The Carnival Of Protest: Spain's Citizen Safety Law

General Franco had an inconsistent policy towards traditions. Advocate as he was of strict Catholicism, he didn't much care for some of the traditions of religious fiestas. One which he was particularly unkeen on was the tradition of Carnival. Celebrated just prior to Lent, Carnival was not originally a Spanish tradition but it was one that came to Spain from Venice. This said, the celebration of Carnival has very much older origins than that of the mediaeval masquerade of Italy.

For Franco, Carnival was all a bit too decadent and a bit too much like good fun. He banned it in 1937, taking aim in particular at the Cadiz Carnival, the most decadent of all the Carnivals. Though the ban was primarily imposed in order to deal with Cadiz, it was applied universally. Towns across Spain had, therefore, to pull the plug on the Carnival, even if some managed to keep the tradition going in a somewhat different form.

But Franco wasn't only concerned with decadence. He also didn't like the fact that people wore masks at Carnival time. This disguise, so his regime believed, would allow all manner of miscreants to go without being apprehended, and included among these miscreants might be opponents of his regime with one eye on causing bother and protest while all the time being in disguise.

The traditionally satirical nature of Carnival meant that it was not fully restored until censorship in Spain was lifted after Franco died. When the newly democratic Spain finally abandoned censorship, Carnival became a huge demonstration of liberated expression, and in its satirical guise, it remains such a demonstration.

In September 2011, Sa Pobla became the first town in Mallorca to ban the wearing of the burka. It is still the only town to have introduced such a ban. While it was the burka that caught the headlines, the ban was rather more wide-ranging. Probably in an attempt to not make the burka ban appear to be discriminatory or anti-Muslim, Sa Pobla town hall also banned the wearing of anything which obscured the face. In theory, therefore, a balaclava became illegal. The local by-law made it clear that this banning was on the grounds of public safety.

The Spanish Government is now in the process of passing a law which imposes stricter controls on protest and other forms of street behaviour. Included among the prohibitions under this law will be the wearing of anything which covers the face when a protest is being staged. Fines for doing so could be as high as 30,000 euros. The bill, known as the Citizens Safety Law, is expected to be approved by Congress in the new year.

There is a world of difference between a by-law in a small Mallorcan town and a national law, but there is a strong similarity, and it lies in the justification for the legislation. Public safety has been invoked in both instances but this is not the main reason for the legislation. Where the national law is concerned, the main reason is an attempt to limit protest and to exert governmental control and power. Safety is a convenient argument, because the general public might be willing to swallow something couched in safety terms. If the bill were to have been called Anti-Protest Measures Law, then the public reaction would be different.

As it is, anti-protest measures is just how the law is being described. And the criticism goes further. It is undemocratic. It also seems like an over-reaction. Protests there have been in Spain, but generally speaking, austerity and other aspects of government policy have not provoked extreme protests. So, the question is why does the government feel it necessary to introduce stricter controls? Does it fear that it is in fact losing the battle where austerity is concerned? Does it fear that something will provoke more extreme protests than have thus been witnessed?

Or is the law just the case of another government flexing its muscles and exerting ever more control over the people? It has been a disturbing trend over the past few years for governments which ostensibly operate under a democratic system to do so. Citing safety makes the law appear "democratic" in upholding order for the majority but can all too easily be seen as "undemocratic" as it imposes greater restrictions on the right to protest, and in Spain, the right to protest since Franco's day has been a fundamental means of liberated expression, just as the restoration of the Carnival tradition was.

And indeed, where does this law leave something like Carnival? What happens if there are protests at Carnival time with people wearing masks?

The law could in fact create all sorts of problems that might not be envisaged. One of its provisions is the banning of outdoor drinking parties, i.e. the botellón street parties. Fair enough perhaps, but so widespread are these parties and so inadequately controlled are they, that it is impossible to see how local police forces can really prevent them. They can't at present, even with local by-laws in place. So, one ends up with a national law which, in certain instances, will be ineffective and which, in others, will be used to limit protest against a government which even one conservative commentators has condemned for the "stigma of authoritarianism", an observation which carries a reminder of the days when Carnival was banned.