Posts filed under ‘Politics’
Four ways of thinking I: utilitarianism or thinking about the consequences (Stuart Mill and Bentham)
We make decisions all the time. And when we don’t, usually, problems become graver problems.As you know, it’s better to make the wrong decision than to make no decision at all.
But, on what basis do we construct our decisions? Some people are more practical than others, some people think more on the human side, some people abide to their principles no matter what, and some worry a lot about the consequences.
In fact the most considerable bulk of humans, and that includes me, just mix different ways of thinking and making decisions. We are not pure in our decision making. And the proportions change from one person to another. They depend on the mindsets, the circumstances, temperaments or even circumstantial moods.
We always think of our decisions as the most rational ones. We tend to perceive ourselves as non-biased. But we can’t help seeing the world through our filters. We reflect what we are on the decisions we make.
In this series of four posts, that altogether configure a meme, or a basic cultural unit, I want to identify four basical thinkers that defend very specific ways to make decisions.
These four basic ways of thinking are present in each one of us. They configure an important part of our decision making process, impersonating four different perspectives to every decision.
Think about them. They will help you understand the mental process that makes you consider different options and thus four different ways to weight outcomes. And they will help you in knowing yourself better and, why not, into making better decisions or at least understanding your decisions better.
The first way of thinking is consequentialism or utilitarianism.
One of the thinkers that most effectively impersonates utilitarianism is John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). Many things can be said about him. In fact he is worth much more than one post, being his thought configured by his father James Mill and his father’s friend Jeremy Bentham.
Stuart Mill was a deep boned liberal, fending for a slimmer and democratic government limited by individual freedom.
How would he reason? He’d think of the consequences of the actions. Thus, when we impersonate Mill we think how what we are about to do will affect on others. The concepts of utility and happiness come into front view. They become important under utilitarianism.
In fact he followed the ideas of Bentham, close friend to his father and mentor to the young John.
Jeremy Bentham was also British, and lived from 1748 to 1832. He can be considered the father of utilitarianism He was a liberal, defending the most basic rights, from the right to freedom in a world that still practised slavery, to the suppression of physical punishment, widely practised not only in prisons but also in schools, and specially the right of the individual not to be limited by the state in any way short of affecting negatively his fellow citizens.
In fact he’d be happy today to see that some of the subjects that he was worried about are being considered today. He supported the equality of women in every way, animal rights, the right to divorce and even homosexual rights. And that was 200 years ago! Education was essential for Bentham too.
In the economic sphere he abhorred of monopolies and usury, free trade, inheritance taxes, pensions and insurances. Both Stuart Mill and Bentham are usually regarded as proclaimers of a minimal state, but that’s not true. The individual freedom is paramount, but the states must guarantee basic rights and a basic equality to protect those who suffer. At the same time, the states must foster economic growth so as to facilitate a minimal subsistence level and encourage wealth.
Most of all, he incised decisively in a society, the British society, so fond of its traditional approach, initiating a wave of change, a progressive change towards a new idea: the well being of the majority. Well being that could even be translated to happiness. So the decisions in Britain had to be taken thinking of the population, and those who were affected by them.
The following quote from Bentham defines good and bad, moving closer to hedonism.
“Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do as well as to determine what we shall do. On the one hand, the standard of right and wrong, on the other the chain of causes and effects, are fastened to their throne.”
Consequentialism was thus being born, shaking the foundations of the British society and starting a movement to change the laws -another sphere of decisions- to have them aligned with the majority, not with the privileged ones. That was a huge leap towards progress and a fairer society. This wish for reform would help Britain to evolve further, no longer being constrained by mediaeval concepts. And with Britain, more nations followed in the will-be-developed world. No wonder Bentham supported both the American Independence and the French Revolution.There are differences between Bentham and Mill. The first thinks of the majority fostering the critique about the majority dictatorship. The second is able to modulate all that into a more sensible and respectful approach for the minorities. Stuart Mill had more time to elaborate and adapt his thoughts, and had an increased social component in his thought.
But, back to decision making, what counts is that we make the decision thinking of the consequences, not out of principles or rules inherited over the centuries, not faith or revelation. There’s not statu quo to preserve, good intentions or psychological reasons, there’s only utility, general utility. The more useful the better.
Airline movements in Europe: British Airways and Iberia on hold (and a remote highway too)
It’s funny that the Wall Street Journal published this week an article about the consolidation of the European airline industry. I’ve written about Iberia and it’s many contenders in two previous posts: Airlines corporate hunt: British Airways and TPG finally join forces to buy Iberia and Iberia and its brides… where’s the value?
What has happened this time about Iberia? In fact very little.
I don’t know what the WSJ article said because I’m not a subscriber. But this wave of consolidation that they talk about has come to a stall in Spain. Why?
BA and Iberia: having second thoughts?
One of my assumptions was that, where there is a flagship airline, there are also political interests. No need to prove me wrong. Politics have a lot to do with that. And it’s Iberia who has been stalling the situation.
Because Iberia’s dominant position in Spain, specially in Madrid, has a lot to do with political connections. They have been granted the best slots and the lion’s share of Madrid brand new terminal: T4.
Madrid’s brand new Terminal 4, granted to Iberia and OneWorld
The Spanish government has already required that Iberia needs to be Spanish to keep enjoying the privileges it already enjoys (exclusive routes, slot assignement, top location at Spain’s first airport).
In time this privileges will cease to exist, specially when European regulations in open skies come to be in effect. But I don’t know any single country that doesn’t -or didn’t- protect its flagship airline.
The government’s point: we’ll still protect the status quo, but only for a Spanish company. And Texas Pacific Group or British Airways are not exactly Spanish. But, how do you know if Iberia is Spanish right now? How can you know who, in fact, owns free floating shares?
Anyway, these are advantadges that no company should have, regardless of its nationality. They are just imperfections of the market that the consumer ends up, as always, paying. But that’s how it is, and that’s how I like to tell 
State Highway 121, Texas, U.S.
More noise from Texas
And right now another Spanish company, the infrastructure operator CINTRA is fighting for a highway concession in Texas: State Highway 121. The company already exploits two highways in the US: Chicago Skyway and Indiana Toll Road, and is already constructing a third one in Texas: SH 130. The concession was granted to CINTRA, but it has been recently revised. The Texas Transport Commision still has the final word but taking back a concession already granted to a Spanish company wouldn’t help politically Texas Pacific Group interests in Iberia.
Which strategy now?
Just let the time pass. Iberia has not given any of the contenders its data, and it is for a very good reason. The longer it takes, the better. Why? Spain will hold a general election in nine months. Maybe the government will change but, in any case, the government will be less pressured and open to negotiations.
Finding myself in the political compass (aka different kinds of liberals)
One of the things that amazes me most is how almost anyone can define himself as a liberal. From people defending free market at all costs, to authoritarian leaders that start wars, to people defending compassionate conservatism, to people fighting for human rights and marriage for same-sex couples… all of them define themselves as liberals.
There’s only one other concept more self-identified than liberalism, that is centrism or, even better, the idea of being a moderate. Everybody is a moderate, regardless of what you may think, you’ll always find somebody more radical than you. But when one of the few people more radical than you happens to be Adolf Hitler, the odds are that you’re not as moderate as you might think.
Different kinds of liberals
Fortunately the richness of the English language provides us with alternative words to liberal, one of them being libertarian. Remember the post about Rawls and Nozick? Nozick would be a libertarian. Many people that are really libertarians label themselves as liberals. Why not? It’s rather clear the two concepts intersect somewhere.
But one of the best ways to classify the different kind of liberals is to use two dimensions for liberalism: social liberalism and economic (or fiscal) liberalism.
That is most helpful to classify people: some people defend a lot of freedom in front of the state for economic matters, that would mean few or no taxes at all, freedom of enterprise, expanded society shielding for investors or even managers, work force flexibility, no market regulations at all, and many more. They opt for a reduced state (Nozick’s style) that will center its tasks to protect property rights and contract rights and all kind of acquired rights. The only thing that the state would monopolise would be security, and for efficiency reasons. But then those same people would use that force-enabled-state to put social order. Where that begins is by putting trespassers to jail, but where that ends is not so clear: kicking immigrants back to their countries? forbidding abortion and jailing doctors? making compulsory to teach science conditioned to the Holy Bible? Outlawing and punishing sex before marriage? This kind of people were those who embraced Nozick’s ideas (they still do) and make him nervous and uneasy at the same time.
So it seems clear you can be an economic liberal, but socially conservative. Or even authoritarian in that sense. That would lead to fascism. Or defend individual rights an at the same time wish for an economic system controlled by the state so no individual would be crushed in the economic sense. Also makes sense to me. In that case you could be a social liberal but a socialist at the same time. Ghandi or Zapatero (Spain’s Prime Minister) would be in that classification.
Let’s draw both dimensions:
- On the horizontal axis the economic dimension. More leftist would lay obviously on the left, like communism or socialism, planned or more regulated economies. On the right more freedom for entrepreneurs and companies, unregulated markets, more choices, and further right free market without any control that is savage and rough market. Milton Friedman would lean to the right, and general Pinochet, ex-dictator from Chili, would be on the extreme right.
- On the vertical axis the difference between libertarian and authoritarian. Fascism on the top, like Hitler, the more control the better, and liberalism on the bottom. That would suit Bentham and the hedonists for example. Ghandi and Friedman would be both social liberals, while one would lean to the left: Gandhi, and the other to the right: Friedman proclaiming both individual freedom and fiscal freedom.
This chart could summarise both parameters:
Now, test yourself and know where you are
The source for the previous graph is a very recommended link: http://www.politicalcompass.org/
In that page there is a questionnaire that you can complete. It’s made up of six pages, each one with a series of questions that will challenge both your political and economical views. And then locate you in the two dimensional space.
That’s what I’ve done. I’ve just completed the political questionnaire on http://www.politicalcompass.org/questionnaire. That was funny so I just thought I’d share my results with you
To my surprise, these were my coordinates:
- Economic Left/Right: 0.25
- Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.87
What amazes me most is that I’ve always thought that centrism was a myth. Or at least a psychological effect: people would tend to think they were “in the middle” regardless of their views. How could anyone not agree with the affirmation “I am a reasonable human“? Even with the alternative one: “I am an unbiased observer of reality“?
Well, probably the test is wrong, but it put me on the center, right in between left and right. Am I the sole centrist that I know? Should I be analysed? Who knows…
And regarding the social scale, I’d be on the liberal zone, half way to anarchism, I guess that would be libertarian.
If you draw the coordinates, the blue point, I fall somewhere in between Gandhi and Milton Friedman, an funny mix. Still unsure of what that means to my future development as a human, I’ll have to think further about that.
Is Economy as a science solid enough to define what’s true and what’s not?
As I wrote yesterday, ideologies and ideals do matter. And they define too the way we think and the way we use reasoning. So, if there are different ways to define justice, and each one of these ways means different ways of thinking and reasoning, each one of us might even end up with different economic conclusions. And that means trouble for Economy as a science.
How can we know if the things taught at business schools are true? Some used to be true, from a classical point of view, like Say’s Law: there can be no supply without demand.
Then keynesianism sent them back to the closet: supply creates its own demand. And the economy will keep growing until full use of resources: full employment.
Until 1929, something went wrong and that didn’t happen. Keynes himself realised. (I’ll write another day about liquidity traps and monetary policy)
But one of the essential instruments of keynesianism was the Phillips curve, remember it? More trouble.
The Phillips curve revealed: let’s reduce unemployment just changing prices!
It relates unenployment and inflation. It used to be said that raising inflation then the actual value of salaries go down and unemployment goes up because you have a cheaper workforce. (As a curiosity Samuelson and Solow were the ones to grasp the concept, not Phillips who had only collected data, and there was another previous economist: Fisher, who had understood the concept first)
Another of the advances of economy in post second world war, along with the IS-LM model of John Hicks, that of course is taken for granted in schools and its the foundation of what we call Macroeconomy.
Seen it before? The IS-LM model
But, although they didn’t know it, the Phillips curve was born already dead.
Milton Friedman and Edmund Phelps realised that the fact that people knew about the Phillips curve rendered it unusable.
Why? If prices were expected to change, salaries would change accordingly. We change our wages taking into account the yearly change of prices. (At least that’s what my contract says)
The death of the Phillips curve gave birth to the theory of expectations: there is a natural rate of unenployment and you can have some effect on the short run, but not on the long term because *people do know what you’re trying to do*.
Monetary policy (remember my blog about Euro exchange rates?) or fiscal policy? The war had begun and it’s still not over.
It is Robert Lucas who said that people’s behaviours change in response to government policies. (In other words, we citizens are sort of numb, but not too dumb.) And the Lucas critique says that you cannot make political decisions solely based on series of historical data, because when you change the rules things won’t happen the same way.
And back to the beginning, how many sciences do you know whose rules can be changed by politicians?
Ideals matter: shipwreck survivors, Rawls and Nozick
It’s easy to say that ideals don’t matter anymore and all political parties are very much alike. Maybe they are, maybe they are not, but ideals still do matter, and there are many ways to economic justice.
It’s always a good moment to review the works of John Rawls. American philosopher, 1921 – 2002, his definition of justice is specially interesting. John Rawls () was an egalitarian liberalist. He defined “justice” as equity and fairness opposed to favoritism, utilitarianism (greater good for the majority at the expense of a minority) and prejudice.
This necessity to avoid prejudice reminds us of the “social contract” of Locke, Hobbes and Rousseau. Justice would require a collective agreement by the different parts regardless of their private interests. This means that a valid contract requires freedom to accept it or not and thus can never be imposed.
The “veil of ignorance” would help the different parts to reach a just agreement because they’d forget who they are, where they come from and what they own, in a similar way that the ideal politician would try to represent all electors regardless of the political party they have voted (!!!) to ensure fair laws. That would mean no lobbying, no big business in election campaigns, and candidates wouldn’t need to be very rich (as they are now in the US, although the US Constitution agrees with Rawls).
For example, imagine a group of shipwreck survivors. They begin anew so they part the land. And they decide to share it on equal parts. But not all parts of the island are equally productive so they reach an agreement: they will all give their land to the lucky owner of the “food well” in exchange for the right to be fed for the rest of their lives.
But time goes by, and another generation comes. And the lucky child who has inherited all the land decides to share the “food well” only in exchange for twelve hours of labour from the other residents. Would that be fair?
From a liberalist point of view, it wouldn’t. The choice is forced upon the residents: either agree or perish. There’s not an equality situation in the contract, nor a way to opt-out. And if they were to make the new contract under the “veil of ignorance”, without knowing who’d be the fortunate ones, they wouldn’t make the bet.
Egalitarian liberalism tries to lever the playing field. It tries to identify which are the legitimate trades and which are not. (Remember the blog entry on Aristotle?) The market won’t produce justice by itself, so it must be controlled by some kind of superior institution: the state, that protects individuals from abuse. (More about Rawls political liberalism here)
And then there is Robert Nozick, also an American philosopher, 1938 – 2003. Nozick is a libertarian, opposed to the social-democratic liberalist values of Rawls.
Nozick wants to refute liberalism, which he sees opposed to personal freedom. He defines the state as a “watchman”, or a “security company”, but nothing more than that. It’s own existence would only come from the right of the individuals to defend themselves, which they’d externalise. From externalisation would come economies of scale that, in a competitive market, would end up in a monopoly of a great security company. Now change the name of the company and call it “state”.
The state wouldn’t regulate economic activities, wouldn’t provide education or wouldn’t think of what is fair or not. The state only would have the power to defend its citizens and its rights (emanating from the individual right to defend yourself). No taxes, no health care, no minimum wages. Nothing.
In the island case, the owner of the land could do with his property as he sees fit. And the contract would be a perfect valid contract. A capitalist act between consenting adults, nothing more to it. (More about Nozick here)
Rawls and Nozick provide their own conception of social justice. From this basic set of rules, they derive the way society should work. But they are two incompatible views. In this great duality between Rawls and Nozick many might see the dual principles that Europe and America developed from. Big government can be something inherently good for some Europeans at the same time its the “big Satan” for some Americans.
Needles to say between black and white there’s an infinite range of greys. (Fortunately)
Ex-post lag III: is the Euro too strong? Sarkozy says so.
Following the previous thread about lag, devaluations and j-curves now there is a real case of politicians versus economists. In this case France’s brand new president: Sarkozy and the European Central Bank (ECB).
I don’t want to appear one-sided with this guy. There are many likeable things in him, but there’s something bonapartist about him (yes, Napoleon Bonaparte was one of the predecessors of populism, IMHO). Even Angela Merkel, the gal that has raised the German’s economy and self-esteem, is a bit anxious about him.
different leaders, different perceptions
Sarkozy has decided to erode the ECB’s independence. In fact that’s a long tradition in French politics and Sego wouldn’t have done otherwise. I’m not the one to say that ECB’s decisions, taken by some economists inside that fortress, cannot be improved. (Wish I knew better than them) But i can see something inherently good from having economists insulated from politics.
Sarkozy is a clear opposer of a strong Euro. In his campaign he claimed he’d pressure ECB to force a devaluation and blamed the current exchange rate of all evils. It’s getting boring to hear that Brussels is blamed for everything local politicians don’t want to assume.
It’s true that the Euro is expensive and that hurts exports, but it is also true that means cheap energy, which Europe is highly dependent on. If the high exchange rate was a problem, it’d be only part of it.
Exports have been bad for France, but not that bad for Germany which is back in the road to growth (one million jobs created in the last year and a new exportation record), and they share the same exchange rate. Maybe there’s something related to a strong participation of the state in the economy, an inflated welfare state that makes for a nice way of living but leaves a huge bill to pay, or simply resistance to change, a very well known fright to loose a higly secured way of life that is not compatible with much needed reforms. (3 hour week, low spending in research and development, low inflation control…)
Don’t forget that most of exports and imports of the Euro zone are between member countries. And those interchanges are not affected by exchange rates. And many of the other countries, such as Spain (wish we had the strength of the French economy), have made steep reforms and changes, opening the economy, growing strongly (of course with a lot of structural problems but nonetheless strong growth), and reducing unemployment. Euro devaluations won’t help the French compete with the Germans or stop the relocation of industries that move to Eastern Europe seeking lower wages.
But it’s not only a exchange rate problem: there’s a new European scepticism there, similar to that experienced by Britons, but this time french-flavoured: “faire plier le BCE” (make it bend). Something about French self-economic determination and distrust of an Euro that is not maleable to political interests. (and remember: the loss of independence and thus credibility of the ECB would come with a cost too)
Trichet says: do not mess with the ECB
It’s funny that happens while the ECB’s president is a frenchman: Jean Claude Trichet.
Playing with lag II: devaluations, exports and politicians
I promise not to bother you much with my “lag” thoughts, although I can’t help writing some more about it.
Another common situation is a devaluation. Usually when a country devaluates its currency it does so thinking about competitivity. That means it will be able to sell more and improve its trade balance.
But, it is really going to improve? Well, in the short run it’s going to have to pay more for its imports, and its exports are going to be just the same. So, while improvements still lie ahead, the short run means more trouble.
That’s what the students of international economics know as the J-curve. I’ve modelised the curve from a Poisson distribution (the inmediate effect) plus a step function (the long run) and it looks like this:
So, if politicians decide a devaluation in their second term, situation will worsen enough not to show any benefit before their reelection campaign. That means trouble: lag matters. And that means that some countries are more able to use this kind of resources than others: the ones whose rulers don’t have to face reelection.
But I bet reality won’t be so simple. Other countries are able to react and will, in time, adjust their currencies to match. That means that, on the long run, the changes will be minimal, if any. I’ve tried to modelise that too with two Poisson distributions of different parameters:
That means that there will be a net gain based on the first-mover strategy: in the example chosen the area that is below the axis is smaller than the area above (exactly one half), but there will be no yearly gain on the long run.
Going back to the point, this is a dynamic model. Things don’t happen the same day, time matters and there are several effects counteracting each other. The order matters cos there is not advantage on the long run but just gains.
And every decision will have its consequences that, in time, will mix with more decisions. If we observe economic reality we may not be able to see the consequences of just one action but a continuous mix of different decisions of several participants.
Let’s go back to our politician. He lost his reelection to his rival that decided to do the opposite and restore the previous exchange rate. Now we imagine that the same ripple effect happens the other way round and the economic system just responds the same (opposite) way:
Look from terms 4 to 8. A new boom? Did the new politician save the country? Who will be elected in next election due for year 8? What will happen in the long run? Funny how lag matters.
In praise of Schumpeter
I’ve just reviewed the last issue of “The Economist”. It includes article about Schumpeter, a new biography, “Prophet of Innovation: Joseph Schumpeter and Creative Destruction”.
The article falls short of calling Schumpeter the ultimate prophet of capitalism. It talks about his creative destruction theory, that states that capitalism reinvents itself through destructive cycles that end up in a new beginning. Of course that means putting the weight of reconstruction on entrepreneur’s shoulders. It’s one of the most cellebrated and lucid visions of capitalism.
When Schumpeter wrote it he already knew the work of Clement Juglar who, in 1860, described three phases in every cycle: prosperity, crisis and liquidation. Schumpeter believed that entrepreneurs began the cycle of prosperity accumulating productive factors in an era of scarcity, thus paying well, and expanding productive capacity to its maximmum extent. Then there would come a time with production surpluses, which also meant that means of production wouldn’t be needed so badly, and that lead to prices going down and consumers having less purchasing power. If you add that by that time entrepreneurs would have paid most of their loans, there would be cheap money all over the system, so there would be a triple surplus, and the economy would crumble.
Of course Schumpeter explained all that in other words, but what he wrote is still valid today. The cycles were thoroughly studied and Kitchin defined the inventory cycles (40 months), Kuznets the infraestructure cycles (18 years) and Kondratev (or Kondratieff, I’m never able to know the best way to write his name) the 50-year waves. If you add them to Juglar 10-year cycles, later redefined as 8-year cycles, to hog cycles (three to four years), cotton cycles (two years), beef (five years in the Netherlands) and leather (18-month cycle)… you have as many cycles as you want to be able to prove anything (or just the opposite).
But, as the article very well says, the turbulences (that would be caused when most of the cycles were simoultaneusly in lows) would be just a small place to pay for progress. Voilà. That’s one of the reason why Schumpeter was a great economist, and still is today. And I agree.
What I don’t agree is on the fact that Schumpeter still is a great economist because of his conclusions. I think he was great because of his methodology, using sociology, psychology, statistics added to the dismal science trying to build an unified social science. So the economy would be related to everything else, such as the entrepreneurs that make this society advance.
Conclusions are not that important, IMHO. The article fails to remember how Schumpeter predicted that capitalism would collapse by itself and great corporations would take the power and lead us to the ultimate socialist state. The success would lead to absolute control.
I hope that he wasn’t that right on that too. Or maybe he is already right?
Iberia and its brides… where’s the value?
Iberia is for sale. After years of flirting with British Airways, now it realises that there’s not enough satisfaction in that relationship. Shareholders want to sell. And B.A. is not ready to take that step. Too many doubts. I’m sure that with a good price for that 10% they have they’d even get out.
The second bride is Lufthansa. Lots of cash and need for expansion. Alhough Iberia is in the wrong alliance. But Iberia would be a big step towards South America for Lufthansa. Conte and Mayhuber, the two bosses, denied yesterday any approach. Sometimes denial is the previous step to marriage. Although German firms have not been very lucky lately buying in Spain.
And then there is Texas Pacific Group. Good news for eficiency, bad news for workers. Iberia needs a deep refurbishing and that would mean a lot of lay offs. Many of Iberia’s workers are only worried about preserving a way of life that is already dying in most of the old flagship carriers. They have managed so far to keep their privileges while receeding to Madrid and their most profitable flights with South America. But, with a private equity firm, that would no longer be possible.
A private equity firm could drive a lot of value from Iberia, something that main shareholders didn’t feel like doing because it was not politically correct. They’d be so pleased to go home with their capital gains…
But, investors be aware, there are two risks hanging over the company.
The first, it’s most profitable route, a nice route from Madrid to Barcelona and back that until now has managed not to be canibalised by competitors, is about to get new and powerful competence: the high speed train. Probably it will cut its passengers in half, and profits with them.
And last but not least, Iberia needs to be Spanish. The routes they operate to South America and give Iberia a specially high strategic value have been built from agreements between the Spanish and South American governments. One by one, brick by brick, unsurprisingly, Madrid’s hub has been constructed from agreements based on Iberia’s spanishness and Madrid’s capitality. There would be not enough reasons to keep that exclusivity for long with skies being more open each day and with an Iberia decreasingly Spanish.
A tale of two Spains
These days there’s a debate on which companies will use Barcelona’s airport new terminal. Lots of political buzz and fuss around it. Catalonia distrusts the Spanish government. What should be an economic decision, or at least a rational one, provokes all kind of passionate speeches. Seems like the Catalan society as a whole needs to fight against an imposed solution but, how can that be if the decision has not even been made? Why does everyone here assume that the outcome will be the worst possible for Catalonia and Barcelona?
Seen from outside it’s difficult to understand why the catalans are so wary about things like that. Why should they be?
Distrust in the Spanish state, or Kingdom of Spain as the official name states, is something congenital in Catalan people. Two forces have always strived in spain: uniformity and diversity. Their force, unmatched by reason, have spilt so many Spanish blood. Sixty five years ago that war ended with uniformish Spain prevailing over the other, repressing it for more than forty years.
The silent and diverse spain couldn’t speak their language. Castilian Spanish was imposed over Catalan, Basque and Galician languages that accounted more than 30% of the Spanish population. All historical evidence of their existence was simply erased: books destroyed, libraries burned, public files taken away, students reeducated, teachers purged.
Democracy arrived twenty five years ago. Fortunately it came with no bloodshed, but, on the other hand, it also came with a great dose of amnesia. The two Spains were walking together by the hand, but one was hurt and humiliated, the other was not.
What democracy didn’t change was the rationale of the uniformist and centralist decisions from Spain’s central government. Specially under José Maria Aznar rule -yes, that person that was close to Bush and Blair in Açores photographs before the Iraq war- the priority of the central government was to concentrate everything in Madrid, spending the more the better in the capital’s infrastructures and forgetting about the rest of Spain.
And the other Spain? The other Spain managed to decentralise part of that power, using autonomous communities, recognised in the 1978 Spanish Consitution. Autonomous communities made their own Statutes -sort of local Constitutions- and began asking for political and economic power. Some of them were brand anew, some of them recovered historical rights and sovereignity that had existed for centuries.
First decentralisation wasn’t enough for that second Spain. And amnesia couldn’t last forever. Right now the second Spain is recovering their dead, still buried anonimously beside communal roads, where “red” spaniards were shot and forgot. Right now those autonomous communities are renewing their Statues and claiming for more power.
And all this with a bipartisan system that identifies one political party with centralism and uniformity, and the other one sometimes with centralism, sometimes not. New Statue for Catalonia approved in 2006 by popular plebiscite has been at the center of the political fight. For the Popular Party -that never assumed their defeat against the Socialist Party- sees in this confrontation a way to return to power.
A way to return to power based in the old tale of the two Spains. The political calculation states that supporting the centralist Spain they can get a lot of votes in many Spanish regions, while loosing support in others. They say they do that for love of Spain -that is the centralist Spain-.
But the question is, will both Spains be closer together this way?
Recent Comments