan nationalist movement is committed to peace. As we are in the Basque country. We know that our “force of reason” is stronger than their “reason of force”. At the same time we both are committed to achieving our fundamental democratic rights – Catalan and Basque demands for democracy will now only get louder. It is time to complete the unfinished business of Spain’s phoney transition to democracy – and there will not be real democracy in Spain until its plurinational character is recognised, just as in the UK or Canada.

Rather predictably, Spain is going in the opposite direction: the direction of authoritarianism, counter-reform, the recentralisation of powers and responding to democratic demands with an iron fist. All this gives wings to the fascist extreme right. History shows us where this leads in the end.

Repression, imprisonment and centralisation will not work. Like in most similar cases around the world there is no lasting solution to this kind of conflict without dialogue. Like in Northern Ireland, Scotland or Quebec, the only way to solve these tensions is through democracy. And anyone with a bit of political sense knows that the state needs to engage with legitimate Catalan representatives. A policy of repression with no talks and no negotiation is unacceptable.

All the while, European institutions and states look the other way. Other European governments should be encouraging Spain to change track. Yet at the moment a desire to maintain internal stability within the bloc trumps all, and that means blind loyalty to Spain. This conflict can only be resolved internationally – European institutions and states should raise their voices in favour of a negotiated solution, before it is too late.
 Spanish politicians are spinning the Catalan crisis to suit their own interests

www.counterfire.org/articles/opinion/20605-civil-liberties-in-spain-catalonia

The sentences handed out to the Catalan leaders shows the lengths the Spanish state will go to to maintain its control of Catalonia, argues Chris Bambery
October 14, 2019 

​The Supreme Court of Spain has sentenced nine Catalan pro-independence leaders to between 9 to 13 years in jail for sedition

Former vice president Oriol Junqueras, an elected member of the European and Spanish Parliaments, will serve 13 years behind bars, with former ministers Jordi Turull, Raül Romeva and Dolors Bassa getting 12 year sentences. They were all found guilty of sedition and misuse of funds for their role in the 2017 referendum push.

The former Speaker of the Catalan Parliament, Carme Forcadell, was sentenced to 11 and a half years for sedition. Former ministers Joaquim Forn and Josep Rull were convicted of the same time, getting 10 and a half years each, while civic activists Jordi Sànchez and Jordi Cuixart being sentenced to 9 years each, also for sedition.

They are all also barred from office for as many years, and their joint sentence adds up to some 99.5 years in jail.

These are harsh sentences. Sanchez and Cuixart have already been held for two years in preventative detention and seven others for well over year.

There was never going to be clemency from the Spanish state regarding the 12 Catalan civic and political leaders charged with rebellion and sedition in connection with the 1 October 2017 Catalan independence referendum.

A visit to the hearing at the Spanish Supreme Court left you with the understanding that behind the legal niceties and the façade of normality you were witnessing a political trial. This was after all a political issue, the right of Catalans to exercise the right to self-determination, and political charges, rebellion and sedition cannot be apolitical. Spain’s highest court was deciding on a political question which cannot be resolved in a judicial manner.

But it was obvious in the last few days there would be no other outlook than heavy prison sentences. Spain’s prime minister, Pedro Sanchez, issues statements clearly saying Catalonia would never be able to hold an independence referendum and that he was ready to push aside Catalan autonomy and impose direct rule from Madrid. Even Spain’s support for Turkey’s military assault on the Kurds showed, to quote an English football chant, “no-one likes us, but we don’t care”. It was also buttressing up support in Spain for a hard line towards Catalan aspirations.

That the Supreme Court did not find the defendants guilty of rebellion is not a surprise or a sign of leniency. Spain failed to extradite Catalan President Carles Puigdemont from Germany because a court there would not rule in favour of that charge. By ditching the rebellion charge the court grasped it could not stick in a Belgian, Scottish or Swiss court but by finding the defendants guilty of sedition they might then use that to re-open extradition requests for Puigdemont and other exiled Catalan leaders.

Repeatedly in covering this trial I have tried to explain two simple things. Firstly, the Spanish state is based on Castilian nationalism which cannot countenance any possibility of a granting the Catalans or Basques self-determination. Secondly, from the beginning Castilian nationalism has always required an “other” to demonise whether it be Muslims or Jews at its very outset, the Basques in the 1980s and 1990s and today the Catalans.

For what these sentences are saying to the Catalans is “you won’t like this, but we don’t care.” Support for independence is finely balanced but support in Catalonia for the prisoners is overwhelming. It is obvious that this verdict is going to drive greater numbers of Catalans towards the conclusion Madrid could not care less about their democratic rights.

Dropping the guilty verdict on the rebellion charges does not break with the narrative of the prosecution echoed by the Spanish media and politicians that 1 October 2017 and the days leading up to it saw a violent attempt in Catalonia to subvert the Spanish constitution and the rule of law.

As the Catalan paper El Nacional points out:

“Sedition, as defined in Spanish law, is different to how we understand the word in general English. It means the court has found them guilty of “rising up publicly and tumultuously” against the law and/or the authorities.”

Yet those who were in Catalonia on 1 October 2017, including a host of parliamentary and legal observers from Europe and beyond, witnessed no violence on the part of Catalans trying to vote. Instead they saw the para-military Spanish Civil Guards and National Police smashing their way into polling stations, beating those queuing to vote or non-violently defending the places of voting and in cases using plastic bullets.

Two of those found guilty, Jordi Cuixart, president of the cultural organisation Omnium, and Jordi Sanchez, president of the pro-independence Catalan National Assembly, have been jailed because they supposedly incited crowds gathered to protest at Spanish police raiding government ministries in the build up to the referendum. In fact, videos freely available on social media shows them calming the crowd and asking them to disperse, which they did, to avoid violence.

Both have always repeatedly stated their commitment to non-violence, as have the other prisoners, to no avail.

Of course, this case will now go to the European Court of Justice and many believe it will overturn the sentences – the charge of sedition does not still exist in Western European democracies. But that could take up to seven years. Carme Forcadell would be 70 by then. Her principle act of “sedition” was as Speaker allowing the Catalan Parliament to debate independence, something a majority of its members desired.

I have visited her in jail and helped organise her visit in 2017 to the British House of Commons where she met the Speaker, John Bercow, who greeted her from the Speaker’s chair at the opening of the session. Since then he has told the House of Commons it is inconceivable such a charge could be brought to court in Britain and was quoted as such by Forcadell’s defence team.

Jordi Cuixart who I have visited in prison and whose partner, Txell Bonnet, whose just had their second child, visited the British Parliament to meet with MPs and Peers, He is one of the most impressive people I have ever met who is vigorous in insisting on non-violence.

Former foreign affairs minister, Raül Romeva, was another visitor to Westminster and a former MEP in the Green group. Sharply dressed and sharp minded was my judgement of him.

I have only had a snatched and shouted conversation over the shoulders of Court officials with Oriol Junqueras, but he is deeply religious and its hard to see how his Christian beliefs sit with the way the Supreme Court has portrayed him as a man of violence seeking a violent break with Spain.

That these and the other five will serve such sentences is almost inconceivable but it is, tragically, what I expected.

There are already protests on the streets of Catalonia. Across Europe they need to be supported with protests outside Spanish embassies and consulates of not just the Catalan community but by citizens of every European country.

Regarding the European Union the simple truth is that if this was Iran, Russia or Turkey there would not just be strong words of protest but sanctions. In the case of Spain, I expect – nothing. If that is the case it speaks volumes to the commitment of EU leaders to human rights.

This must be the biggest civil liberties issue in recent European history. The Catalan parliament voted to hold a referendum to decide on independence but was repeatedly blocked by the Spanish government. They held an indicative one – it was ignored in Madrid. Eventually they held a full referendum which was subject to a violent attack on the democratic process by the Spanish state. When it voted for independence the Catalan Parliament voted for a declaration of independence but did not act on it because they still hoped for dialogue. Dialogue didn't but repression did. Spain is now driving Catalans towards the exit door but hey, “no one likes us but we don’t care.”


​

Socialists now have incentive to govern alone rather than seeking formal alliance

www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/07/portugal-election-gains-centre-left-europe-antonio-costa-socialist-party
Portugal’s Socialists won Sunday’s general elections but fell short of an absolute majority, leaving the prime minister, António Costa, needing to negotiate a delicate new alliance with the far-left parties that backed him last time around.

Cementing a modest and partial recovery for Europe’s centre-left after a disastrous few years of fallout from the 2008 financial crisis, the Socialists won 106 seats, up from 86 in the previous parliament, against 77 for the opposition centre-right Social Democrats (PSD), their worst result since 1983.

The result left Costa 10 short of a majority in the 230-seat assembly and the prime minister, who since 2015 has led a minority government with the support of the Left Bloc and the Communists in an unlikely alliance known as the geringonça or “odd contraption”, said he was likely to “renew the experience”.

The result showed the Portuguese “like this political solution”, he said. “The Socialist party has clearly won this election and strengthened its position. Stability is essential for Portugal’s international credibility and for attracting investors. We will strive to find solutions that ensure this stability for the entire legislature.”

The Left Bloc, which held the 19 parliamentary seats it won four years ago, and the unreconstructed Portuguese Communist party, which won 12 seats, five fewer than in the last vote, said they were prepared to back the Socialists again – but laid down demands for wage increases, greater public spending and improved labour laws.

Alternatively, Costa could seek a tie-up with the People-Animals-Nature party, which rode a wave of increasing environmental concern to capture four seats, and Free, an eco-socialist breakaway from the Left Bloc, which elected a single MP.

“These negotiations could be more complex than four years ago when the pact on the left was cemented by their common goal to unseat the right,” said one political scientist, António Costa Pinto, who predicted government negotiations could take several weeks and involve more participants.

A strengthened Socialist party has, in any event, a wider array of options to get laws approved in parliament, the political analyst Pedro Norton told the public broadcaster RTP. “This is an incentive for it to govern alone, by seeking ad hoc agreements” for specific votes rather than sealing a formal alliance, he said.

The result reinforces something of a recent upturn for Europe’s centre-left. After Sweden’s Social Democrats managed to remain the country’s largest party last year and – a greater challenge – to form a government afterwards, the centre-left came first in Finnish elections for the first time in 20 years.

Voters returned the third left-leaning government in a year to the Nordic region as Denmark’s Social Democrats claimed victory in parliamentary elections in June, while in Italy the Democratic party finds itself unexpectedly back in government after a strategic blunder by the leader of the far-right League, Matteo Salvini.

European Socialists were quick to celebrate. “Portuguese society again chooses stability, equality and social justice,” said Pedro Sánchez, the Spanish prime minister. “With the victory of the Socialist party, they are betting on a project of the left, progressives and modernisers. Let’s continue working together for a fairer Europe.”

Celebrations were tempered, however, by the election in a country long thought immune to the rise of Europe’s far right of an MP from a new nationalist formation, Chega! or Enough! – the first time a far-right party has won a seat in Portugal’s parliament since the end of the Salazar dictatorship in 1974.

After finishing second in the 2015 election and cobbling together his geringonça, Costa reversed unpopular austerity measures, including cuts to public sector wages and pensions, introduced by the previous PSD-led government while still managing to bring Portugal’s budget deficit down to nearly zero.

He has won praise at home and in Brussels for combining fiscal discipline with successful measures to stimulate the economy, which is growing faster than the EU average helped by rising exports and a booming tourism industry that attracted more tourists to Portugal last year than it has inhabitants.

Polls had suggested Costa might win an absolute majority, allowing the Socialists to govern alone, but his lead was eroded by a series of scandals, including the former Socialist defence minister, José Azeredo Lopes, being charged with abuse of power and denial of justice over his role in the alleged cover-up of a 2017 arms theft.

Jon Henley, Guardian Europe correspondent

 @jonhenley
Mon 7 Oct 2019 

People queuing to vote in the 1977 Spanish election

October 6, 2019 Written by Chris Bambery Published in History
​www.counterfire.org/articles/history/20589-flawed-transition-why-the-spanish-state-is-repressing-the-catalan-independence-movement

Chris Bambery explains that Spanish repression of the Catalan independence movement, and the impending trial of its leaders, is rooted in the concessions made to right-wing nationalism in aftermath of Franco’s dictatorship

Catalonia awaits the verdict in the trial at the Spanish Supreme Court of 12 political and civic leaders charged with ‘rebellion’ and ‘sedition’ for their part in the 1 October 2017 referendum on Catalan independence. That verdict will be delivered before 17 October, the judges say. Brace yourself for a wave of non-violent direct action in response across Catalonia.

Meanwhile another mass trial, of 47 members of ETA prisoners’ support network, begins in Spain’s National Court tomorrow, more than a year after the dissolution of the armed Basque separatist group, and is expected to last nearly three months. They are charged with membership and financing of a terrorist organisation, and glorification of terrorism.

Yet there is no such organisation.

Spanish governments of the centre left and centre right have refused to respond to the dissolution of ETA and the destruction of its arsenal and are also vehement that there will be no Catalan referendum on independence.

Rappers, comedians, puppeteers and others find themselves in court, or having to flee in exile, after being charged with insulting the King, the church or glorying terrorism (one of the puppets held up a sign reading ‘Gora ETA’ [Long Live ETA]). In Catalonia hundreds of mayors and councillors face trial for crimes such as keeping council buildings open on Spanish holidays or not flying the Spanish flag on those days, while others face trial for ripping up pictures of the King.

However offensive or outrageous you find such things it is hard to imagine them reaching the courts in Germany, France, the UK or other Western European states. The UK is no paragon of liberty and its democracy is flawed but its handling of the Northern Ireland peace process stands out well in comparison to Spain’s dealings with ETA and the offer of peace. Why are things different in Spain? 

Concessions to Francoism 
To understand why Spain is different you must go back into history and the process of transition from the dictatorship of General Franco, the victor in the Spanish Civil War, from his death in November 1975 to parliamentary elections in 1977 and the approval of a new constitution the following year.

That vote of approval was seen as the culmination of the country’s transition from the vicious dictatorship of Franco to parliamentary democracy. A process presided over by the government of Adolfo Suarez, who had quickly shed his Francoist past when the dictator died in November 1975.

But this did not represent a complete break with the Francoist past, far from it.

In the first place the constitution confirmed Franco’s designated heir, King Juan Carlos, as head of state. The new King had been trained and educated under Franco. In the second place a whole range of Francoist institutions – the army, police, judiciary, state bureaucracy and prison system – were preserved as they were under the Caudillo.

The text that was voted through declared the army as the ‘defender of the constitution.’ The same document guaranteed the right of private property and the ‘indissoluble unity of the fatherland.’ The right of the Catholic Church to interfere in the education system and over matters of ‘morality’ was reinforced.

The second class position of women was also reinforced. The constitution discriminated against extra-marital relationships and against children deemed illegitimate. It did not grant the right to divorce, address decriminalising contraception, mention equal pay or equal rights at work and it attempted to prevent any attempt to legalise abortion.

The role of left parties
Yet this new Constitution was guaranteed a majority before voting began because of the support of the two main opposition parties, the Socialists (PSOE) and the Communists (PCE). The latter declared that the choice was ‘the constitution or fascism’ and warned any criticism would only benefit the Francoist right. Not only was it ‘the best possible in the circumstances’ but its passing ‘will open the door towards socialism.’

Regarding the police forces the PCE called demands for a purge of right wingers ‘provocative’ and, while admitting they needed restructuring, stated that they had to be supported as they were now ‘defending democracy.’

The rationale was that the police were opposing what the Communists saw as the main danger, ‘terrorism.’ In the build up to the referendum they organised rallies where they lumped together the Basque terror group ETA with fascist squads who targeted the left, ignoring the continuation of the repressive machinery put in place under Franco.

Overall, the transition, in the words of the distinguished sociologist Victor Pérez-Díaz, ‘required Francoists to pretend they had never been Francoists, and left-wing compromisers to pretend they were still committed to leftist principles’.

The political parties agreed on the consensus, after so polarised a past, which was very much the watchword between the reformist Pacto de Olvido (literally, a ‘pact of forgetting’), whereby they agreed to not raise the deep injustices of the Civil War and the repression which followed Franco’s victory. 

Violent amnesty
Underwriting this was the 1977 Amnesty Law which freed anyone involved in political crimes before that date from any prosecution. In other words, Franco’s torturers and executioners got to walk free. This contrasted with neighbouring Portugal where a right wing dictatorship had been overthrown in April 1974 and there was a popular backed purge of the old regime, above all its secret police.

The task of drawing up the new post-Franco constitution was undertaken, after the Constitutional Committee of the Spanish Parliament elected a group from all seven parties. By early 1978 this group had been handed over to the 36 members of the Constitutional Committee.

Despite differences over issues such as autonomy, abortion, private education and the death penalty all seemed to be proceeding smoothly. But in May of that year a crisis erupted when it was revealed that major clauses of the new constitution were being agreed beforehand between two representatives of the ruling Union of the Democratic Centre (UCD) and the largest opposition party the Socialists, meeting at night in private apartments and at a highly fashionable Madrid restaurant.

This revelation provoked the withdrawal of the representatives of the Popular Alliance (AP – the forerunner of the current People’s Party) and the Basque National Party (PNV). The former soon returned and a final text was ratified in October by both houses of the Spanish Parliament. But it did not satisfy the PNV. In the summer and autumn of 1978, the Spanish security forces in the Basque Country were either operating outside of government control or with the covert approval of it. The Francoist past of the Interior Minister, Martin Villa, encouraged the latter view. In January 1978, after a policeman and two ETA members were killed in a shoot out, he replied to journalists’ questions saying ‘2-1 to us.’

In the contested province of Navarre, the security forces seemed especially out of control. On 1 May 1978 they attacked the trade union march in Pamplona with rubber bullets and riot gas. Ten days later off-duty Civil Guards ran amok in the city.

Tension built up as the traditional festival of running the bulls through the city streets was due to be held in July. Despite orders to the contrary the local Civil Guard commander unleashed riot squads on a small protest demanding amnesty for ETA prisoners in the bull ring. One civilian was killed and 40 wounded in the subsequent police rampage. 

Protest strikes began to spread across the Basque Country. In San Sebastian police opened fire on a march by striking bank employees, killing one and wounding several others. Subsequently, in the Renteria suburb of the city armed police went on the rampage looting shops and smashing up apartment blocks. 

In August, after two policemen were shot dead by ETA, the Civil Governor of Vizcaya province, the Director General of Security and the head of police attended the funeral the next day. They had to barricade themselves in the police barracks after being surrounded by police officers chanting insults against the Madrid government and democracy. 

Attempted coup
In November a planned military coup was uncovered and foiled. But the government largely swept it under the carpet. One of the key plotters, a Civil Guard Colonel, Antonio Tejero, was held in detention but then given a desk job in Madrid and continued his plotting, ultimately leading an actual coup in February 1981 when he led Civil Guards in occupying the Spanish Parliament and taking deputies prisoner.

After several hours, during which martial law was declared in Valencia and tanks sent onto the streets, the King broadcast on TV, as head of the armed forces, denouncing the coup which collapsed. He was hailed as a champion of democracy.

Since then it has been revealed he sympathised with the grievances of those behind the coup, particularly in regards to the threats posed to national unity by giving autonomy to Catalonia and the Basque Country and had used the hours before the broadcast in consultation with senior officers before determining that the coup was not succeeding – key units refused to join it.

But the result of the failed coup was that successive Spanish governments accepted that in future autonomy had to be limited to what had been granted, and even rowed back. The military had put a marker down.

When the King received leaders of Spain’s political parties shortly after the coup collapsed he warned them that ‘an open and tough reaction by the political parties against those who committed acts of subversion in the last few hours would be most unadvisable and it wound be even more counter-productive to extend such a reaction to the entire Armed Forces’. He continued by urging them to act in the interests of the unity and concord of the country and added he could not repeat what he had just done.

The Basque Country and the 1978 Referendum
To return to 1978, police actions in the Basque Country fuelled support for ETA which intensified its campaign against the security forces. Many Basques who did not support ETA believed that little had changed since the demise of the dictatorship. 

In December 1978 the voters of Spain were asked in a referendum ‘Do you approve of the Constitution Bill?’ Nationally 91.81 percent said Yes (although 33 percent did not vote). But in the Basque Country 51.1 percent did not vote. Of those who did 23.54 percent said No.

Across Europe political leaders hailed Spain’s achievements. But amidst that clamour there was a degree of unease in the media.

‘Good morning, Spain, but the concern is still there’, wrote veteran correspondent in Madrid Tim Brown for the Daily Telegraph, who also recalled that the constitution had been approved with ‘less enthusiasm than expected’ because of the high abstention.  

With a similar caution, another British paper, The Guardian, warned of the ‘shadows’ that still hung over the constitution, which they considered an ‘impressively progressive’ document but that to succeed it should still overcome important challenges, such as the Basque conflict, the ‘growing sense of disillusion’ prevalent in part of a population that ‘is still waiting for the expectations aroused by the death of Franco to be fulfilled’, and the coincidence of the Transition with ‘a period of economic recession and ideological doubts.’ 

Political repression in the courts
Concerns should have arisen with the actions of the Spanish courts.

In December 1977 the actor, playwright and director, Albert Boadella, staged a play, La Torna, in Barcelona. It was a satire about the execution by garrotting of the Catalan anarchist, Salvador Puig Antich, in 1974. For this crime Boadella was summoned before a military court martial and charged with insulting the army. The day before the hearing he staged a spectacular escape from prison and took refuge in France.

The same month the radical left magazine Saida published an edition devoted to the topic of ‘the Republic.’ It was openly opposed to monarchies, and to the Spanish one in particular and explained that Juan Carlos ‘did not win the country in a raffle,’ while alluding to Pantomime stories that ‘this king might turn into a frog.’

The editor was immediately summoned before the State Prosecutor and charged with ‘insulting the head of state.’ When the leaders of four left wing parties which backed Saida claimed joint responsibility for the edition they too were put in the dock. When the five refused to pay a surety of €400 they were then jailed. 

They were only released after a week of campaigning by the left and the trade unions.

In March 1979 during a referendum in Andalucía, which narrowly voted for autonomy, the UCD Government, which opposed the measure, responded that all eight Andaulician provinces had to vote in favour, and because one, the smallest, had not, they insisted the vote was void. In elections for the new Basque Parliament, 60 members of the far left Movimento Comunista were arrested in Andalucía charged with ‘insulting the Prime Minister’ and 90 in the Basque Country with criticising the security forces actions there.

The stage had been set for the Spanish Courts to become involved in dealing with obviously political matters and setting clear limits on free speech.

European Union
The European Union is very proud of Spain’s Transition and held it up as a model, for instance in the former Soviet satellites in Eastern Europe. That in part explains its silence on what Spain has done in Catalonia, even its moves to stop three Catalan prisoners and exiles being able to take their seats in the European Parliament after they were elected this year. 

When Franco died in 1975 a mass movement of anti-fascist resistance had grown up, strongest in the Basque Country, Catalonia and Madrid. The May events of 1968 had set in motion a chain of events where the left seemed to be in the ascendant.

In ruling circles in Bonn, Paris, London and Washington there was concern that Franco’s death might unleash a mass movement moving in a revolutionary direction. Many on the revolutionary left confidently predicted that the regime could not be reformed but must be toppled.

In Portugal that is precisely what had happened. 

But the dominant grouping within Franco’s regime looked towards modernising the Spanish economy and entry to the European Union and NATO. Led by Adolfo Suarez, who had been General Secretary of Franco’s party, the Movimiento Nacional (National Movement), they began looking to shift towards parliamentary democracy, realising that was necessary to join the EU. At first they hoped to exclude the Communists but realised it was better to have them inside the tent and that the party’s leadership would compromise.

The West German SPD spent many Marks and much effort building up the PSOE and its young leader, Felipe Gonzalez, so they could out match the Communists, who had been central to the anti-fascist resistance. In that they succeeded.

But Spanish employers, their European counterparts and European politicians worked hard to get both parties to ditch their pledge of a democratic break with Francoism. Moscow urged that too on the Communists. So, both parties dropped their established position of supporting a federal Spain. They were told such a thing was unacceptable to the army. 

The Communists and their union affiliates ending up agreeing a social contract with the employers and state which introduced austerity measures to deal with an economy in recession. That was crucial in undermining its popular support.

The Constitution today
Today the Spanish Constitution has assumed a totemic position in the official life of the country. Catalans demanding an independence referendum are told this is not allowed under the Constitution and that it cannot be changed – it can, as when the EU demanded fresh austerity measures as the price of a bail out following the 2008 financial crash and the deep recession that followed.

Above all the current Socialist Government and its rivals on the right, the Popular Party, Ciudadanos and the fascist Vox all take a stand against Catalan aspirations based on a Castilian or Spanish nationalism on which the Franco regime was based and which has always seen Spain defined against others; for instance Muslims and Jews at the very moment of its creation in 1492 when, following the conquest of the last Muslim kingdom, they were both told to convert or leave.

It is very clear that the limits imposed on Spanish democracy during the Transition of the late 1970s need to be addressed. But that is something which is near impossible in the current atmosphere in Spain. A conviction for the Catalan 12 will only increase the alienation of that nation from the Spanish state.www.counterfire.org/articles/history/20589-flawed-transition-why-the-spanish-state-is-repressing-the-catalan-independence-movement