Opinió

 

<3/72>

Paul Costello

26.09.2014

Pluralism vs. separatism?

As an avid reader of Mr. Friedman’s writing I feel obliged to respond to his recent op-ed entitled 'Three Cheers for Pluralism Over Separatism' (New York Times, Sept. 20, 2014). The piece argues against Catalan and Scottish independence using a plurality of references that include the UK, Spain, the US, France, racism, religious intolerance, Iraq, Syria, the Ottomans, the Lebanese Civil War, the whole Middle East, Google (and its founders), the Fortune 500 firms, what politics is supposed to be about, and immigration reform.


The global perspective that characterizes Mr. Friedman’s analyses is usually enlightening and refreshing; however in this case I think excessive distance has led to a blurred and erroneous representation.


The piece is based on an illogical juxtaposition of pluralism and separatism – a term usually selected because of its negative connotations instead of, for example, independence (which would undoubtedly be the term employed for successful independence movements such as that of United States from Great Britain). Pluralism is a principle or value relating to diversity within a society. This is not inherently opposed to the pursuit of independence of a political unit. Otherwise, if we accept that pluralism is good (which I fully accept) and that political independence decreases the existence of pluralism (highly dubious), then this would logically imply that it would be desirable to reduce the number of independent states today. Not only has the global reality over the past centuries shown the opposite trend, this would mean that the amalgamation of existing states is logically just as desirable as Mr. Friedman suggests the independence of Catalonia is undesirable.


If Mr. Friedman delved a little deeper into the current political reality in Catalonia and Spain he might see that his argument in favor of pluralism would most probably land him on the opposite side of the Spanish state in its confrontation with Catalonia. For decades, if not centuries, Catalan political forces have sought to build a pluralist Spain; while the desire for independence remained marginal. The Spanish state, for the same amount of time if not more, has mirrored Jacobin France in its pursuit to homogenize its population and culture. The historic attempt and 'desire to hispanicize Catalan children' (Spanish Minister of Education, October 2012) is antithetical to the pluralism advocated by Mr. Friedman.


This absence of pluralism and its consequent lack of recognition of the Catalan culture as forming part of Spain are at the core of the Catalan disaffection with the Spanish state. The movement for independence is not fuelled by a desire to be culturally separate from Spain; in fact there are many people that identify themselves as Spanish who are in favor of a referendum and even independence. However, the alternative to independence is living with the constant threat of having the state in Madrid take decisions that are detrimental to Catalan education and culture. In fact, in the current political situation, the only arguments used that are related to identity and origins are being made by those who oppose the referendum. In an article making this exact point, Mr. Reyes, the President of Sumate (a platform of Spanish-speaking Catalans in favor of independence) was called an 'uncle Tom' on Twitter (because of he was born in Andalusia) by Societat Civil Catalana, a supposedly moderate platform that encompasses those who oppose the holding of a referendum – a position that should not be confused with those who might advocate for voting against independence.


Mr. Friedman’s piece cites Mr Torreblanca, whose opinions are surely worth noting; however, personally, I find it somewhat illegitimate to ignore people asking to vote, and telling them what politics 'should' be about. Traditional arguments about growth and redistribution do form part of the current political debate, but the core issue for those who seek independence is where these policies are made. Particularly since there is a limited margin to decide on redistribution, and the economic and infrastructure policies of the Spanish state with regard to Catalonia have almost always been the same, regardless of the political inclination of the government in Madrid.


Ultimately, I find that it is intellectually very challenging to argue against independence if this is the will of the majority expressed democratically. This challenge is what may lead to the logical acrobatics of juxtaposing pluralism and independence. There is nothing inherently wrong with a state becoming independent; a majority of countries in the world today are testament to this. Otherwise someone should notify the long list of countries that have become independent from Spain.


The arguments against independence that refer to the 'dangers' of independence are almost always based on the undisclosed assumptions of the Spanish state’s hostile and vituperative reaction to a potential independence (exclusion from the EU because of Spain’s veto, interruption of trade relations, etc.). The only unavoidable economic impact is that the Spanish government’s budget would lose the revenue corresponding to the Catalan tax base, as well as the corresponding expenses. But even this excludes the very reasonable possibility of negotiating an agreement for an economically and financially smooth transition to independence.


I am a firm believer in pluralism, and I fully agree that more of it is needed. Although in my opinion this view is entirely compatible with the political option of seeking independence, or opposing independence, with the legitimacy and power of one´s ballot. As I mentioned previously, I am an avid reader of Mr. Friedman and his analyses, which is why in this case I feel obliged to point out that the excessively distant perspective results in fundamental misconceptions, some of which are particularly shocking and potentially confusing, such as the inclusion of unrelated themes like the rise of xenophobic and anti-immigration parties in Europe, or the current situation in Syria and Iraq. Essentially, the argument is about the Catalans’ right to vote, democratically and pacifically. I do not find it necessary or correct to juxtapose this movement to a fundamentally good value such as pluralism and its wonderful manifestations in the United States.

Editorial