Friday, September 25, 2020

Catalonian Secessionist Movement in Spain: The Genesis and Present Status

This article is by

Share this article

Article Contributor(s)

Syed Ahmed Uzair

Article Title

Catalonian Secessionist Movement in Spain: The Genesis and Present Status

Publisher

Global Views 360

Publication Date

September 25, 2020

URL

Pro Independence Protest

Pro Independence Protest | Source: Joan Ribot Mundet via Wikimedia

Catalonia with its capital in Barcelona, is one of the wealthiest and historically significant regions of Spain. The region is home to around 7.5 million people and has its own official language, parliament, flag, and anthem.

The region was granted considerable autonomy by the 1978 constitution of Spain. The legislature of the autonomous Catalan region passed Statute of Autonomy which was approved by the national parliament and ratified by the Catalan electorates in a referendum in 2006.

What’s the latest buzz surrounding the region?

Pro-referendum rally in Montjuic, Barcelona | Source: Amadalvarez via Wikimedia

On 1st October, 2017, a referendum was organized in Catalonia for independence despite opposition from the central government of Spain. Owing to the resistance from Madrid, the voter turnout was just a lowly 43%. However, the Yes option won by a massive 90% margin.

Under a tense environment, the separatist majority in the Catalan parliament announced independence on 27th October, 2017. However, Madrid reacted strongly to the move by dissolving the Catalan parliament under Article 155 emergency powers and initiated a violent crackdown on the protesters and separatist leaders in the region. Nearly three years since the referendum, Catalan leaders remain in jail or in exile. The entire crisis has been termed as Spain’s biggest political-crisis since 1975, when democracy was restored post General Franco, the military dictator’s death.

Catalonia- A brief history

Supporters of General Franco | Source: Wikimedia

Catalonia as a region enjoyed a high level of autonomy before General Francisco Franco led Nationalist forces overthrew the Spanish democratic republic in 1936. Overthrow of Spanish democratic republic resulted in a three year long Spanish Civil War which raged from 1936 to 1939. In 1938 when the country was going through a phase of overhyped nationalist sentiments during the civil war, General Franco abolished the region's autonomy. General Franco ruled Spain as a dictator from 1936 till he died in 1975. After his death, Spanish democracy and Catalonian autonomy were restored once again.

There were calls for independence of Catalonia from fringe elements from time to time, but it was not supported by the mainstream political or social organisations. However this changed when Spain’s Constitutional Court issued a landmark ruling In 2010 and declared some of the articles of the 2006 Statute of Autonomy as unconstitutional.

There were massive protests in Catalonia against the Supreme court ruling, specially against the provision which place the distinctive Catalan language above Spanish in the region and ruling that “The interpretation of the references to ‘Catalonia as a nation’ and to ‘the national reality of Catalonia’ in the preamble of the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia have no legal effect.”

Why do Catalans insist on independence?

Concert for Catalonian Independence | Source: Núria via Flickr

A lot of Catalans believe that Catalonia has a moral, cultural and political right for self-existence and that it has long put Spain’s best economic interests in priority despite not getting enough in return. Many Catalans are also unhappy with the decision of Spanish SC to declare the 2006 Statute of Autonomy as unconstitutional. They argue that it would have given Catalonia greater independence and by annulling it Spain is interfering with the internal affairs of Catalonia.

A timeline of Catalonia’s modern independence movement

Carles Puigdemont, the regional President of Catalonia | Source: Wikimedia

On September 11, 2012, thousands of protesters gathered in Barcelona to show support for the independence movement. Later in November, signaling a major shift in the politics of the region, the majority of the seats were won by pro-independence parties in the Catalan regional parliament.

On November 9, 2014, Catalan authorities held a mock vote for an independence referendum despite a prohibition order from Madrid. The then regional president Artur Mas, along with three other Catalan cabinet members were later fined for disobedience and misuse of public funds.

On June 9, 2017, Carles Puigdemont, the then regional president of Catalonia announced plans for a ‘binding’ independence referendum. Madrid declared the referendum as illegal and Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy vowed to stop the vote.

On October 1, 2017, the referendum was organized under a tense atmosphere which saw a lowly 43% voter turnout. Reportedly the Civil Guard and National Police forces raided a few polling stations and clashed with the voters even as the Catalan Police mostly stood down. Puigdemont claimed a landslide win for secession in the referendum.

On October 27, 2017, the Catalan parliament declared Catalonia as an independent republic even as no foreign nation recognized the declaration. Spain PM Rajoy immediately invoked constitutional powers to take over Catalonia and fired Puigdemont and his cabinet members.

On October 31, 2017, Puigdemont and a few of his deposed cabinet members fled from Catalonia to Belgium. Puigdemont successfully fought against his extradition to Spain and established his residence in Waterloo.

Aftermath of a failed independence attempt

Ever since Puigdemont fled to Belgium, Spain took control over the region and has sent all the major accomplices of Puigdemont and pro-independence leaders to jail. Most of them have been served with lengthy jail terms for being a part of the controversial independence referendum of October 2017.

Although direct rule was lifted after the formation of the new Catalan government in June 2018, the single biggest winning party was the center-right, pro-unionist Citizens party, which took 37 seats. Three pro-independence parties also secured around 70 seats combined in the 135-seat regional parliament election. Protests for independence have mostly faded away in the region.

What happens next?

The current Catalan regional president, Quim Torra has called for the Catalans to greet guilty verdicts with a ‘huge show of nonviolent civil disobedience’. Spain’s Prime Minister, Pedro Sanchez has been much less brutal compared to his predecessor Rajoy. However, he has maintained that any negotiations will have to be adhered to by the constitution while ruling out the possibility of a referendum.

The political tussle between Puigdemont and his allies who favor pressurizing Madrid with provocative moves, and the Catalan Republic Left which has sought to employ a less confrontational and more practical approach has made the situation quite volatile. However this apparent disunity among the political leadership of Catalonia has resulted in a gradual reduction of public support for the independence movement of Catalonia.

Support us to bring the world closer

To keep our content accessible we don't charge anything from our readers and rely on donations to continue working. Your support is critical in keeping Global Views 360 independent and helps us to present a well-rounded world view on different international issues for you. Every contribution, however big or small, is valuable for us to keep on delivering in future as well.

Support Us

Share this article

Read More

February 4, 2021 5:22 PM

Automated Facial Recognition System of India and its Implications

On 28th of June 2019, the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) opened bids and invited Turnkey Solution providers to implement a centralized Automated Facial Recognition System, or AFRS, in India. As the name suggests, AFRS is a facial recognition system which was proposed by the Indian Ministry of Home Affairs, geared towards modernizing the police force and to identify and track criminals using Facial Recognition Technology, or FRT.

The aforementioned technology uses databases of photos collected from criminal records, CCTV cameras, newspapers and media, driver’s license and government identities to collect facial data of people. FRT then identifies the people and uses their biometrics to map facial features and geometry of the face. The software then creates a “facial signature” based on the information collected. A mathematical formula is associated with each facial signature and it is subsequently compared to a database of known faces.

This article explores the implications of implementing Automated Facial Recognition technology in India.

Facial recognition software has become widely popular in the past decade. Several countries have been trying to establish efficient Facial Recognition systems for tackling crime and assembling an efficient criminal tracking system. Although there are a few potential benefits of using the technology, those benefits seem to be insignificant when compared to the several concerns about privacy and safety of people that the technology poses.

Images of every person captured by CCTV cameras and other sources will be regarded as images of potential criminals and will be matched against the Crime and Criminal Tracking Networks and Systems database (CCTNS) by the FRT. This implies that all of us will be treated as potential criminals when we walk past a CCTV camera. As a consequence, the assumption of “innocent until proven guilty” will be turned on its head.

You wouldn’t be surprised to know that China has installed the largest centralized FRT system in the world. In China, data can be collected and analyzed from over 200 million CCTVs that the country owns. Additionally, there are 20 million specialized facial recognition cameras which continuously collect data for analysis. These systems are currently used by China to track and manipulate the behavior of ethnic Uyghur minorities in the camps set up in Xinjiang region. FRT was also used by China during democracy protests of Hong Kong to profile protestors to identify them. These steps raised concerns worldwide about putting an end to a person’s freedom of expression, right to privacy and basic dignity.

It is very likely that the same consequences will be faced by Indians if AFRS is established across the country.

There are several underlying concerns about implementing AFRS.

Firstly, this system has proven to be inefficient in several instances. In August 2018, Delhi police used a facial recognition system which was reported to have an accuracy rate of 2%. The FRT software used by the UK's Metropolitan Police returned more than a staggering 98% of false positives. Another instance was when American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) used Amazon’s face recognition software known as “Rekognition” to compare the images of the legislative members of American Congress with a database of criminal mugshots. To Amazon’s embarrassment, the results included 28 incorrect matches.. Another significant evidence of inefficiency was the outcome of an experiment performed by McAfee.  Here is what they did. The researchers used an algorithm known as CycleGAN which is used for image translation. CycleGAN is a software expert at morphing photographs. One can use the software to change horses into zebras and paintings into photographs. McAfee used the software to misdirect the Facial recognition algorithm. The team used 1500 photos of two members and fed them into CycleGAN which morphed them into one another and kept feeding the resulting images into different facial recognition algorithms to check who it recognized. After generating hundreds of such images, CycleGAN eventually generated a fake image which looked like person ‘A’ to the naked eye but managed to trick the FRT into thinking that it was person ‘B’. Owing to the dissatisfactory results, researchers expressed their concern about the inefficiency of FRTs. In fact mere eye-makeup can fool the FRT into allowing a person on a no-flight list to board the flight. This trend of inefficiency in the technology was noticed worldwide.

Secondly, facial recognition systems use machine learning technology. It is concerning and uncomfortable to note that FRT has often reflected the biases deployed in the society. Consequently, leading to several facial mismatches. A study by MIT shows that FRT routinely misidentifies people of color, women and young people. While the error rate was 8.1% for men, it was 20.6% for women. The error for women of color was 34%. The error values in the “supervised study” in a laboratory setting for a sample population is itself simply unacceptable. In the abovementioned American Civil Liberties Union study, the false matches were disproportionately African American and people of color. In India, 55% of prisoners undertrial are either Dalits, Adivasis, or Muslims although the combined population of all three just amounts to 39% of the total population (2011 census). If AFRS is trained on these records, it would definitely deploy the same socially held prejudices against the minority communities. Therefore, displaying inaccurate matches. The tender issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs had no indication of eliminating these biases nor did it have any mention of human-verifiable results. Using a system embedded with societal bias to replace biased human judgement defeats claims of technological neutrality. Deploying FRT systems in law enforcement will be ineffective at best and disastrous at worst.

Thirdly, the concerns of invasion of privacy and mass surveillance hasn’t been addressed satisfactorily. Facial Recognition makes data protection almost impossible as publicly available information is collected but they are analyzed to a point of intimacy. India does not have a well established data protection law given that “Personal data Protection Bill” is yet to be enforced. Implementing AFRS in the absence of a safeguard is a potential threat to our personal data. Moreover, police and other law enforcement agencies will have a great degree of discretion over our data which can lead to a mission creep. To add on to the list of privacy concerns, the bidder of AFRS will be largely responsible for maintaining confidentiality and integrity of data which will be stored apart from the established ISO standard. Additionally, the tender has no preference to “Make in India'' and shows absolutely no objections to foreign bidders and even to those having their headquarters in China, the hub of data breach .The is no governing system or legal limitations and restrictions to the technology. There is no legal standard set to ensure proportional use and protection to those who non-consensually interact with the system. Furthermore, the tender does not mention the definition of a “criminal”. Is a person considered a criminal when a charge sheet is filed against them? Or is it when the person is arrested? Or is it an individual convicted by the Court? Or is it any person who is a suspect? Since the word “criminal” isn’t definitely defined in the tender, the law enforcement agencies will ultimately be able to track a larger number of people than required.

The notion that AFRS will lead to greater efficacy must be critically questioned. San Francisco imposed a total ban on police use of facial recognition in May, 2019. Police departments in London are pressurized to put a stop to the use of FRT after several instances of discrimination and inefficiency. It would do well to India to learn from the mistakes of other countries rather than committing the same.

Read More