MANEL MANCHÓN
The former prosecutor believes that the judge Pablo Llarena and the second of the Supreme are right with the accusation of rebellion to the independentist leaders, by a process "started in 2013"
Carlos Jiménez Villarejo (Málaga, 1935) does not bite his tongue. He has never done it. He investigated the case Banca Catalana, and, since then, considers that Catalan nationalism has an original sin, that of corruption. He has just published the book Catalunya Myths and Resistance (El Viejo Topo), a guide to the evolution of the independence process from the legal point of view. Jiménez Villarejo, former anti-corruption prosecutor, is surrounded by papers. He notes and emphasizes and does not want to forget anything, neither of the resolutions approved in the Catalan Parliament, nor of the declarations of all the independentistas leaders. He remains very active, through Federalistes d'Esquerres, and writes and presents books. His commitment is "with democracy", and he points out, in this interview with Crónica Global, that the Catalan government, in fact, "has always been disloyal" not only with the State, but "with Spain, with all the peoples from Spain". He insists that the independentist movement committed a crime of rebellion, and defends Judge Pablo Llarena, but, mainly, "all the judges of the second chamber of the Supreme Court, who have not questioned a single one of Llarena's resolutions." Jiménez Villarejo still asks "how is it possible for a country to passively accept the crime committed by its main ruler for 34 years", referring to its main adversary for decades: Jordi Pujol i Soley.
--Question: The December 21 has passed, with the interview between President Pedro Sánchez and Catalan President Quim Torra and the Council of Ministers in Barcelona. Now what? Can there be a possible solution?
--December 21 justifies several reflections. Certainly, the Government of the Spanish State held a session in Barcelona, and adopted, among others, measures that should have been adopted in the Historical Memory Act of 2007, such as the annulment of President Companys death sentence. But the session was possible because of the protection provided by 9,000 police officers and the containment of some violent groups. Therefore, it was a questionable normality. But, if possible, the previous day's meeting between President Sanchez and the vicar or substitute president who governs under the guidelines of an individual claimed by Justice who lives abroad was more relevant. There they agreed on a statement, of a remarkable emptiness. It is true that they appealed to an "effective dialogue" before a reality as evident as "the conflict over the future of Catalonia". But it is inadmissible that the maximum representatives of two governments, to "guarantee a solution" of this entity, omit any reference to the two fundamental laws that regulate them, the Constitution and the Statute of Autonomy. And, instead, invoke, without mentioning its origin, one of the constitutional principles, the 'legal security', which is not, precisely, the most relevant, proclaimed in art. 9.3 of our Constitution. Days later, the "vicar" has already proposed 21 proposals for this supposed dialogue, most of which are anti-democratic and unconstitutional.
- The independence movement continues referring to the ruling of the 2010 Statute by the Constitutional Court. Do you see it as relevant?
- The problem comes from much further back. The sentence naturally encouraged and gave impetus to the movement, with the abolition of the term nation of the articles, although not in the preamble, and reductions of powers in the field of justice, with articles that were declared null. But the movement has roots in Pujolismo. If not, it does not explain what has come after. It is true that the sentence comes after the referendum, the vote of all Catalans. But it does not seem reasonable that after these punctual corrections an explosion of nonsense like the present one is reached. There were hidden issues in the pujolismo that have emerged, from 1980 until its term ends, in 2003. It promoted a nationalist and forceful approach to relations with the Spanish State and the peoples of Spain. With highly debatable decisions such as the law of linguistic policy of 1997. It was a regression in the equality of conditions with respect to Spanish, with a notorious privilege of Catalan, and with the subordination of Castilian.
--So, the pro-independence project considers that it was latent since 1980, and what happens is that the successors of Pujol rush with the unilateral independentist way?
--Pujol and all the members of his government were right-wing nationalists, linked to economic power, and very corrupted by corruption. The mandate of Pujol is not explained without some central characters, such as Macià Alavedra, now deceased, and Lluís Prenafeta. They were a permanent source of corruption. With cases, in addition to what was dragged from the Banca Catalana case, such as the Commission for Assistance to Industrial Reconversion (CARIC), whose investigation was banned by the prosecutor chosen by the Socialists, Eligio Hernández. That case affected, in one stroke, up to six directors and various businessmen. With the corruption cases, the most daring nationalism did not emerge. But now we have seen how Jordi Pujol continues to support the cause, and defends the leaders deprived of liberty. It is in favor of the independence project.
--You refer to what was known as the business sector of Convergència. But, were not there already clear references, with Oriol Pujol and other members of the CDC youths, who staged the independence campaigns in the 1992 Olympic Games?
- Yes, with the arrival of Artur Mas to power, with these new generations, there was a turnaround. The problem was when Mas loses those 12 seats in the 2012 elections. He opts to go ahead, to accelerate the process, with a radical nationalist perspective. He still maintains the forms, but he is the godfather of the most extreme nationalism, mainly starting in 2015.
--Consider that this was the most serious error, from that moment?
--Mas could not stand that decline in electoral support. It turned out to be a blow for the most classist nationalism , for bourgeois nationalism, for the benefit of the ERC and the CUP. Its protagonism goes down, and the bets points to independentists nationalists options. It is heading towards independence, with that resolution in the Parlament on the sovereignty of Catalonia of January 2013.
- Is the left wrong then, or later?
- At that time, yes, there is the bankruptcy of the left in Catalonia. That left abandons its ideological assumptions, which comes from the PSUC, in the case of ICV, which was radically anti-nationalist, considering nationalism as a class approach. When approving that resolution, of January 2013, it enters a period of complacency with the so-called sovereignty, which will become independentism. It is a historical error. From then, the left will live very disoriented, and the economic interests of the popular classes will be in a second and third plane, against the pre-eminence of the right to decide of the people of Catalonia. ICV and PSC, later, will rectify in part, but they have not recovered. And for the Catalunya en Comú that initial process has turned out to be a slab. They have not been able to openly break with that idea of the right to decide.
- Had the process changed, without that initial support from the left?
- Yes, I think so, it was fundamental. Because sovereignty had at that moment a kind of progressive seal, derived from that initial support of forces such as ICV. The movement was legitimized.
--The Catalan was destined to end in this pro-independence project?
- The sovereignty walked towards the independence movement. It has been a drift, from Catalanism, to sovereignty and independence. It has occurred in recent years. It is important to remember a resolution of the Parlament, of September 2013, on the right to decide of the "people of Catalonia". That resolution aims to decide the future as a people, and that is more than five years ago. It is affirmed that the majority will of the people of Catalonia has been expressed in the manifestation of the Diada of 2013, that there is a Catalan way towards independence. All that does not come with Puigdemont. Until that moment there was only one formal declaration, in January of that year, although it is already symptomatic, to indicate a plan for legal transience, which was then used for the law of September 2017. But in that resolution there is already a section on the language and culture in which Catalan is spoken as the language of habitual, vehicular and proper use of Catalonia, in which Spanish is not cited. It disappears. It is absent, and that is serious, it is a sign of where we are now. The community that uses Spanish disappears.
- Do you consider that there has been a part that has been pushing towards that specific direction?
- Pushes and dispenses with the other party, which does not seem to exist. Thats the reality.
- Is not then a transverse movement, as has been advocated?
--Is a lie. It is not. No way. It is an objective fact that is accentuated.
- What does the independence movement represent in socio-economic terms?
- It is the movement of an elite, which integrates Catalan sectors that are not in that elite, but are subordinated to it, as happens to the CUP, which ends up excluding half of the community, which expresses themselves in Spanish.
- What do you think and feel when you are aware of Jordi Pujol's confession about his tax fraud, and how do you understand that this confession has not had an impact on the independence movement?
- I thought it was very serious. A tax fraud for 34 years is difficult to assume. A country that passively accepts that its biggest representative has committed tax fraud for so long, without modifying at all the guidelines of that movement, it seems very serious. Because he supposes that he is indifferent. But we must not forget Artur Mas, with the sentence of the case of the Palau de la Música, which explicitly states that his party benefited from more than six million euros, with illegal commissions. The independence movement is uncomfortable that its maximum symbolic leader, in the case of Pujol, is a criminal, as the movement has acknowledged. But it has not changed plans.
- Why is there no trial on the Pujol case?
- It is a drift on what we live that we do not know anything about that process. It has objective difficulties, it is true, but there could be a greater urgency to resolve that situation, with horizons, now, undefined. The central court number five, of the National Court, which investigates the Pujol family, points out that Pujol Soley, in 2000, under the ownership of his son, had 307 million pesetas, (about two million euros), in a bank in Andorra, being president. I always say that there is not a country in Europe, nor in Eastern Europe, that has had a president in that situation. That tolerance is symptomatic, and makes it understandable that in article 79 of the law of legal transitoriness it was established that the judges would annul the proceedings of all those who had sought a democratic process for the independence of Catalonia. It was thought a kind of amnesty, which is not included in the Spanish Constitution.
--Is it a movement with important democratic deficiencies?
- Yes, it's obvious. It began in 2013. And it is that, having power, derived from the autonomic power, has governed and continues to govern, well, is at the forefront of institutions, which does not mean precisely that it governs, regardless of the needs of Catalan society. It is a government that, based on the Statute of Catalonia, governs on the margin and against that Estatut for years, but since the lasts years, the Estatut has been an adornment. There has been no loyalty, neither with Zapatero nor with Rajoy, there has never been loyalty with the State, with Spain, with all the citizens of the rest of the autonomous communities. There has been no loyalty to the Statute itself, which is a law that represented a true development of many competences. It's a Estatut that has been thrown away.
- What should a Spanish government do now, whatever its color?
- There is a first thing for me and it is in relation to the CDR. Apart from the position of the Spanish Government, it is the Government of Catalonia that can not allow certain actions. Public disorders are committed, with roadblocks, train stopping and other demonstrations that should not be allowed to pass. There are enough sentences from the Supreme Court to explain that they are public disorders. And the commands of the Mossos should act with determination. The right to free movement of citizens is violated. You can not understand that there is passivity in that question. To take up the matter is Article 408 of the criminal code, in relation to the authorities or officials who leave functions of pursuing crimes intentionally.
--Has there been an overreach of Judge Llarena with the preventive prisons and the classification of the crimes against the pro-independence leaders?
--I do not think so. It's not just Judge Llarena. He has had the backing of all the judges of the second room of the Supreme Court, which has varied its magistrates, and who are of all colors, conservative and progressive. All have confirmed their resolutions. We are talking about justified reasoning, because it is a chained process that starts in 2013, and, mainly, from 2016. It is a government that, in addition to violating the Statute of autonomy, with a constant abuse of power, is breaking the constitutional links with Spain. That goes beyond the limits of a possible arbitrary decision of a judge.
--There is no question, therefore, of crimes from the decision to 'put the ballot boxes' as the independence movement says?
--No, it's not just October 1st. It is a process. We must not forget that there is a climate of rupture with the institutions of the State, of rupture with Spain, of affirmations of leaders, of parliamentary resolutions, of all kinds of statements such as those referring to Llarena entering the Parlament as Tejero in Congress, or that Franco's justice is like the current one, as Raül Romeva said. As of January 2016, the government has the immediate support of the ANC and Òmnium Cultural, which participate in the decisions, lacking democratic legitimacy. Jordi Sànchez states, with his statements, that the State will have to use violence if it wants to stop the process. The aim was to force the State to use this violence. He was encouraged to do so. There are documents that accredit it, such as Enfocats, where it is said that independence will come when society is actively involved, and that conflict will increase as the State reacts. The shock is sought. And there is that resolution of November 9, 2015 in which the Parliament affirms that Catalonia will be disconnected and will not be subordinated to the decisions of the State, accepting the foreseeable acts of violence to achieve that end. All that justifies Llarena's performance.
- Rebellion, therefore?
--For me if. There is an excellent work by Luis Arroyo Zapatero where it is justified with clarity. It is that it was a perfectly meditated process, contrived and realized with the possibilities that the movement had. We are not talking about a last day process. It is that at the beginning of 2013 the advisory council for the national transition was created, because a process of rupture of the constitutional order, rupture with the democratic institutions has already been calculated. There is a judicial order of the second room that makes it clear that you do not need weapons for violence.
- There are many criminal law professors who deny that this crime was committed. You said that their position is not worth, because, precisely, they are professors. Why?
--From my point of view, they are people who are not sufficiently assessing the trauma and the seriousness of the facts, which has created a fracture of society. I think they are wrong. What am I in the truth? I do not affirm either. I have been a prosecutor, I have seen many processes, and I think that the legal reasoning of Llarena and the second room of the Supreme Court is full of democratic reasons. It seems to me that a rigorous analysis of the whole process is lacking, of all the parliamentary resolutions that are being made. They have not done that test. There was a will to break, and they have had a difficult time because, precisely, they had a State and a Constitutional Court that has applied democratic laws. Because Catalonia can not be alien to the laws of the Spanish State. Its leaders are rulers of an autonomous community, and can not violate the laws. In many places in Spain there is social exclusion, with huge unemployment rates, and here in Catalonia we are with this story. It seems to me that those unemployed have been despised, in places like Linares, for example, people who have a bad time have been despised, while here the rulers enjoyed a secure situation, committing a real abuse of power.
0 comentarios:
Post a Comment