Teresa Freixes
Fortunately, apparently what has been a matter of
concern for a week seems to have disappeared from the political scene, that is,
the possibility that a kind of "board
of parties", including a mediator, facilitator, rapporteur or official
of international relevance, would be shown to the world as a political
instrument to solve "the conflict"
whose analysis occupies most of our time. I say that this is something fortunate because, if it had been
maintained, you would tell me what would
have been the international image of a country, in which the institutional
channels of the normal and natural political
dialogue, the parliaments, could be replaced by others organs outside their legal and constitutional tradition,
constituting a partial forum for making agreements, or preparing them.
Especially when it came covered with a supposed international position taken by
an autonomous government that wanted to be placed on an equal footing with the
Government of the nation. And this happens precisely on the eve of the
beginning of the trial of the political leaders of what has been called
"el procés".
This bilateralism,
deviant or improper because it does not fit within the precise channels of
bilateral relations between central and regional bodies, - which, in federal or
strongly decentralized states, must necessarily be accompanied by multilateral
cooperation bodies as ordinary instruments of decision-making -, was occupying
an excessive space in the relations between, we would say, Spain and Catalonia. The space was excessive because bilateralism
cannot condition multilateral collaboration, which is what truly unites, by federalizing, all political bodies and institutions.
It is something similar to what happens in the European Union, where the common
decision-making spaces, which are the most relevant, co-exist with other
bilateral spaces or with one or more of the Member States, always keeping in
mind that it is in these common institutions such as the Parliament, the
Commission or the Council, where all the Member States are present, where sit the
ones who, in the last instance, play a leading role in the decisions that are
made, in accordance with established procedures.
If the rapporteur or the board of parties had been maintained, tell me what
would have happened to the image of Spain.
Why was there, here in Spain, a process of
consolidation of a bilateralism not fitting in the design that the
constitutional order had prefigured? The problem comes from afar. It is not a
novelty. And it derives from a political drama that began to be represented
when, too soon, the principles of consensus and the broad agreement that had
marked the transition to democracy and the first years of its implementation
began to be abandoned. The problem, which, I repeat, comes from afar, is
reflected in the fact that, due to the practice that has been consolidated, it
gives the impression that the big parties have not believed in the State.
It is possible that they did not believe in it
because just when it was most necessary for democratic principles and practices
to be strengthened, to build a complex
State, far from what during the dictatorship had been a constant, the
parties were not aware that it was necessary to reinforce the foundations of
this new building, based on the rule of law, democracy and human rights. They
were not aware of this and, when they did not have absolute majorities
(sometimes even having them) and needed a few votes to achieve an investiture,
approve budgets or adopt certain policies that should have been
"State", in the absence of that solid consensus on general
principles, they have dedicated themselves to buying the missing votes to the
peripheral nationalisms. And, of course, that price has been amply paid. Not
because the nationalists were nationalists, but because a large part of that
nationalism has evolved towards postulates clearly contrary to the constitutional
order. Even so, even noticing that part of the nationalism was looking hard for
the blowing up of the State, the short-term tactic of agreement with that
nationalism, clearly secessionist in certain cases, continues to be applied,
reinforcing that improper bilateralism which is producing such disastrous
outcomes.
Why is that bilateralism created? Because, apparently, the great parties of
Spain have not yet believed the State.
The relinquishments, or concessions, by means of the bilateral method,pollute, in addition, the national panorama. They break with the
constitutional and legal model, skirting the general instruments of
cooperation. They intend to facilitate that the agreement with such or such
autonomous community could condition what the rest have to do, be it in
financing, in education, in any public policy, obviating that what is decided
would have to contain, necessarily, respect and adequacy to the general bases.
Hence, it is necessary to oppose the consolidation of this "technique" that leads to nowhere, as we have just confirmed, except to the pollution of positions.
It is clear that political dialogue is necessary, since this is the essence of
democracy. Within the law, since this cannot be otherwise in the Rule of Law.
And with all due respect to the human rights of all people, without excluding
anyone for not sharing certain political creeds. This entails retaking concepts
that helped us to begin to build the democratic state in the 1978 Constitution
and that it is necessary to recover to redirect the problems we now have. Non-discriminatory
dialogue, but within the constitutional framework. Dialogue which does not only
recognize the representatives of secessionism
and its allies as its subject, but also includes the opposition, as is the case
with democracies. A dialogue which is carried out within the strictest respect
for the functioning of institutions, which cannot be exploited or reduced to
nothingness because it suits the interests of any parliamentary majority.
It is evident that political dialogue is needed, it is the essence of
democracy, but within the legality.
Only when agreements are reached constructively,
within institutional channels and respecting the rights of all people, such
agreements cease to be seen as inadequate "relinquishments". If these indicators fail, these "relinquishments"
appear to the public as something spurious and generate distrust. We are still
in time to recompose that constitutional framework that is in danger. It is
still possible that we recover that democratic "tone" that is being lost. We need to do it and, if we
leave aside short-termism, the improper
bilateralism and biased interests, little by little we will be able to
redirect the situation. We must dedicate
our energy to it.
0 comentarios:
Post a Comment