Catalonia’s Independence Vote Descends into Chaos and Clashes
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
These are protesters being whacked with bats and shot by rubber bullets, with no reported deaths yet. Saddam killed 5000 people with mustard gas, and the current day Iraqi government employs summary executions against accused ISIS members. They are universes apart.
Compare the actions of the Iraqi central government to the Kurdistan independence referendum vs. the actions of the Spanish central government to the Catalonia referendum, the two votes occurring roughly one week apart. In both cases the central government considered the vote to be illegal. The Iraqi central government, despite declaring the vote to be illegal, took no physical steps to prevent it. The Spanish central government turned to violent repression. So, rather than absurdly stupid, the comparison is quite accurate – in this particular case, the Spanish government behaved far worse than the Iraqi one did – and stuff that Saddam did (nothing to do with the actions of the current Iraqi government which is controlled by anti-Saddam forces), or stuff that the current Iraqi government does to ISIS fighters (summary executions are abhorrent, but nothing to do with the Kurdish independence vote) are just irrelevancies.
The point of democracy is for people to voice their opinions and vote on their future. Even if the referendum has no legal binding, it should have been allowed to happen.
What's next, "polls" being declared illegal?
And you think this justifies the repression and violence perpetrated against the Catalonian proletariat?
You're right, we hopefully have put armed struggle behind us, which is an excuse for... an armed struggle? It wouldn't be a struggle if the vote was allowed to go ahead. After that you can basically strangle it through bureaucracy -- which would be the civilized way to do it.
As such, they've effectively forced the catalonians into revolution through armed conflict.
Where have I said this? That's a disgraceful accusation. I've said that the Madrid government should resign so I'm in agreement with Ada Colau there.
> if the vote was allowed to go ahead
The article gives sound reasons why it shouldn't and why holding the vote is _antidemocratic_. There may of course be good counterarguments but they aren't being made. I'd like to see them, not childlike miscomprehension of how democracy works.
> they've effectively forced the catalonians into revolution through armed conflict
You do realise that over half of Catalonia is against independence. This is exactly the Northern Ireland problem where Madrid would be forced to defend the interests of those Catalans even if they'd otherwise wanted to say goodbye to Catalonia (presumably with Basque region next). The leadership on both sides have been incredibly irresponsible in driving the country and region towards that situation and of course it's the people who will pay for it.
Of course they are being made: what a piece of paper says has only meaning if there is a consensus behind it. A paper is not the Ultimate Truth: society must be heard, since popular opinion changes.
The Catalan people have been working for their self-governance for decades, and they (rightly or wrongly) feel that the central government is not willing to accommodate their needs. It is not too much to ask to have one's voice heard about these matters once in a while, ideally with a negotiated referendum. Unfortunately the Spanish government has shown no inclination of willing to hear what kind of relationship Catalans want to have with the rest of the Spain; actually, the contrary has been the case: each time that Catalans have tried to redraw the framework they have been confronted by a very hostile central government.
The Spanish government (and the majority of the Spanish people) are treating the constitution as a holy gospel, when it is exactly the opposite: it is a document which should regulate and adapt to the needs of its people, whatever they might be, and not some ultimate goal that people must abide to.
> You do realise that over half of Catalonia is against independence. This is exactly the Northern Ireland problem where Madrid would be forced to defend the interests of those Catalans even if they'd otherwise wanted to say goodbye to Catalonia (presumably with Basque region next). The leadership on both sides have been incredibly irresponsible in driving the country and region towards that situation and of course it's the people who will pay for it.
Which half should be deprived of their "rights"? Difficult question, but since separatists have been deprived of their ideal world for years, maybe they should get the chance to implement their vision?
This would have been much easier if the vote had been properly organized: something with >60% turnout and >60% would had closed the case for independence, something with >60% turnout and <40% would have closed it for remaining in Spain, and something in between would have been grounds for further discussions and negotiations.
As it stands, the handling of the situation by the Spanish government puts us in a very awkward situation. I would say the case for independence is pretty much sealed, since the chances that the Spanish government takes the Catalans seriously is pretty much null.
First of all, this is not definitely a case of "violence against proletariat". You can find lots of Catalonian people in this group that neither want the independence nor probably felt particularly oppressed when the police came to protect their rights as spanish citizens.
And there is also the "repression and violence", lets see:
Let suppose that a group of people, men, women, elders and children, enter in a public school in a saturday night, with the intention to doing something illegal like, dunno, selling endangered parrots. The police came the next day with the direct order from a jury, to just remove the materials needed for the illegal trade, dislodge the public building, close and custody it for the entire sunday.
But when they were asked by the autorities to end the party and go home, the people instead decide to sit in the soil, start singing "kumbaya" and refuse to move. And when policemen try to remove the ofending material they make a wall of interlaced bodies to deliberately obstruct their orders. So the police starts picking up one person at a time and moving them out. One to one.
This happens in the same week that groups of the same people assaulted and damaged some police cars, throw heavy objects to the police, and even chased some policemen in the streets with a rain of rocks (sending some of they to the hospital).
And other people harassed police in their hotels making loud noises that annoy all the clients of the hotel, that probably couldn't sleep in the entire night and didn't deserved this treatment.
What do you think would happen in USA if you decide starting to spit literally and repeatedly in the face of the local sheriff after hours of defying the autorities and showing a stubborn, irrational and totally unreasonable behaviour? Would you gain a ticket to deservely enter the draw of a couple of bruises?
Taking in mind the situation and the 2 millions of people involved it was practically a miracle that nobody were killed, only two people got seriously injured (unfortunately of course, one claimed as an accident when some policemen cornered started shooting rubber balls to clear a way out, and the other was the old woman hit in the head I think, but I could be wrong). The immense majority among the eight thousands of the people classified as 'injured' got away probably with only a few scratches and maybe a panick attack.
And this is "the first war on internet", so don't trust in all that you see in the social networks. There was for example a very moving photo from a boy with some blood running by his cheek... the problem is that the photo was taken in 2012, not in 2017 as claimed.
There is one thing that was particularly brutal in this history, and it was the patience of the spanish policemen and policewomen
> One more thing to consider: three years ago, the separatist Catalan government authorised police force to stop a popular “multireferendum” about a number of social issues in Catalonia, confiscating ballot boxes. Clearly, the Catalan leaders do not think that casting a ballot is always okay.
In fact, the piece goes so far as to call the physical response justified:
> Hundreds or thousands of elected officials and public servants in Catalonia are disobeying the law, perverting justice, defying judges and diverting funds for the “referendum”. They had to be stopped, thus the few detentions (all mandated by independent judges who are acting well within the law). That is no excessive use of force.
Good. Let them. The act of hosting a vote does not physically harm anyone, it does not "have to be stopped". Indict the officials who are in breach of the law afterward.
I wrote that article a few days before the fake referendum. In no way was I defending violent repression by the police. I had no idea that we would witness what finally happened on 1 October.
> The act of hosting a vote does not physically harm anyone.
Not directly, no. But I still think that not every conceivable question should be submitted to the people expecting the answer to be binding (my points #1, #2 and #4). If this were posed as a "poll" (even an "official", "institutional" one), most people in Spain would not have an issue with it. The "legally binding" part is what's troubling.
That being said, and in the light of what finally happened on 1 October, perhaps you are right: the Spanish government could have let the whole farce play, then ignore the "results" and prosecute those responsible for it.
Even during "the big one", the secession of the CSA from the USA, it was the CSA who started the hostility, several months after declaring secession: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter
It all boils down to a regional government using taxpayer's money to stage a mock election as a means to usurp the functions of the democratically elected national government.
And suddenly those who respect the Rule of Law are the bad guys.
Maybe the Spanish government is just waiting for them to actually declare independence to bring down the hammer.
What is this? Treason to what? Something they do not believe in?
Sedition? By definition, but not necessarily with the negative connotation of your word choice.
Regional vs national government? This is exactly what Catalans are trying to sort out.
Taxpayer's money? This is one of the issues that Catalans are complaining about (rightly or wrongly)
Your whole arguments boils down to: "things are as they are, and trying to change them is bad because that would mean things do not stay as they are".
So what is the legal path to independence? You can claim it's illegal all you want, but unless there is a legal avenue to pursue then legality is irrelevant.
In Spain, the paramilitary police injured 800 citizens who wanted to vote. Following the rule of (their) law, of course.
If the national law, which all the states voted on in merely 1978, didn't allow for any state to unilaterally declare independence and this was deemed illegal and pointless, then why did they send police to enforce that, if it doesn't matter?
So they chose the next worse option: violent crack down.
The least bad option would have been a negotiated referendum, with the full legitimacy of the State. And mind you, the separatists would have probably lost.
If we were to rationalize all this and draw lines peacefully, what would be the typical size of a country? Would we chose no country at all, in a world-government? Would we pick the "city-state" model, as often advocated by libertarians?
Given the US perspective of polarized politics, how does it make sense that the strongly-held beliefs of one portion of the voting citizens should be foisted upon the remainder of the entire population?
Smaller government is more responsive to the local conditions and culture than is large government. And the inevitable abuses of the state against the citizenry will be limited in scope.
Of course, along with very small government, I would also advocate 100% free trade and very low regulatory burden, such that a small land-area country could still be an economic powerhouse.
So I think the original question is quite valid. There's a sweet spot somewhere between "as big as possible" (e.g. US or Russia) and "as small as possible" (e.g. city-states).
My gut would be that it's more determined by economic production and ethnic subgroups than some constant. Sufficient economic production to play competitively on the world stage, while grouping as many like or agreeing ethnic groups as possible (and preventing their repressing minority groups).
Or in other words, international jerrymandering.
The benefits of large governments - uniform currency, uniform code of law - have been increasingly eroding and losing relevance, so I am pretty sold on the city-state model.
Sadly, countries rarely are created as such, and are demarcated more along lines of conquest (which is a very weak signal of local culture, especially if the local civilisation has been around for 1000s of years but conguests happened 400 years ago) or even sometimes on what can only be described as kookoo political ideologies.
Some of them, like Denmark or Finland are doing pretty well, and have some of the most advanced democracies in the world.
~770,000 votes lost and the results are clearly in favor of separation even if every one of those lost votes was No.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2017/oct/01/catalan-i...
Pretty bad managed by Spain.
I think the result should absolutely cause a second, officially sanctioned referendum, for what it's worth.
A more relevant comparison would be the Scottish independence referendum which managed 85% turnout.
The last unsanctioned Catalan referendum got 80% voting for independence, and that was when opinion polls gave No a huge lead (they seem to be suggesting if a proper vote had been held this time round, Yes to independence could have won, but only narrowly)
Granted your argument would have more weight if say 10% of the population voted, but with 40+% of the population voting you need to accept many yes and no voters stayed home out of fear.
Or more widely if their where much doubt the government would have let a vote take place secure in the knowledge they had popular support.
Who is making this report, why should I trust them, and do they have evidence this is a statistically meaningful problem?
However, the exact same thing would be reported if it did not happen making it somewhat meaningless observation.
PS: I really don't trust the 90% yes either. But, vote suppression IMO is a sign the people in power expect the vote to go counter to their desires.
Modern societies should be flexible enough to allow for friction-less changes: there are no holy cows.
The first part, the feelings, I can't share but I can respect. I don't think it makes for a significant part of Catalonia though, maybe 20-30%? The second part, the in-solidarity, I can't have simpathy for and I think Spain is right in staying put. And if that's the part that is really moving so many people to independence (and it seems that way), then I don't think this is so much a matter of opinion as it is of not knowing or not respecting the facts.
But this is not the only issue: the situation in Catalonia is complex, and ultimately should only be decided by Catalan people. One of the most common arguments against the referendum, namely that people are being "brain-washed", assumes three things wrongly:
1) That brainwashing happens only in one sense.
2) That people are easily brainwashed.
3) That brainwashed people have no right to vote.
The Human Right of auto-determination does not only apply to societies we are not directly related to, but specially to the cases where we have an interested stake, since that shows that we are actually committed to those rights, and not using them abstractly to control remote regions by UN proxy.
The general principle applies: "I might not agree with you, but I will always defend your right to voice your opinion"
edit to attach the sentencing in particular, it's perfectly legible (only 14 articles eliminated), and the reasons why they were excessive easy to understand.
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentencia_del_Tribunal_Constit...
Criminalizing a vote – to the point of beating people – is beyond stupid. It strengthens the cause for Catalonian independence. It only makes rational sense if the Spanish government is very afraid of what a "legitimate" vote says.
Catalan officials instead relied on privately printed ballots, and changed the voting rules an hour before polls were scheduled to open, to allow voters to cast a ballot at any poll station, without using an envelope and whether registered there or not.
Without the crackdown, the vote could have been monitored by independent organisations, like it happens in modern democracy.
Sending in the riot police to enforce the ban made the Spanish government look weak and fearful.
In all actuality, they could have just said "Sure, vote. The results won't be legal."
But the referendum is a joke. Both the way it was called, and how it has been conducted.
Furthermore, the result is impossible to believe given previous results in open elections.
A sad day for Spain and Catalonia.
It was a stupid approach from a very weak government.
A natural or man-made disaster during a vote filters out the less "passionate" portion of the electorate; if you don't care that much about an election's outcome, a thunderstorm or the threat of riot police cracking open your skull would probably convince you to stay home rather than visit your polling place.
I would imagine the bulk of the "passion" on this topic would reside with the separatists, so it stands to reason the police action ironically resulted in suppressing the "remain" vote.
Nevertheless, turnout has been quite high.
And yes, police has been sent.
"Just about moving borders" makes it sound as if that were a trivial change. It would be huge for Spain.
#11: do you think then that the "referendum" was properly organised, with enough accountability and transparency, and no meddling? Do you trust the results announced by the Catalan government?
All we have is 40% turnout with 90% yes. We will have to do with that.
Spain, like all nation-states descended from medieval feudal states, is a conglomeration of multiple distinct regions with individual histories.
If it weren't for a Catalan language revival in the 20th century as a response to Franco's dictatorship, it's claim to independence from a historical perspective has even less weight than Venice's.
lol ok
These regions still had self-governance far in excess to the equivalent nowadays. Being a vassal state to a title is pretty unrestrictive: you had to raise levies, pay a tithe, and not lose the province to a rival claim. Nobles were free to set taxes and laws as they pleased.
Anyone who is claiming an electoral victory for the independence camp is delusional. The level of support for independence is nowhere near 90%, which was the final tally. An illegal referendum that half the population either chose to or was forced to boycott does not have any legitimacy.
If the Spanish have any doubt as to the fact that the vast majority of Catalonians want to leave Spain, they can feel free to allow people to hold a referendum without attacking them this time.
But with the crackdown, now independentists can claim a moral victory as well as a vindication of their reasons, and they can even claim the missing voters could have been for them, because cleary it was unsafe for most people to show up regardless of political inclination.
Good job, Spanish government, you’ve just strengthened your enemies. This was phase 3 of the classic Gandhi quote.
I see it differently. I see a government suppressing the will of the people, then using low turnout due to government intimidation as a way to delegitimize the vote. There wouldn't even be a vote if a massive amount of people didn't disagree with the direction that their government was forcing them in.
If people can't separate peacefully, there will be many who try to do so violently.