The amnesty law for Catalan secessionists is finally here. With it comes a vicious trap: believing it will improve liveliness in Catalonia, reduce political tensions and make the Spanish society more just and egalitarian. Such are the arguments of PM Sánchez and his socialist party. But with a bit of contextualisation, the trap can be easily avoided.
Eva Poptcheva is a Spanish member of the European Parliament with Ciudadanos party within Renew Europe Group and vice-chair of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs.
Supporters of the law argue that this measure is reverting the so-called “judicialisation” of the conflict in Catalonia. As Ziblatt and Levitsky remind us in How Democracies Die, we need “guardrails” for our liberal democracies. Those guardrails ensure that majorities, or hyper-mobilised minorities, cannot impose their will on the others.
The liberal principle of protection of rights and liberties acts as a constraint of potentially authoritarian decisions. The Spanish judiciary worked effectively as a warrant for the rights of citizens and politicians who were threatened by the government of Catalonia in 2017 with the stripping of their rights as Spanish and European Union citizens. Accusing the judges of “judicialising” a political conflict is equivalent to arguing that going to the courts to protect your rights against abuses of power is a judicialisation of democracies.
Similarly, it has been argued that Sánchez has eased the tensions in Catalonia by pardoning the separatist leaders sentenced for embezzlement and other offences, having used public money to finance their illegal acts.
While it is true that support for independence has decreased, this tendency started after the failed referendum and the actions taken to punish those who, amongst other things, misused public funds in a bid to create a new state unilaterally. But the critical fact here is that the life of more than 50% of Catalans- those opposing independence from Spain- has worsened considerably.
Catalonia is where the regional government keeps ignoring judicial resolutions that seek to ensure that children can study in Spanish (the mother language of most Catalans) for at least 25% of their class hours, where children are asked not to speak Spanish amongst themselves in the breaks.
The administration refuses to communicate with citizens in Spanish, although both Spanish and Catalan are Catalonia’s official languages. Public television and radio are exclusively in Catalan, although paid by taxes of us all. The regional government decided to vaccinate national police during the pandemic slower than the regional one (only 3.6% received the vaccine, vs. 77% of the regional police).
The demands for amnesty include people with corruption charges and misuse of public funds. A region where members of my party have been physically attacked and insulted for expressing a different opinion or speaking in Spanish. A region whose government engaged in talks with Putin’s envoys to recognise an independent Catalan state.
In summary, a region where the worst characteristics of the illiberal populism that we fear in Hungary and Poland have been present for the past 12 years, with no improvement in sight. For someone who does not have to live under these circumstances, it is easy to claim that “tensions have eased”.
Some also argue that the amnesty will prevent separatists from holding yet another unilateral, illegal referendum. This is not true, unfortunately. In the agreement signed last week between Sanchez’s Socialist Party (PSOE) and Puidgdemont’s Together for Catalonia, the latter reiterated their will to hold a unilateral independence referendum. Both Together for Catalonia and ERC (Republican Left of Catalonia) have openly said that the amnesty is only a “starting point” for a new push for independence and not a new beginning within Spain.
In this sense, any comparisons with the amnesty of 1977 are misconstrued. That was a pardon for those who were part of the dictatorship and those who opposed it as a way of paving the way for a new and democratic Spain. Here, we have a democracy with a separation of powers. An amnesty would convey conformity with the idea of revolting against the rule of law as a desirable course of action to achieve one’s objectives.
Besides, this amnesty also enshrines the following principle: if you need somebody’s votes, you can do whatever you please, even if it goes against the rule of law. Mr. Sánchez, as well as his socialist party, have stated for months that “an amnesty would be unconstitutional and unfair”.
Now, it seems that it is constitutional and “necessary”. Should we accept, as a new basis for our liberal democracies, that a politician can amnesty those who have committed crimes just because they need their votes?
We cannot accept that this is the normality in a liberal democracy. Consequently, we oppose an amnesty law crafted to ensure the continuation of Mr. Sánchez in power without considering its consequences. What will we say if others ignore the law and their vote is necessary to form a government? A liberal democracy cannot be built upon blackmail and the destruction of the rule of law.
Source: euractiv.com
