32 ms·

It's nearly 100 years since the matter of Catalan independence was first mooted and 80 years since the end of the Spanish Civil War and matters surrounding the

It's nearly 100 years since the matter of Catalan independence was first mooted and 80 years since the end of the Spanish Civil War and matters surrounding the formation of an autonomous Catalonian State remain far from any real resolution. This just isn't just a political dispute that if given sufficient time will eventually dissipate, rather it's a fundamental one of cultural and language differences and the heavy-handedness of the Spanish state is only making matters worse. In a world where modern democracies everywhere are coming under increasing stress because state authorities are increasingly breaking the long-held covenants of trust that bind a state and its citizenry, these outrageous sentences only make a further mockery out of the law. Ultimately, cool heads soon need to resolve this stand-of or inevitably it will lead to further civil disobedience and possibly worse. And one must never forget that the last time this happened in 1936-'39 many hundreds of thousands died over the issue. In the modern Europe of today, borne out of the horrific chaos of WWII (and its prelude the Spanish Civil War), there should be no place where people should be subject to such authoritarian rule as they have been subjected to here. It's now time for Europe to pressure Spain to finally give the people of Catalonia both their autonomy and freedom. Catalonia has been in Spain's chains far long enough.

lostmsu 7y ago
I was with you until the Catalonia freedom part. Even that unrecognized referendum did not show support for succession AFAIK.
- icebraining 7y ago
  Freedom to choose.
iagovar 7y ago
You have a point, but I think you miss when you say this was a product of authoritarian rule. Catalonia is basically like an US State. They have control of their education, healthcare, police etc, they have their own parliament, and so on. Catalonia already has autonomy. There has been a lot of mistakes on how to handle this situation but Catalan leaders made a calculated decision and forced the situation. You can express any idea, demonstrate, make your own party, but you it's not reasonable to expect that, if you not only break the law, but try to seize a large portion of a country and its resources, and just ignore the will of about half of the population in that very region, the spanish state does nothing. And I'm not even mentioning a shitload of things that are also going on in this issue that makes it way more complicated, typical in this multi-layered spanish power plays.
- capableweb 7y ago
  > You have a point, but I think you miss when you say this was a product of authoritarian rule. Catalonia is basically like an US State. They have control of their education, healthcare, police etc, they have their own parliament, and so on. Catalonia already has autonomy. It's wrong to say that Catalonia is basically a US state, since US is a federation while Spain is a unitary state. This means the central government can overrule whatever the communities decide on. They don't have the same authority over ruling, as the central power has in the case of Spain. Then I suppose one of the bigger issues remain in answering "Is Catalonia autonomous enough?" and "Who decides how autonomous Catalonia should be?"
  - hilbert42 7y ago
    "You can express any idea, demonstrate, make your own party, but you it's not reasonable to expect that, if you not only break the law, but try to seize a large portion of a country and its resources, and just ignore the will of about half of the population in that very region, the spanish state does nothing." I generally agree you in both practice and principle and in a democracy democratic processes say what laws or rules apply. And this is how things normally work in stable democracies. The trouble is that these days democracies are coming under considerable and increasing strain from various competing interests whose worldviews are essentially irreconcilable. Whilst this has always been so to some extent, in the past a 'reasonable' government could evaluate competing interests then come up with effective and acceptable laws based on utilitarian principles. Nowadays that's far from easy—and it's becoming increasingly so for many reasons that are too complex to detail here expect to say that attitudes and norms within societies have changed, and together with improved communications, internationalism and changes over the past 40 or so years in the way capitalism plays a role in society have had much to do with it. At the risk of oversimplifying these complex issues, here's a few examples. Let's say a government is under pressure by a majority of citizens to regulate the bad behavior of certain types corporations but the corporations strenuously fight the proposal on the grounds of loss of jobs, loss of profits, interference in the free market and violations of international trade agreements, etc. so a stalemate ensues and thus nothing or little is done. In a previous era, the issues about 'free markets' and 'violations of international trade agreements' would have played a much lesser role and back then corporations effectively had less influence on government policy, thus governments would have found it easier to regulate. These days, there are so many instances where governments have failed to regulate that the citizenry has a justifiable right to be annoyed and to assume the democratic process has failed it. [Incidentally, one such matter has again made it into today's HN, that's the huge price Big Pharma is charging for drugs—that government has failed to act for so long is symptomatic of the problem: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21250491 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21250491] Another is the rise of identity politics. Whatever one's views on this are it is hard to disagree with the fact that nowadays it is increasingly difficult to govern a country where its citizens hold so few views in common. Clearly, a society wherein a majority hold common views and interests makes governance easier but today this structure has broken down to the extent that governing for all is very difficult, especially so in a democracy. Once only four or five decades ago, those within a society were much more homogeneous in their views than they are today. Back then a majority of citizens held similar views as they were bound together by a common culture or race, or by religion and or by isolation from other societies any or all of which would have steered the society in certain directions. Today, the parallel between the governance of a democracy and the parable from Aesop's fable* The Man, The Boy, and The Donkey of 'try to please all and you will please none' is truer than ever. I would add that in this era where one's rights and sense of entitlement trump the Rousseauian notion of the General Will of the Citizenry then governments are damned if they do or they don't. Quo vadis? We should look to history for examples of what happens when citizenries consider their governance has gone beyond the pale. All too often, we see that when a majority of citizens hold such high levels of mistrust in and discontent with their government then it often boils over into an uprising, insurrection or revolution, and inevitably, it does not end well—even for the 'winning' side. Moreover, we've many notable examples whose outcomes we actually accept (and often respect) as we live with and abide by the rules and laws they've since engendered, notably the French Revolution, English Civil War, American War of Independence and the Russian Revolutions of 1905 and 1917 just to name a few. Sure, the outcome of every one of these social upheavals was political change but the cost in human terms was enormous: they were all brutal and bloody events that for many thousands of citizens ended in tragedy and or death. I would suggest that no reasonable person would ever recommend these ways of achieving change unless is was absolutely the last resort. That leaves the issue of what do we do short of revolution when democracy breaks down to the point where effective governance is lost; for, as I see it, that's where those of us who live in democracies are headed right now. In almost every country, both democratic and totalitarian, we are seeing many laws enacted that are increasingly authoritarian by nature and in their extent, all of which inexorably result in fewer freedoms being available for individuals. Frankly, I consider that living in a state where every citizen, year after year, has less and less autonomy to act as very worrisome and quite frightening—especially so when there is seemingly no end in sight and where politicians consistently fail to provide both sufficient explanations and justifications of such laws. It's in this light that I suggested that Catalonia be set free of its Spanish chains (irrespective of Spanish laws) as this is probably the most efficacious and pragmatic solution—at least in the short term. It too is likely to be the best solution when it comes to minimizing future violence and bloodshed, which as history amply demonstrates, is highly likely if the matter continues to fester. Essentially, in respect of Catalonia, Spain should collectively pull its head in and accept that it has lost some national sovereignty—after all; it's something Spain has had to do many times over the centuries as the Spanish Empire crumbled so by now it ought to know how to manage the loss successfully. The matter of how we citizens should manage our democracies in the longer-term should be foremost in the thoughts of every citizen right now. We citizens not only must re-establish trust between those whom we elect to govern us but also forge new and effective covenants that will be the basis of all future and ongoing law. We should not expect this process to be easy or quick as entrenched power-hungry bureaucrats and implacable governments will no doubt fight us citizens every inch of the way. - * https://fablesofaesop.com/the-man-the-boy-and-the-donkey.html https://fablesofaesop.com/the-man-the-boy-and-the-donkey.htm...

lostmsu 7y ago

I was with you until the Catalonia freedom part. Even that unrecognized referendum did not show support for succession AFAIK.

icebraining 7y ago
Freedom to choose.

iagovar 7y ago

You have a point, but I think you miss when you say this was a product of authoritarian rule. Catalonia is basically like an US State. They have control of their education, healthcare, police etc, they have their own parliament, and so on. Catalonia already has autonomy. There has been a lot of mistakes on how to handle this situation but Catalan leaders made a calculated decision and forced the situation. You can express any idea, demonstrate, make your own party, but you it's not reasonable to expect that, if you not only break the law, but try to seize a large portion of a country and its resources, and just ignore the will of about half of the population in that very region, the spanish state does nothing. And I'm not even mentioning a shitload of things that are also going on in this issue that makes it way more complicated, typical in this multi-layered spanish power plays.

capableweb 7y ago
> You have a point, but I think you miss when you say this was a product of authoritarian rule. Catalonia is basically like an US State. They have control of their education, healthcare, police etc, they have their own parliament, and so on. Catalonia already has autonomy. It's wrong to say that Catalonia is basically a US state, since US is a federation while Spain is a unitary state. This means the central government can overrule whatever the communities decide on. They don't have the same authority over ruling, as the central power has in the case of Spain. Then I suppose one of the bigger issues remain in answering "Is Catalonia autonomous enough?" and "Who decides how autonomous Catalonia should be?"
- hilbert42 7y ago
  "You can express any idea, demonstrate, make your own party, but you it's not reasonable to expect that, if you not only break the law, but try to seize a large portion of a country and its resources, and just ignore the will of about half of the population in that very region, the spanish state does nothing." I generally agree you in both practice and principle and in a democracy democratic processes say what laws or rules apply. And this is how things normally work in stable democracies. The trouble is that these days democracies are coming under considerable and increasing strain from various competing interests whose worldviews are essentially irreconcilable. Whilst this has always been so to some extent, in the past a 'reasonable' government could evaluate competing interests then come up with effective and acceptable laws based on utilitarian principles. Nowadays that's far from easy—and it's becoming increasingly so for many reasons that are too complex to detail here expect to say that attitudes and norms within societies have changed, and together with improved communications, internationalism and changes over the past 40 or so years in the way capitalism plays a role in society have had much to do with it. At the risk of oversimplifying these complex issues, here's a few examples. Let's say a government is under pressure by a majority of citizens to regulate the bad behavior of certain types corporations but the corporations strenuously fight the proposal on the grounds of loss of jobs, loss of profits, interference in the free market and violations of international trade agreements, etc. so a stalemate ensues and thus nothing or little is done. In a previous era, the issues about 'free markets' and 'violations of international trade agreements' would have played a much lesser role and back then corporations effectively had less influence on government policy, thus governments would have found it easier to regulate. These days, there are so many instances where governments have failed to regulate that the citizenry has a justifiable right to be annoyed and to assume the democratic process has failed it. [Incidentally, one such matter has again made it into today's HN, that's the huge price Big Pharma is charging for drugs—that government has failed to act for so long is symptomatic of the problem: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21250491 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21250491] Another is the rise of identity politics. Whatever one's views on this are it is hard to disagree with the fact that nowadays it is increasingly difficult to govern a country where its citizens hold so few views in common. Clearly, a society wherein a majority hold common views and interests makes governance easier but today this structure has broken down to the extent that governing for all is very difficult, especially so in a democracy. Once only four or five decades ago, those within a society were much more homogeneous in their views than they are today. Back then a majority of citizens held similar views as they were bound together by a common culture or race, or by religion and or by isolation from other societies any or all of which would have steered the society in certain directions. Today, the parallel between the governance of a democracy and the parable from Aesop's fable* The Man, The Boy, and The Donkey of 'try to please all and you will please none' is truer than ever. I would add that in this era where one's rights and sense of entitlement trump the Rousseauian notion of the General Will of the Citizenry then governments are damned if they do or they don't. Quo vadis? We should look to history for examples of what happens when citizenries consider their governance has gone beyond the pale. All too often, we see that when a majority of citizens hold such high levels of mistrust in and discontent with their government then it often boils over into an uprising, insurrection or revolution, and inevitably, it does not end well—even for the 'winning' side. Moreover, we've many notable examples whose outcomes we actually accept (and often respect) as we live with and abide by the rules and laws they've since engendered, notably the French Revolution, English Civil War, American War of Independence and the Russian Revolutions of 1905 and 1917 just to name a few. Sure, the outcome of every one of these social upheavals was political change but the cost in human terms was enormous: they were all brutal and bloody events that for many thousands of citizens ended in tragedy and or death. I would suggest that no reasonable person would ever recommend these ways of achieving change unless is was absolutely the last resort. That leaves the issue of what do we do short of revolution when democracy breaks down to the point where effective governance is lost; for, as I see it, that's where those of us who live in democracies are headed right now. In almost every country, both democratic and totalitarian, we are seeing many laws enacted that are increasingly authoritarian by nature and in their extent, all of which inexorably result in fewer freedoms being available for individuals. Frankly, I consider that living in a state where every citizen, year after year, has less and less autonomy to act as very worrisome and quite frightening—especially so when there is seemingly no end in sight and where politicians consistently fail to provide both sufficient explanations and justifications of such laws. It's in this light that I suggested that Catalonia be set free of its Spanish chains (irrespective of Spanish laws) as this is probably the most efficacious and pragmatic solution—at least in the short term. It too is likely to be the best solution when it comes to minimizing future violence and bloodshed, which as history amply demonstrates, is highly likely if the matter continues to fester. Essentially, in respect of Catalonia, Spain should collectively pull its head in and accept that it has lost some national sovereignty—after all; it's something Spain has had to do many times over the centuries as the Spanish Empire crumbled so by now it ought to know how to manage the loss successfully. The matter of how we citizens should manage our democracies in the longer-term should be foremost in the thoughts of every citizen right now. We citizens not only must re-establish trust between those whom we elect to govern us but also forge new and effective covenants that will be the basis of all future and ongoing law. We should not expect this process to be easy or quick as entrenched power-hungry bureaucrats and implacable governments will no doubt fight us citizens every inch of the way. - * https://fablesofaesop.com/the-man-the-boy-and-the-donkey.html https://fablesofaesop.com/the-man-the-boy-and-the-donkey.htm...