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

July 17, 2021 6:39 PM

How facebook helps the Authoritarian Regime in Vietnam

The ability of coercing American tech giants like Facebook into compliance is definitely a talking point to brag for the Vietnamese leaders. In October 2019, Facebook’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg stated that “Facebook stands for free expression. In a democracy, a private company shouldn’t have the power to censor politicians or the news.” However, Facebook’s double standard is no novelty. In August 2019, the Minister of Information and Communications, Nguyen Manh Hung took the parliamentary floor and stated that Facebook was restricting access to “increasing amounts” of content in Vietnam. Further, Hung stated that Facebook was complying with 70-75% of the Vietnamese government’s requests for post restrictions. In October 2020, this number went up to 95% for Facebook. Facebook acknowledged that the amount of content on which restrictions were imposed jumped by over 500% in the second half of 2018 alone.

Unlike China, Vietnam has adopted a relatively open attitude to western social media. Vietnamese politicians consider social media beneficial, perhaps it helps the promotion of their missions, personal agendas and even propagandas. In fact, Vietnam happens to have a military unit—called Force 47—with the purpose to correct “wrong views” on the internet. Whereas, there is no set set definition of the “wrong views,” people—if found guilty—can be jailed upto 20 years.

Furthermore, blocking western social media might not be in the self-interest of Vietnam, as doing so can hamper relations with the U.S.—with whom Vietnam desires to strengthen ties. The top communist strata of Vietnam for decades, have been single-minded on what they identify as “toxic information”. The definition of “toxic information” has only broadened over the years and has enabled the authorities to bend the term as per their whims. Vietnamese leaders have misused the threat of “toxic information” by branding content unfavorable to their regime with the term.

Facebook removed over 620 supposed fake accounts, over 2,200 links and several thousand posts which are deemed to be ‘anti-state’ from Vietnam in 2020. In a country without independent media, Vietnamese people are reliant on platforms like Facebook to read and discuss vital and controversial issues such as the dispute in Dong Tam. Dong tam is a village outside Vietnam’s capital, Hanoi, where residents were fighting the authorities’ plans to seize their farmlands in order to build a factory. 40-year-old Bui Van Thuan, a chemistry teacher and blogger, showed his solidarity to the fight and condemned the country’s leaders in one of his Facebook posts which stated “Your crimes will be engraved on my mind. I know you, the land robbers, will do everything, however cruel it is, to grab the people’s land.” On government’s insistence, Facebook blocked his account the very next day preventing over 60-million Vietnamese users from seeing his posts. A day later, Dong tam village was stormed by police with grenades and tear gas. A village leader and three officers were killed just as Thuan had anticipated. Thuan’s account remained suspended for three months after which Facebook informed him that the ban would be permanent. “We have confirmed that you are not eligible to use Facebook,” the message read in Vietnamese. Towards the end of murder trial held over the clash, a Facebook spokesperson said Thuan’s account was blocked due to an error and the timing of the lifting of restrictions was coincidental. The spokesperson denied censoring profiles as per the demands of the government. Thuan’s blacklisting illustrates how willingly Facebook submits to the authoritarian government’s censorship demands.

In April 2018, 16 activist groups and media organizations and 34 well-known Facebook users wrote an open letter to the CEO Mark Zuckerberg, accusing Facebook of assisting Vietnam to suppress dissenting voices. Force 47 or E47, a 10,000-member cyber unit was singled out in the letter. The letter called the unit “state-sponsored trolls” that spread misinformation about the Vietnamese pro-democracy activists.

Force 47 was deployed in 2016 by the state to maintain a “healthy” internet environment. The cyber unit took advantage of the very apparent loophole in Facebook’s community guidelines which automatically removes content if enough people lodge a complaint or report the post/account. The letter alleged that the government used Force 47 to target and suspend accounts or content.

According to a report by The Intercept, the modus operandi of E47 is that a member shares a target who is often a pro-democratic political dissident writer or activist. The information of the target who is nominated for censorship is accompanied with an image of the target with a red “X” marked over it. Anyone interested in victimizing the target needs to just report the account or post for violating Facebook’s pliant community standards regardless of whether the rules were actually broken. The E47 users are asked to rate the targeted page one out of five stars, falsely flag the post and report the page itself.  

Do Nguyen Mai Khoi, a singer and a pro-democracy activist, popularly known as “the Lady Gaga of Vietnam” has been tirelessly trying for over two years to get Facebook to care about the censorship in Vietnam. She has tried to get Facebook’s attention to the fact that groups like Force 47, a pro-government Facebook group of police, military, and other Communist party loyalists have actively been collaborating to suppress the voice of dissidents both offline and online. Her evidence has been substantial and her arguments carry ample clarity. Despite several interactions with Alex Warofka, a Facebook product policy manager for human rights, Mai khoi’s efforts have not been sincerely addressed. Instead, what they claimed was more infuriating. They said “We were not able to identify a sufficient level of community standards violations in order to remove that particular group (E47) or those particular actors.” Since E47 actors are under real names, photos and authentic identities, Facebook dismissed Mai Khoi’s evidence. “At a high level, we require both widespread coordination, as well as the use of inauthentic accounts and identity,” Warofka told Khoi.

Dipayan Ghosh, a former public policy advisor at Facebook and the co-director of the Digital Platforms & Democracy Project at Harvard’s Kennedy School stated:

“I think for Zuckerberg the calculus with Vietnam is clear: It’s to maintain service in a country that has a huge population and in which Facebook dominates the consumer internet market, or else a competitor may step in. The thought process for the company is not about maintaining service for free speech. It’s about maintaining service for the revenue.”

It wouldn’t be surprising to note that the inconsistency of Facebook’s ostensible community guidelines and policies extend beyond Vietnam. In 2016, during the time of political unrest in Turkey, access to Facebook and other social media were repeatedly restricted and further complied to the Turkish government’s request to restrict 1,823 pieces of content which the government deemed unlawful. In 2018, Facebook owned Instagram complied with demands of the Russian government to remove content related to opposition activist Alexei Navalny’s anti-corruption investigation therefore making it inaccessible for over 5 million users who watched and followed Navalny’s investigation. Facebook also routinely restricts posts that governments deem sensitive or off-limits in countries including Cuba, India, Israel, Morocco and Pakistan.

While the CEO of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, claims that the platform protects free expression, Facebook has been an active facilitator and flag-bearer of autocratic regimes. The social media giant’s apparent indifference and ignorance has failed its users terribly.

Read More