Where next for nationalism?

While I was sunning myself (ha) in Spain last week, there was an important election (well, important for my thesis anyway) in the Basque Country. Voters went to the polls in the Basque regions of Álava, Guipúzcoa and Vizcaya to elect members of the Basque Autonomous assembly - one of seventeen such legislatures in Spain.

The results were interesting for a number of reasons. Firstly, it is the first time since democracy and the autonomous community was instituted in the early 1980s that nationalist parties (in this case, the Partido Nacionalista Vasco (PNV), Eusko Alkartasuna (EA) and Aralar) polled less of the (legitimate) votes cast than non-nationalist parties.

I say "legitimate" votes cast because over 100,000 Basques cast their votes for a party that the Spanish government barred from standing in the election due to their links with ETA - and those votes were for a "nationalist" party as well. However, that's a whole other issue. Here's the result in seats:

PNV - 30
Aralar - 4
EA - 2
TOTAL NATIONALIST - 36

PSE-EE (Basque socialists) - 24
PP (conservative) - 13
EB (Basque Left/Greens) - 1
UPyD - 1
TOTAL NON-NATIONALIST - 39

Interesting in a couple of ways. Firstly, how the government will be formed. For the past 29 years, the PNV have governed the Basque Country and provided its Lehendakari (President) and they remain the largest party in the autonomous legislature. But with the PP pledging their support for the PSE-EE leader, Patxi López (left), as their choice for Lehendakari, it very much looks like the days of nationalist leadership in the Basque Country are over - at least for the moment - though negotiations over this may go one for some time as both the PNV as the largest party and the PSE-EE with a larger "coalition" may claim a mandate.

Secondly, at least from my perspective as a student of nationalist parties in government, it raises several questions about the nature of power and how nationalist parties fit into the party system - and what power does to them. There is an argument to be made (and I think it is one that I might well be making) that nationalist parties, despite having an ideology which transcends day-to-day politics (ie - a distinct constitutional goal) have come to be treated like other political parties. This is especially true when they take over in government - they are then judged on the successes and failures of their policies and not on their ideology, and it is on this basis that their electoral fortunes rests.

The defeat (or victory, depending how you look at it - individual seats over collective anti-nationalist seats would suggest the SNP didn't win the Scottish election in 2007) of the PNV - or nationalist parties plural - in the Basque Country may emphasise this point. Nationalist parties, like other political parties have to maintain a high level of support for their policies in government. When they fail to do so, they will pay for that failure with electoral defeat. But unlike other parties, there does not seem to be a quick way back into government for them. Which begs the following questions: If the PNV could not achieve their constitutional goals in the 29 years they had as a government, has their chance gone?

I don't know the answer to that. But I suspect the question is one the SNP will be thinking about closely in the run up to the 2011 Scottish Parliament election.

Read more...

Rejection for Basque referendum

"An arrogant disregard for the rights of the Basque people."

The words of Basque lehedakari Juan Jose Ibarretxe on the Spanish Constitutional Court's decision not to allow a non-binding referendum on the future of the Basque Country. Here's the question the Constitutional Court rejected as unconstitutional:

¿Está usted de acuerdo en que los partidos vascos, sin exclusiones, inicien un proceso de negociación para alcanzar un acuerdo democrático sobre el ejercicio del derecho a decidir del Pueblo Vasco, y que dicho acuerdo sea sometido a referéndum antes de que finalice el año 2010?

Do you agree that the Basque parties, without exceptions, start a process of negotiation to reach a democratic agreement about the right to decide of the Basque People, and that the aforementioned agreement will be submitted to referendum before the end of the year 2010?

According to the court, it violated Article 2 of the Spanish Constitution of 1978, which reads:

The Constitution is based on the indissoluble unity of the Spanish Nation, the common and indivisible homeland of all Spaniards; it recognizes and guarantees the right to self-government of the nationalities and regions of which it is composed and the solidarity among them all.

Now, in its ambiguity, this article is a bit like the right to bear arms in the US. You can argue that "indissoluble unity" means that no region can break away - or attempt to - which is what the Constitutional Court said. Or you can argue that "self-government of the nationalities and regions" is exactly what Ibarretxe was trying to do - allow for self-government of the Basque Country.

Obviously the case is much more complicated that nuances and semantics. The demonstrations occuring on Saturday - the day the referendum was supposed to be held - emphasise this point.

I guess the point - for closer to home - is this: If the Spanish Government/ Constitutional Court do not allow the Basques to hold a referendum asking their people if they think they should have another referendum on independence, then how would the UK Government react to a Scottish Government proposal for a referendum on independence?

I'd suggest probably not that well. Testing times ahead for the SNP? Perhaps...

Read more...