“Our Galician
dialect deserves all our sympathy, because it is the language of the labourer,
the worker, the artisan, the peasant, the sailor (...) and is despised only by
the flashy unemployed young toffs in the province's capitals.”
(Castelao)
The
tragic events involving ETA, both in the Basque country as well as other parts
of the country, pose in the most pressing way the problem of nationalities, and
what attitude to take towards this question.
To
start with, we have to take on board the fact that the problem of nationalities
and national minorities is not restricted to the Basques. In Spain, national
unity was established formally in the 15th century with the annexation of the
kingdom of Navarre (1) by Ferdinand II (nevertheless, it was not until the 18th
century that the title of "King of Spain" came into use, and the
titles of Aragon and Castilla etc. were no longer used). Since then, different
nationalities have co-existed, such as Galician, Catalan, and Basque. The three
Basque provinces united voluntarily under the kingdom of Castilla: Vizcaya in
1179 and Guipúzcoa and Alava in 1200.
We
must remember that the question of nationalities is one of the forms under which
the class struggle is played out in every country. Marx and Engels are quite
right when they explain:
"The
bourgeoisie takes over more and more the division of the means of production,
property and population, centralising the means of production and concentrating
ownership in the hands of a few. The necessary consequence of this is the
centralisation of political power. The independent provinces, linked together
only by federal connections, with different interests, laws, government and
customs (border taxes), are then consolidated into a single nation, under a
single government, a single system of law, a single national class interest, and
a single customs system."
The
present process of globalisation, deregulation, etc., which we are undergoing,
in no way invalidates the foregoing statement, which has been confirmed
throughout a long historical process, demonstrating that the class struggle
under capitalism can change its form but not its content.
The
forces of reaction, and not only in Spain, are trying to create confusion in
terminology. We must not confuse nationality with nation. In one nation, various
nationalities may exist, as in Spain. Nationality is not always convertible into
nationhood. To use a classic formulation:
"A nation is a
historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a
common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested
in a common culture."
In
the historical process of the formation of nations, not all manage to achieve
statehood. The uneven development of capitalism results in a range of
underdeveloped and weaker nations (Africa is a paradigm for this), through the
development of their own bourgeoisie fall under the claws of colonial and now
neo-colonial imperialism.
Faced
with the forced "unification" imposed by the strong imperialist
countries, there arises the resistance of the bourgeoisie of the oppressed
nation. The said bourgeoisie calls on the entire people, appropriates the
national flag, and attempts to identify its own cause with that of the people.
That is how the "national problem" arises.
But
for the bourgeoisie the main problem is not about how to "liberate the
entire nation, with all its people and nationalities." Its main problem is
the market, finance, competition with the bourgeoisie of other nations, and how
to emerge triumphant from out of this competition and confrontation. For this
reason, at a certain point, the bourgeoisie has to chose: either it remains at
the head of the national movement and takes the struggle to its conclusion,
towards independence, towards separation from the dominant imperialism and the
creation of its own state - or else it abandons the national movement smoothly
and completely, and integrates itself with the dominant class. In Spain the big
bankers and financiers, Basque, Catalan and Gallic, are perfectly integrated
into the state, form part of it and are opposed to any national movement. (2)
What
is certain is that the Catalan, Basque and Gallic nationalities, in existence
before the 16th century, never succeeded in asserting themselves in every aspect
within the population of the rest of Spain, nor did they enjoy the freedom to
practise their national identity, with equal rights within the state which was
establishing itself little by little.
We
must not confuse the state with the nation. The state is a political
manifestation, an instrument of class rule, and the oppression by one class of
the others. The state has existed since, with the dissolution of primitive
communism, there began the division of society into distinct, antagonistic
classes.
The
characteristics of Spain as a nation, not only as a state, made up of various
nationalities, took place over several centuries and particularly over the last
150 years, without any social class from any of the nationalities having chosen
to establish their own state. (3) These features of Spain as a nation have
developed to such a point that today it is out of place, almost grotesque, to
claim that the only thing that unites the various peoples of Spain is the
existence of a unified and centralised state apparatus. And we repeat, the
transitional home rule states are nothing more than a cruel joke, a mockery of
all the peoples of Spain.
Nevertheless,
there remain regions with their own characteristics which define them as
nationalities or national minorities. It is clear that the difference between
nation and nationality rests on the fact that to exist as a nation, there must
be given, in a stable form, a community of language, history, territory,
economic and cultural life. All this is given in Spain, in spite of existing
differences.
In
the heart of any nation it is possible for there to exist various nationalities,
although in some of the aspects indicated, such as language, there are
differences, or dialects spoken by the said nationalities or a part of them. (4)
In relation to community of territory or economic life, it is equally evident
that there is no need to demonstrate this. One would have to be very myopic or
closed to deny it. In particular, during more or less the last two centuries,
this community has developed throughout Spain; it is a given, it exists, in
spite of some or others being opposed to it.
"The right of
self-determination (...) signifies exclusively the right to independence in the
political sense, of the free political separation from the oppressor nation.
This demand of democratic politics requires full freedom of agitation in favour
of separation and that it should be decided by means of a referendum of the
nationality which wishes to separate itself. Therefore, this demand is in no way
equivalent to the separation, breaking away and formation of small states. It is
nothing more than the consequent expression of the struggle against all national
oppression"
(V.I. Lenin, The Right of Nations to Self-Determination, April 1916)
The
banner of self-determination cannot be raised outside the context in which we
are living; that is to say, of sharp class struggle, which neither globalisation
nor "unified thinking" can prevent. This epoch, which continues to be
imperialist, is one of larger or smaller confrontations, mitigated sometimes,
aggravated at others, and in which the progressives, not to say the
revolutionaries, have to openly take the side of the working people.
It
must be observed that the imperialist wars for the re-division of the world, the
transformation of the national states of Europe into first colonial and now
neo-colonial states, shows that the bourgeoisie, far from having resolved the
national question, has actually revived the rivalry between nations. The
Yugoslav war, or rather, the war against Yugoslavia, is a good example of the
foregoing, as is the two-facedness applied by the imperialist powers, including
Spain.
This
reality has been examined, even by bourgeois sociology. Thus we see that the
French sociologist Maurice Duverger writes:
"The
concept of the "Nation" in the 18th century is forced through by the
bourgeoisie: it serves it to establish a solidarity with the people and to
mobilise their communal feelings against the cosmopolitan aristocracy" (But
when the proletarian class appears as a revolutionary class with sufficient
ability to put the capitalist class in danger): "the bourgeoisie continues
to use nationalist ideology, but now against the people, to the point of
relegating the international tendency to socialism. The nation serves to
establish solidarity between the privileged and the exploited classes, in order
to prevent the workers of all countries uniting against capitalism." (Sociology and Politics, Barcelona 1968)
The
right to self-determination is a democratic demand, insofar as the people
clearly do not counterpose their interests to those of people of other
nationalities. Marx's statement is absolutely true: "The people who oppress
other people cannot be free." In a full democracy, not this Bourbon
succession, in order that equality between the different nationalities should be
effective, it is necessary to recognise the right to self-determination, that is
to say, the right to free and peaceful separation. "Unity" and
"democracy" are only deceptive phrases, if one does not recognise the
right to separation.
Faced
with this problem, we cannot limit ourselves to putting forward some abstract
generalities, denouncing repression, etc. We make it very clear that our support
for self-determination goes well beyond the bringing down of the monarchy and
the establishment of a Federal Republic. This is a revolutionary proposal, which
will certainly bring us headaches due to the incomprehension of some, and the
angry attacks of others. More precisely, within a truly revolutionary point of
view, Marx proposed in 1869 the separation of Ireland from England and added: "Even
though after separation there comes federation."
Years
after, Castelao shared in this idea:
"No, it is not
certain that Spain will be united and indivisible, and it is from here that
there come the dangers of disintegration when Power concentrates itself in one
province, one city, or one man. Separatism in Spain is the consequence of an
all-absorbing, uniform, totalitarian politics. Why is it not legitimate for me
to feel separatist from Franco? Oh, if in those moments I could separate Galicia
from totalitarian Spain, I would do it without hesitation, even if it was only
to be able to say to the expatriate Spanish: 'Here you have a Spain where you
can live in liberty.' We would not feel ourselves separatist if we had a
Republic legally constituted by the will of the people, and based on Spanish
realities. And in order to defend this republic, there would not and could not
be differences between the genuinely republican Spanish (...) Spain is not an
intellectual concept, but a tangible reality; it is not an abstract space, but
the result of concrete realities: Castille, as well as Catalonia, the Basque
country, Galicia, (...) Spanish republicanism was born federal; it is obliged to
fight against unitarian and centralised Caesarism..."
(Montevideo, 18 April 1943)
The
nationalists must understand that by themselves they will never achieve their
aims, and that they must unite their forces together with all those who are
fighting against the monarchy and for the republic. Their hopes do not have any
influence, they cannot be fulfilled within the limits of the Constitution of
1978, and not because that Constitution is already discredited (it has never
seen the light of day), but rather because from the first moment it has been and
remains a centralist and anti-nationalist Constitution, intended to betray the
nationalities.
*
* *
Today
the nationalist movement is led by the bourgeoisie with the support of elements
of the oligarchy. This is clearly evident as much in Catalonia as in Galicia and
the Basque country, even though the movement does not exclude -far from it-
popular participation to a greater or lesser degree. Here enters into play the
role to be developed by the proletariat, since, as we said at the beginning, the
movement has components of class struggles.
The
first question to be posed is: does the proletariat direct this struggle? It
does not direct it, neither in the Basque country, in Catalonia, nor in Galicia,
even though there are proletarian sectors or layers in the three nationalities
involved in this fight, and to deny this, independently of whatever posture is
taken, is pure blindness.
Second
question: the framing of the issues is being carried out by the petit and
middling bourgeoisie, partly supported by some proletarian sectors and by the
oligarchy. Nobody can deny that important sections of the population,
particularly in the Basque country, support the nationalist demands of the three
nationalities.
Third
question: the splitting or division of the bourgeoisie held to the setting up of
numerous regional platforms and forces, and the appearance of numerous
nationalist political tendencies (and not only in the three historic
nationalities). The oligarchy is rubbing its hands at the sight of this panorama
of forces, each one occupying its own national niche. This is why, whenever
there is any indication of unity among the nationalist forces, such as after the
last Catalan, Gallic and Basque elections, alarm bells sound and they attempt to
boycott and to stop unity by any means possible. The maxim of divide and rule
gives them very good results. In particular the Pact of Lizarra has caused panic
in the ruling class. Faced with this Pact, government layers have attacked to
the death those forces represented -particularly by the PP and the PSOE in the
Basque country. There has been no threat or menace left unused, slanders,
insults, every kind of pressure, etc., etc.
What
do the various nationalist forces propose? All of them, all without exception,
ignore class differences, class contradictions, and refer only to national
differences (the differentiating factor, as says Sr. Pujol). In this way, and
perhaps unconsciously on the part of some of these forces, they are separating
themselves from the proletariat, essentially, as a class. A crass mistake, since
in spite of the difficulties suffered, it is the proletariat who will achieve
the social, political, economic, and national changes, like it or not.
This
posture, this aberration into which the nationalists have fallen, has led them
into pronouncements in the very recent past, such as "war against
Spain", "war against the Spanish, as Spaniards, whether they are on
the left or the right", we are anti-francoists, but above all we are anti
Spanish", "Francoism is only an epiphenomenona, our struggle is
against Spain", "the Spanish working class is imperialist in the
Basque country", and other similar ideas.
Thus
even today, or perhaps more than ever today, there persist in the Basque country
and Catalonia derogatory expressions aimed at immigrant workers, who are, in
general, the most exploited and discriminated against.
The
fact cannot be hidden or avoided that the Basque, Catalan, Gallic, (as well as
Andaluzian, Extremenan, Cantabran, etc.) ruling classes are the real exploiters
and oppressors of the people of their respective nationalities and of the rest
of Spain, since these ruling classes are not divided by nationality: they form a
unity with a deep sense of class and they close ranks in defence of their
interests, their class interests.
Equally,
one cannot be unaware of the size of the problem. The reactionary forces
attempt, and often succeed, in mobilising one national, regional or area
population against another. Once again, they divide and rule. We are of the
people, with all our ideological and political differences, but with a common
objective: to create a federal
Republic in which all the peoples of Spain have influence. It is not too much to
remember the great Catalan scientist and republican, Bosch y Guimpera, who
warned:
"
If Spain is not united with all its peoples, and does not conceive itself and
does not conceive itself as an entity formed by all of them, it will never
achieve a structure in which no-one feels suppressed or belittled, trailing
behind hegemonic groups and peoples, there will be no monopoly on what some
believe it necessary to demand, before calling themselves Spanish, and about
Spain..."
Is
this Spain, "united with all its peoples", the existing Spain with its
autonomous regions and imposed monarchy? Evidently not. And not only this: one
can state that within the framework of the present constitution, such a Spain
has no influence, it cannot succeed, because not only does it ignore all
reference to the right of self-determination: it also forbids alliances between
communities: "In no case is
the federation of Autonomous Communities permitted."
(Art. 145)
It
is necessary to be able to distinguish between oppressor and oppressing nations
and nationalities; between patriotic and chauvinist parties on the one hand, and
the national movements fighting for their rights on the other.
ETA
and its political wing EH speak of their "oppression by the Spanish
state." The Government, now of Aznar, previously of Felipe Gonzalez, Calvo
Sotelo and Adolfo Suarez, has always described ETA as a terrorist organisation
without a political component, and has tried by every means, including the most
unscrupulous, to destroy that organisation, and to declare that "there is
no Basque problem", that in relation to such a "problem"
(euphemism for concealing the real armed conflict), the framework within which
to resolve it is the Constitution and the statutes of Guernica.
The
reactionary capitalist Government, bound to foreign imperialism, tries to reduce
the question to the sole responsibility of "Basque fascism with its
greatest exponent, ETA and others like EH, as well as those who ignore them,
with clear reference to the PNV and other nationalist forces.
However,
nationalism in the Basque country did not rise only with ETA. ETA is the effect,
not the cause. Similarly, it is not, as some claim, the invention of Sabino de
Arana y Goiri, from Bilbao.
Nationalism
made its appearance, more or less structured, with the Carlist guerrillas of the
X1X Century; and started rebellious demonstrations with the abolition of the
Basque forces in 1876, lost during the second Carlist war.
What
Sabino de Arana did do, was to give organisation to the idea of Basque
nationalism. In his pamphlets and speeches, Arana expressed ideas which this
writer believes no-one can share today. His famous motto "Jaoungoukua eta
Lagizarrak" (Gods and Old Laws), reveals the essence of his thought; this
is, according to Professor Corcuera Atienza of the University of Euskal Erico,
"the foundation of Basque nationalism is religious (...) The defence of
Basque nationality, which is of course naturally Christian, demands separation
from Spain which is naturally impious (unbelieving)."
It
would be difficult for anyone today to reclaim for the Basque Country the
proposals of Sabina de Arana. Arana wrote, in June 1897:
"There
are many Basques who do not know the Basque language. This is bad. There are
some 'maketos' who do know it. This is worse. A hundred Basques who do not know
Basque do grave damage to the fatherland. A single 'maketo' who does know it
does worse damage."
Obsessed
by language, he did not hesitate to attack those nationalists who did not share
his ideas. He wrote in the review Bizkaiterra (October 1894):
"...
The Catalan people wish that all other Spaniards established in the region
should speak Catalan. For us it would be disastrous if the 'maketos' living in
our territory were to speak Basque."
(5)
One
of the components of bourgeois, or petit bourgeois, nationalism is
traditionalism. In the Basque country this leapt into view. Now they no longer
speak of their ancient lost statutes. However they continue to use them to
justify their demand for their "lost independence." And as far as
nationalism is concerned, the Basque country was independent while they had the
old Statutes. The Statutes were abolished in 1876, the date at which, according
to nationalist logic, the Basque country lost its independence.
What
is certain is that the aberrations like those cited concerning language, are not
widely shared, we believe, or at least nobody now proposes them so brutally. But
the notion of nationalism manifested as much by ETA as by the PNV, is still in
essence that which was held by the aforementioned Biscayan, excluding those who
are waverers or undecided. Arana stated:
"(We
must separate) nationalism in two classes: the common name which means the
restoration of national characteristics, whether they are political, social,
ethnographic, religious, literary, etc., and the claim adopted by the political
system a few years ago, when we proclaimed ourselves for the restoration of the
Basque nation (...) there are no quantities in nationalism, there are no grades:
it is one and indivisible; one either is or is not a nationalist, and all those
who are, are so equally, and the reason is clear: because nationalism, as
distinct from the politics which surround us, is formed only on essential
foundations: in order to profess nationalism, you have to profess all its
fundamentals: anyone who excludes any of these is not a nationalist..."
(Ibid.)
Recent
statements by Arzalluz, with whatever nuances one cares to put on them, and of
course without falling into the shameful manipulation practised by the PP and
the PSOE, are completely Aranist..
The
fact that we do not share the postures of the PNV (let us not forget that,
nationalism apart, it belongs to the same family as the PPO, nor do we share the
tactics and strategy of ETA, lends itself to confusion. We denounce
uncompromisingly the reactionary posture of the Government of Spain and of the
"Espanolistas" (nationalism of the opposite side), which claims to
introduce the idea that anyone who disagrees with them must be with
"terrorism".
In
the Basque Country there is a percentage of nationalists who are not with ETA
nor with the PNV, there are those also who are not nationalists. One cannot
marginalize those nationalist sectors nor demonise them. To claim that the
solution to the problems is in the Constitution and n the Statute of Guernica,
is a complete deception. We have already seen how the Constitution of 78 is
anti-nationalist and opposed to any regrouping or agreement between the
nationalisms of different zones and regions.
On
the other hand, the indiscriminate repression against the Basque nationalists,
repression led by the cynical Mayor Oreja, with the keen support of Judge
Baltasar Garzon, is creating a real climate of civil war in the Basque country.
In effect, an actual State of Emergency has been imposed. How else to
understand, except within the framework of a State of Emergency, the monstrous
penalties inflicted on minors under 16 years of age who participate in the kale
borroka? How to justify ETA prisoners being incarcerated for more than thirty
years, in flagrant violation of the monarchic Constitution, while the convicted
and condemned bosses of GAL, Barrionuevo and Vera, with twenty-seven
assassinations to their name, come out of prison after few weeks, greeted by the
leaders of the PSOE? One cannot dismiss the words of General Sabino Fernández
Aranda, now monarchist, before a Francoist, demanding this State of Emergency,
or the warning of Sr. Serra, crying that if anyone makes any attempt
"against the unity" of Spain, it will be necessary to mobilise the
Army, as laid down in the Constitution.
Faced
with the power and repression of the Government of Aznar, the PSOE (which when
it was in government knew only how to utilise state terrorism) adopts servile
postures, calling for "united anti-terrorist pacts", etc. They have
very little to say about organisations of the left, which sometimes by deed,
sometimes by omission, play the same game as the reaction.
The
solution is not, as they claim, in the Constitution, a "consensual"
constitution, which has avoided since its beginning what should have been its
first measure. Since the monarchy arose from an insurrectional uprising against
the regime legally established as was the Republic, and there never having been
allowed since then any kind of democratic election or referendum, the first
question should have been "monarchy or republic." This has not been
forthcoming. The Constitution of 78 had a significant number of abstentions,
throughout Spain. That is why when the Bourbons or their ministers or Felipe
Gonzalez say "the people of Spain gave themselves" this Constitution,
they are lying.
In
the Basque country, there was a global participation of 44.65%. That is to say,
half of the Basques on the electoral register did NOT vote for the Constitution,
and of those who did vote, 23.5% voted against. If we summarise these official
percentages, we find that 68.5% did not approve this Constitution. (6)
Neither
policy measures, nor state terrorism, nor police (7) and judicial repression can
solve a problem which has its roots in more than a century and a half ago: nor
can they put an end to an organisation which, whether mistaken or not, has
remained active both inside and outside the Basque country for more than half a
century, and which moreover has the support of an important section of the
population, without which it could not have maintained its existence.
Equally
certain is that the solution will not come from bombings, kidnappings and
accumulated deaths. ETA, by itself, within the present framework, can maintain
itself but it cannot win, just as Basque nationalism and its inalienable right
to self-determination cannot be heard. Trying to gain from the violence of ETA
will not give results to anyone.
We
insist that the only solution must be political. Now, the right of
self-determination does not mean anything if one cannot indicate the conditions
under which it may be exercised. This right presupposes independence and free
separation. One cannot pretend that the people of Spain's nationalities can
exercise their right outside the framework of the struggle for a new
constitution, for the abolition of the monarchy and the restoration of a federal
republic. Only within this framework (that of a federal Republic) can one
guarantee freedom of propaganda and agitation in favour of self-determination.
In
this way, yes, the Basques, the Catalans, the Galicians will be able to exercise
their right to self-determination: the right which we will defend up to its
ultimate consequences, without giving up our right to proclaim and defend
federalism.
One
can object that Spain has already existed as a nation and as a state for several
centuries, which is true. But a nation is not immoveable; still less so is a
state. Both can evolve and change. History is full of examples of this, from the
separation of Norway from Sweden in 1905, to the division of ex-Yugoslavia
recently (a problem still not concluded), passing through the ending of the
Austro-Hungarian Empire, or the division of Pakistan, or the dismemberment of
the ex-USSR, or thousands more examples.
History
can analyse and judge the past; it cannot do so with the future.
Footnotes:
(1) Navarre, which was the last
independent kingdom to join with the kingdoms of Castille and Aragon, had times
when it was dominant over Castille. Thus, King Sancho III (1004-1035) had under
his dominion the Independent County of Castille, Vizcaya and Alava, and went on
to take Leon and Astorga. He called himself, not King of Navarre, but "King
of all the Spains". After its annexation by Castilla, Navarre preserved its
privileges and forces.
(2) There are, nevertheless, certain
Basque oligarchies, like the Urquijo, who subsidised the PNV under Franco. The
PNV, in spite of the cheap demagogy of its leaders, in particular the ex -Jesuit
Arzalluz, represents clerical, oligarchic and reactionary nationalism, and the
enemies of social change who, for example, simultaneously demand
"liberty" for Euskalerria and applaud the Yankee intervention in
Vietnam: "the great Amwerican nation is defending in Vietnam western
civilisation against communism."
(3) In the revolt of Barcelona, known
as the War of the Reapers (segadores) (1640), against the royal power, Catalonia
constituted itself as the Independent Republic of Castille and put itself under
the protection of the King of France. When its laws were recognised by the
crown, it once again united with Castille in 1653.
(4) For example, in Euskalerria, only
one part, I think not the majority, of the Indigenous population speaks Basque,
or rather unified Basque or Euskera-batua, while the other part of the
population neither speaks it nor understands it.
(5) The quotes from Sabino de Arana
are taken from the article by Corcuera Atienza: "Basque nationalism: on the
statutory reintegration of historical rights."
(6) In Alava 40.7% abstained and
11.37% voted NO. In Biscay, there were 57.54% abstentions
and 8.91% NOs; in Guipúzcoa, 56.57% abstentions and 12.97% NOs.
(7) During the Franco dictatorship,
the repression against the nationalists, the forbidding for years of speaking or
writing in Catalan, Basque, etc. Awoke a great current of sympathy among those
who were not nationalist, and led us to support the struggle for freedoms for
the minorities, united in struggle against the dictator. Paradoxically, one can
say that Franco gave more support to nationalism than did the nationalists
themselves.
Raúl Marco
December 2000
Communist
October Organisation of Spain