The
only squashing of human rights was done by the Catalan separatists. In
September 2017 the Catalan separatists squashed the rule of law and
democracy in Catalonia.
On the 6th and the 8th of September 2017 the Catalan Parliament adopted two laws:
- the Law on the Referendum on Self-determination of Catalonia
- the Law of juridical transition and foundation of the Republic
The
first law governs the holding of the Catalan independence referendum of
October 1, 2017, a binding self-determination referendum on the
independence of Catalonia.
The second law was drafted to function as a provisional constitution in case 'yes' won the referendum.
Both
laws effectively claim hierarchical prevalence over the Spanish
Constitution and the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia. This means that
the separatists in the Catalan parliament are engaged in the usurpation
of constitutional powers or to put it simply, a power grab or a coup
d'état.
(Note: both laws have been declared unconstitutional by the Spanish courts.)
Bona
fide constitutional changes are normally effected by supermajority
vote. A "supermajority vote" is a vote that must exceed the number of
votes comprising a "simple majority." For example, a simple majority in a
100-member Parliament would be 51 votes; while a 2/3 supermajority vote
would require 67 votes. There are 135 seats in the Catalan parliament. A
supermajority of two-thirds would constitute a threshold of 90 votes.
In
parliamentary procedure it is common practice to require a
supermajority vote for any action that may impact the rights of a
minority. It is designed to protect minorities by enhancing the voting
power of their representatives in parliament. Often this means one must
deliberate with those minorities and gain their agreement (meaning by
supermajority vote) to change basic rules. Note that changing both the
Spanish Constitution and the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia requires
two thirds majorities.
The Separatist
parties in the Catalan parliament adopted these two laws - which
override preexisting constitutional regimes - by means of a simple
majority vote. The first law was adopted by 72 votes, the second by 71
votes, both of which are less than the 90 vote threshold.
In
other words, the separatists by voting to adopt the laws above violated
a fundamental parliamentary procedure that is intended to protect the
rights of minorities - in this instance, the rights of the opposition.
The opposition in Catalonia is against Catalan independence. There are
so many people (in Catalonia) that are opposed to Catalan independence
that it is not possible to create a supermajority in Parliament.
Properly
analyzed, the separatists, who would have been perfectly aware of the
size of the opposition, decided that their cause - Catalan independence -
could not be implemented unless they would deliberately violate the
constitutional order. Their solution was to disenfranchise the
opposition by simply ignoring proper parliamentary procedure. Riding
roughshod over parliamentary procedure, the two bills involved were
rushed through the parliament in one single day: without pre-processing
in a parliamentary committee, without putting the reading of the bill on
the agenda, without allowing any debate, and without the opposition
being given the opportunity to ask the legal service of the parliament
for advice.
In other words, a minimal
parliamentary majority expresses its will without respecting the rights
of the opposition and in violation of the law. This is how authoritarian governments silence parliamentary oppositions when processing evil laws. In fact the State Attorney (the prosecutor)described the process of forcing through the referendum law as “absolutely totalitarian.”
Concerning
this state of affairs, the Spanish Constitutional Court argued that
preserving ‘the political pluralism along the legislative proceedings is
inherent to the respect to the position and rights of minorities…’
Furthermore it links the ‘integrity of the rights of representatives’ to
‘the fundamental right of all citizens to participate in public affairs
through representatives…’
On such a
momentous issue as the future of Catalonia, the actions of the
separatists were entirely and brazenly partisan. Not once did the
separatists seek to lift the matter above party politics. The votes
above came entirely from pro-independence ruling coalition, JxS and
CUP-CC. Not a single member of the opposition voted in favor of the laws. In protest against this brazen and naked violation of their rights as representatives of the people most of the opposition MP’s left the chamber before the votes were cast. This is a form of dissent that is common only in countries where democracy is under threat.
The question above is flawed. The proper question should have been:
If the separatists can get away with squashing democracy and the rule of law in Catalonia, what future awaits the EU?
This
state of affairs and its proper significance has never been properly or
sufficiently exposed and reported by the media to the public (in the EU
and abroad). This is deeply disturbing as the events in September 2017
represent the first case of a democratic breakdown in a Western European country, after the Second World War.
Given
the worrying rise in populism in Europe we should not be ignoring the
events in Catalonia. Catalonia is a large modern cosmopolitan region
fully representative of mainstream Western European culture.
The
events have probably been ignored because it did not involve a large
sovereign nation, for example France being taken over by Front National.
Catalonia essentially proves that it is entirely possible to destroy
democracy and rule of law in a Western European nation.
But
for a functioning constitutional order in Spain, Catalonia would have
been lost to liberal democracy. We should take note because this is how
the populists in Western Europe will want to govern once they gain
power.
Unilateral declaration of independence or pronunciamento?
The
actions of the Catalan independence movement bear an uncanny and
haunting resemblance to a 19th century type of coup d'état that used to
be called a pronunciamento. To cite Wikipedia:
A pronunciamiento (Spanish: [pɾonunθjaˈmjento], Portuguese: pronunciamento [pɾunũsiɐˈmẽtu]; "pronouncement, announcement or declaration") is a form of military rebellion or coup d'état particular to Spain, Portugal and Latin America, particularly in the 19th century…Generally, a pronunciamento is preceded by a period of preparation during which the organizing officers "sound out" the larger community of officers to determine if their views are widely shared. After the pronunciamiento the would-be rebel officers then wait for the rest of the armed forces to declare for or against the government.There is no fighting at this point; if the rebellion has no support the organizers lose. They may have to flee the country or retire from the armed forces, or they may be arrested.
The
laws of the 6th and the 8th of September, the execution of the
referendum itself on the 1st of October and the unilateral declaration
of independence (UDI) on the 27th of October jointly bear all the
hallmarks of an elaborate pronunciamento. Together with the many
preceding declarations and appeals to the public, these legislative
machinations represent a process of sounding out society, while avoiding
violence. As in the case of a pronunciamento, the separatists waited to
see how the chips would fall. And indeed, when their grab for power
failed they found themselves fleeing the country or being arrested. The
difference in this instance is that this pronunciamento was done by
civilians. Nevertheless, in either case the constitutional order gets
the shaft.
The question of Self-determination
It is likely that the questioner had a different issue in mind namely the violation of the right of self-determination.
The
first thing that needs to be said is that the separatists have indeed
claimed that the right of self-determination has been violated. However,
any such claim is summarily rendered irrelevant by the fact that there
is no electoral majority in Catalonia in favor of independence. Any
claim to a right of self-determination can only be actuated by an
overwhelming and sustained majority in favor of independence.
Furthermore, in this instance, the pertinence of the claim and the
rectitude of the claimants are deeply suspect: to push through their
plans the separatists sidelined the parliamentary opposition in an
unconstitutional and undemocratic manner.
Finally,
the right of self-determination is not applicable in the case of
Catalonia. For more on this read the following section.
The Conditions for Self-determination
In
the most general or abstract sense the right of self-determination
supersedes constitutional law. Still, this right is entirely
context-driven, which is what the Catalan separatists are hoping you
will not notice.
The right of
self-determination is a false claim against the Spanish constitution.
Read carefully: before it can be justifiably asserted, it first has to
be applicable to the case of Catalonia.
In
the case of Catalonia pursuing independence, the claim of a right to
self-determination must be understood as a claim to a right of
secession.
Essentially, the right of
self-determination, in terms of a right to independence, exists mainly
to serve “the particular situation of peoples under colonial or other
forms of alien domination or foreign occupation…” In practical terms,
the only entities with an automatic claim the right to
self-determination are the Non-Self-Governing Territories, and the
Palestinian territories. The only other category of territorial entities
that could easily reclaim this right of self-determination would be the
various internally self-governing territories that were formerly on the
UN List of Non-Self-Governing Territories and which have not been
merged into the administering countries. The most important of these are
Puerto Rico (US), Greenland (Denmark), Aruba (Neth), Curacao (Neth),
Sint Maarten (Neth), and Cook Islands (NZ).
Concurrently,
the right of self-determination is not intended “to be construed as
authorizing or encouraging any action that would dismember or impair,
totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of
sovereign and independent States…” Read also the following UN
Resolution: A/RES/50/6. Declaration on the Occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations.
This means that on the basis of current international law, the right to
self-determination does not include a ‘primary’ right to secession. See
also following link to a paper by Joel Day: The Remedial Right of Secession in International Law.
Note that most separatist causes involve territorial minorities located
in states that can counter claims to self-determination by rightfully
asserting territorial integrity. Examples of these are Catalonia,
Corsica, Lombardy, Bavaria, etc.
There is an
exception to the latter case, i.e., the justification for a ‘remedial’
right to secession. This occurs when “the international community has
taken the steps to endorse secession when a state commits crimes against
humanity against a territorially concentrated minority.”
In
international law, Catalonia is by default considered an integral part
of Spain. It is not recognized by the United Nations or any other
international body, as a colony or an occupied territory. There are no
crimes against humanity. The right to self-determination, in terms of
right to secession, whether ‘primary’ or ‘remedial’, simply does not
apply. In other words, the Catalan independence movement is an instance
of a political movement based on a false claim.
0 comentarios:
Post a Comment