On this day thirty-seven years ago, the Majorca Daily Bulletin was able to announce that democracy had been secured for Spain but had been achieved with a lower than expected turnout for a referendum aimed at precisely this democracy. Despite what had become increasing boredom with a campaign, the yes vote was overwhelming. On 6 December, 1978, the Spanish people approved the Constitution.
When politicians of the current day hark on about "democratic regeneration" (those most notably of the new arrivals on the political scene such as representatives of Podemos), it is curious to reflect on the fact that what had been democratic generation had been greeted with less than overwhelming rapture. Released from the yoke of decades of dictatorship, the Spanish people were nonetheless suspicious of this generation. Among the ranks of leading politicians, there were, after all, former Franco men, such as Manuel Fraga, the one-time tourism minister, who was the head of what was eventually to become the Partido Popular, and even the president of the transition, Adolfo Suárez, who had been named the minister secretary-general of the Movimiento, Franco's nominal party.
There were other reasons to be suspicious. Police brutality didn't suddenly cease with the passing of Franco, while ETA and terrorism were dominant themes of the time, with Basque independence demands far more to the fore than Catalonia's. There was also the amnesty, the legislative means of forgetting and, so it would have appeared to many, forgiving.
Against all this background the Constitution was drafted and finally approved by the people, but perhaps there was a further suspicion. There had been previous constitutions. They had dated back to the original Liberal Constitution of 1812, a landmark document of civil rights that was to be abused and then abandoned by the despotic and insane Ferdinand VII.
The Constitution of 1978 has survived. It has been an enduring template for individual rights, for the rights of the monarchy, for the rights of religious and political freedoms, for the rights of autonomous government in the regions. It is not inviolate but it would take an awful lot to amend it or re-write it. Which is why of course there is so much discussion as to doing just this.
Constitution Day this year took on more meaning than it normally does, though the general populace was probably less interested in this than with the holiday having been reallocated to yesterday (in the Balearics and various other regions but not all). For politicians it was of immense meaning, as it was being celebrated two weeks before the general election.
The vote on 20 December may well be the most important election since democracy was established, assuming greater significance than the 1982 victory of Felipe González and PSOE that was to usher in a truly modern and liberal-minded Spanish nation: a victory that had been achieved within the context of the suppressed information of yet another coup plot. But while PSOE were to provide certainty and stability, it cannot guarantee it this time. Indeed, it may well fail in forming the government or part of it. Uncertainty surrounds the election, and amidst this uncertainty is the role of the Constitution: it is being debated hotly.
There are those who favour some modification, others who would leave it as it is and others still who are inclined to radical overhaul. It isn't difficult to figure out which parties and which politicians adopt these different postures. It is Podemos, naturally, which seeks the greatest change, its Congress lead candidate in the Balearics, the now ex-judge, Juan Pedro Yllanes, arguing - rightly - in favour of an independent judiciary. For others in Podemos, there might be more fundamental targets, with the monarchy in their sights.
The most pressing concern, constitutionally, relates to the roles of the regions; or it is the most pressing issue in the Balearics at any rate. The PSOE message is one of an alteration to state financing and the adoption of a federal state. The national leader of PSOE, Pedro Sánchez, appears to favour such a remodelling of the regions' relationships with the state, but Sánchez may not be in any position to effect this.
The Partido Popular Congress number one, Mateo Isern, is open to a "possible update", but his more receptive attitude than others in his party does not disguise his own aversion to a move towards the unknown and the unleashing of the enormous elephant in the Spanish state's room, i.e. Catalonia.
It has to be acknowledged that the Constitution was a product of its time. As such, there is a strong argument for review in order to take account of the intervening thirty-seven years: Artur Mas, the president of Catalonia, certainly argues this case. But radical revision? Events on 20 December may just give a clue, and Isern's worries about the unknown might be realised.
Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 08, 2015
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
The Ban That Shouldn't Be?: Sa Pobla and the burka
Sa Pobla town hall announced a week or so ago that it had no intention of revoking its by-law that prohibits the wearing of the burka in public areas. Mayor Biel Serra said that the ban would remain in place unless there was a legal decision taken as the consequence of a "denuncia" that would force it to revoke the ban. There has been no denuncia. Indeed, there has been very little fall-out as a result of the ban. No one has been fined for wearing a burka unlawfully, which may because there were, or so it was said at the time when the ban was introduced in late summer 2011, hardly any women who wore it anyway.
That was one side of the story. The other was that Sa Pobla was chock-full of Muslims from Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and wherever and that the wearing of the burka and niqab was widespread. As ever, one could take which side of the story one liked, depending on one's point of view, even if neither was actually true. Personally, and prior to the ban, I had never seen a burka in Sa Pobla, but then maybe I was not moving in the right public-area circles.
The town hall was moved to state that the ban would remain in force because of a decision by the Spanish Supreme Court which instructed the town hall in the Catalonian town of Lleida to lift its ban. Sa Pobla, the only town in Mallorca with a ban, had taken Lleida's lead; the terms of its ban are more or less identical to those that Lleida had laid down.
Mayor Serra insists that the ban is all about guaranteeing the public's safety and security and has nothing to do with limiting religious freedoms. It is these freedoms, and the possible contravention of them, that may yet find Sa Pobla hauled up in front of m' learned friends; the Supreme Court ruled against Lleida's ban on just these grounds and on the basis that an individual municipality did not have the authority to impose a by-law that did interfere with religious freedoms.
When Sa Pobla introduced its ban, I wrote an article in which I questioned the ban's legality. I did so on the basis of my understanding of the Spanish Constitution. The Supreme Court, in making its decision regarding the Lleida ban, has made clear that it is not answering the question as to whether the Constitution would permit or not permit the wearing of the burka, but the fact that the Court has addressed the constitutional issue makes me feel somewhat vindicated for having raised the issue. Before and after I had written the article, I came across no other reference to the constitutional aspect. There may well have been, but it surprised me to find that a fundamental right enshrined in the constitution, one that Sa Pobla and Lleida may have been going against, was apparently given such scant attention.
The Supreme Court has opened the way for national government to legislate if it so chooses. The fact that the Court has been equivocal where the Constitution is concerned may actually make it more difficult for the government to legislate or to bring about a law that isn't then subject to challenge. One can see the whole matter dragging on for years, always assuming the government were to legislate. Would it be minded to, now that the general hullabaloo about the wearing of the burka that was around a couple of years ago has seemingly died down?
A consequence of the Lleida decision does raise the potential for this hullabaloo to break out once more, and probably unnecessarily. In Sa Pobla, a town with a large Muslim population, the ban has raised very little by way of tensions; those that there have been have come about for other reasons. It could be argued that the ban has been effective, as demonstrated by no fines having been issued. It could also be - and in the handful of towns across Spain where there are similar bans, there have been no fines either - that the ban was a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Or an act of political expedience that no other town hall in Mallorca has deemed worthy of following.
As I said in my previous article, I am not in favour of the burka. I consider it an absurdity. But nor am I in favour of towns making up their own rules on matters of fundamental rights. It's up to the government. Either there is a ban - a national one - or there isn't.
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
That was one side of the story. The other was that Sa Pobla was chock-full of Muslims from Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and wherever and that the wearing of the burka and niqab was widespread. As ever, one could take which side of the story one liked, depending on one's point of view, even if neither was actually true. Personally, and prior to the ban, I had never seen a burka in Sa Pobla, but then maybe I was not moving in the right public-area circles.
The town hall was moved to state that the ban would remain in force because of a decision by the Spanish Supreme Court which instructed the town hall in the Catalonian town of Lleida to lift its ban. Sa Pobla, the only town in Mallorca with a ban, had taken Lleida's lead; the terms of its ban are more or less identical to those that Lleida had laid down.
Mayor Serra insists that the ban is all about guaranteeing the public's safety and security and has nothing to do with limiting religious freedoms. It is these freedoms, and the possible contravention of them, that may yet find Sa Pobla hauled up in front of m' learned friends; the Supreme Court ruled against Lleida's ban on just these grounds and on the basis that an individual municipality did not have the authority to impose a by-law that did interfere with religious freedoms.
When Sa Pobla introduced its ban, I wrote an article in which I questioned the ban's legality. I did so on the basis of my understanding of the Spanish Constitution. The Supreme Court, in making its decision regarding the Lleida ban, has made clear that it is not answering the question as to whether the Constitution would permit or not permit the wearing of the burka, but the fact that the Court has addressed the constitutional issue makes me feel somewhat vindicated for having raised the issue. Before and after I had written the article, I came across no other reference to the constitutional aspect. There may well have been, but it surprised me to find that a fundamental right enshrined in the constitution, one that Sa Pobla and Lleida may have been going against, was apparently given such scant attention.
The Supreme Court has opened the way for national government to legislate if it so chooses. The fact that the Court has been equivocal where the Constitution is concerned may actually make it more difficult for the government to legislate or to bring about a law that isn't then subject to challenge. One can see the whole matter dragging on for years, always assuming the government were to legislate. Would it be minded to, now that the general hullabaloo about the wearing of the burka that was around a couple of years ago has seemingly died down?
A consequence of the Lleida decision does raise the potential for this hullabaloo to break out once more, and probably unnecessarily. In Sa Pobla, a town with a large Muslim population, the ban has raised very little by way of tensions; those that there have been have come about for other reasons. It could be argued that the ban has been effective, as demonstrated by no fines having been issued. It could also be - and in the handful of towns across Spain where there are similar bans, there have been no fines either - that the ban was a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Or an act of political expedience that no other town hall in Mallorca has deemed worthy of following.
As I said in my previous article, I am not in favour of the burka. I consider it an absurdity. But nor am I in favour of towns making up their own rules on matters of fundamental rights. It's up to the government. Either there is a ban - a national one - or there isn't.
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
Monday, December 10, 2012
The National Navel-Gazing Pastime
Much as it is said that the main Spanish national pastime is tax evasion, this overlooks one that is altogether more abstract than forgetting to charge IVA or simply forgetting the small matter of several thousand euros that came to be stashed under the bed or occasionally buried in the garden. The Spanish are masters of the navel-gazing art. A natural exuberance, one attributed to the Spanish by patronising foreigners prone to only wish to observe a particular trait, conflicts with introspection and self-examination, but such exuberance, which manifests itself at fiesta time or on every occasion when Spain wins an international football tournament, is part of this analytical anal retentiveness. How can a country with such vibrancy and vitality be at the same time so dysfunctional and so insignificant?
In fact, the exuberance hides all manner of sins. An excuse to party or to go to the playa delays to the point of stasis real action to tackle realities. The decadence of fiesta and a further decadence of greed and looking after number one and number one alone have been centuries-old palliatives for coping with what first brought Spain into international disrepute and then into the long decline of irrelevance.
Once the world's most powerful and wealthiest nation, Spain's fall was predicated on vested interests and on a lack of interest in development. Unlike other colonial powers, it merely took rather than gave, it didn't seek to commercially engage with its new world or to truly establish institutions (other than religious ones), and so ultimately empire withered away. The rich were interested only in getting richer rather than contributing, and so it was with other sectors of society, the Church, for instance.
Such an explanation for Spain's decline is an old one. José Ortega y Gasset, one of Spain's greatest thinkers, was banging on about all this decades ago. Yet the narrative has remained largely unaltered, and Spanish navel-gazing is still fixed on how Spain managed to so spectacularly throw it all away from the late sixteenth century onwards and on how the same dynamics behind imperial failure keep repeating themselves.
For centuries, Spain has been at war with itself (metaphorically if not actually in battle), rarely enjoying settled, lengthy periods of stability. Most of the twentieth century was one such time of turmoil, and its legacy most definitely endures. A lack of continuity has been Spain's lot, and rather than a national amnesia post-Franco, the memories are strong, far too strong. Spain is a country constantly looking over its shoulder to the past, believing that the old discontinuities will return. The memory of Franco consumes virtually everything in today's Spain.
In truth, these discontinuities have never gone away; they have merely been, for the past thirty odd years, hidden under the beds along with the undeclared stashes of those who still look after number one and number one alone. And despite the arrival of democracy, or possibly because of it, the divisions are as they have long been. These are divisions which are regional and linguistic, divisions which set republic against monarchy, secularism against Catholicism, divisions between the general public and politicians who are viewed with suspicion and enormous distrust, divisions caused by endemic corruption and nepotism. And yet, these divisions are treated with a shrug of societal apathy and resignation and the resort to the decadence of fiesta as a means of reconciling them. This is how things are, but they are also how things were. Exactly the same was true of the early 1930s.
Spain's entrance into the international community, confirmed by European acceptance in the mid-80s, should have brought about fundamental change. Or so it would have been hoped. For a brief time, an old glory reminiscent of the years of the rivers of gold in the sixteenth century returned, but it has been an illusory glory. Spain stays at the periphery. It is of international significance only because it demands so much foreign attention for the wrong reasons and because it keeps winning at football. Its dysfunctionalism is inbred, the progeny of its past and of the birth of the more recent. The latest navel-gazing has turned its attention to the 1978 Constitution, itself a job lot of lofty idealism that was designed to create national unity and to establish checks and balances, objectives that have been only partially achieved.
The navel-gazing extends to the regions. In the Balearics, the people are asked whether they feel Spanish, Balearic, Mallorcan, sympathetic to the Catalan Lands. This constant inquisition serves simply to convey an impression of identity confusion, a consequence of the age-old discontinuities.
The Constitution may in fact be part of the problem in that it granted woolly regional autonomy. The arguments over regionalism and over separatism are the result of the Constitution's good intentions, but these intentions have only led to more introspection. Who are the Spanish (or not) and what do they really want (or not)?
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
In fact, the exuberance hides all manner of sins. An excuse to party or to go to the playa delays to the point of stasis real action to tackle realities. The decadence of fiesta and a further decadence of greed and looking after number one and number one alone have been centuries-old palliatives for coping with what first brought Spain into international disrepute and then into the long decline of irrelevance.
Once the world's most powerful and wealthiest nation, Spain's fall was predicated on vested interests and on a lack of interest in development. Unlike other colonial powers, it merely took rather than gave, it didn't seek to commercially engage with its new world or to truly establish institutions (other than religious ones), and so ultimately empire withered away. The rich were interested only in getting richer rather than contributing, and so it was with other sectors of society, the Church, for instance.
Such an explanation for Spain's decline is an old one. José Ortega y Gasset, one of Spain's greatest thinkers, was banging on about all this decades ago. Yet the narrative has remained largely unaltered, and Spanish navel-gazing is still fixed on how Spain managed to so spectacularly throw it all away from the late sixteenth century onwards and on how the same dynamics behind imperial failure keep repeating themselves.
For centuries, Spain has been at war with itself (metaphorically if not actually in battle), rarely enjoying settled, lengthy periods of stability. Most of the twentieth century was one such time of turmoil, and its legacy most definitely endures. A lack of continuity has been Spain's lot, and rather than a national amnesia post-Franco, the memories are strong, far too strong. Spain is a country constantly looking over its shoulder to the past, believing that the old discontinuities will return. The memory of Franco consumes virtually everything in today's Spain.
In truth, these discontinuities have never gone away; they have merely been, for the past thirty odd years, hidden under the beds along with the undeclared stashes of those who still look after number one and number one alone. And despite the arrival of democracy, or possibly because of it, the divisions are as they have long been. These are divisions which are regional and linguistic, divisions which set republic against monarchy, secularism against Catholicism, divisions between the general public and politicians who are viewed with suspicion and enormous distrust, divisions caused by endemic corruption and nepotism. And yet, these divisions are treated with a shrug of societal apathy and resignation and the resort to the decadence of fiesta as a means of reconciling them. This is how things are, but they are also how things were. Exactly the same was true of the early 1930s.
Spain's entrance into the international community, confirmed by European acceptance in the mid-80s, should have brought about fundamental change. Or so it would have been hoped. For a brief time, an old glory reminiscent of the years of the rivers of gold in the sixteenth century returned, but it has been an illusory glory. Spain stays at the periphery. It is of international significance only because it demands so much foreign attention for the wrong reasons and because it keeps winning at football. Its dysfunctionalism is inbred, the progeny of its past and of the birth of the more recent. The latest navel-gazing has turned its attention to the 1978 Constitution, itself a job lot of lofty idealism that was designed to create national unity and to establish checks and balances, objectives that have been only partially achieved.
The navel-gazing extends to the regions. In the Balearics, the people are asked whether they feel Spanish, Balearic, Mallorcan, sympathetic to the Catalan Lands. This constant inquisition serves simply to convey an impression of identity confusion, a consequence of the age-old discontinuities.
The Constitution may in fact be part of the problem in that it granted woolly regional autonomy. The arguments over regionalism and over separatism are the result of the Constitution's good intentions, but these intentions have only led to more introspection. Who are the Spanish (or not) and what do they really want (or not)?
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
Monday, July 23, 2012
The Spanish Regions' Nuclear Option
The document that sets out the Spanish Constitution conveys an astonishing pretension of antiquity. Colourful, florid heraldry meets a robust calligraphy in bestowing on the Spanish Kingdom the "Constitución Española". The document is only 34 years old, but it could as easily be many centuries old. Of its contents, certain aspects had appeared in previous versions, one of which was the right to regional autonomy. The Republicans of 1931 introduced the concept, but they never had the time to implement it.
The constitutional impulse in granting autonomy was largely one of tackling the centuries-old claims of historical states within Spain - Catalonia, The Basque Country and Galicia. As soon as the autonomous cat was let out of the bag when the Constitution was in its drafting, Andalucía discovered a previously incoherent claim on quasi-statehood, and the autonomy that followed, which led to the creation of the 17 regions that included the Balearics (plus eventually the two autonomous cities of Ceuta and Melilla), became inevitable, as much by default in satisfying the claims of the historical states as by having been conceived as a laudable system of decentralised administration.
This decentralisation has been held up as an almost perfect governmental system. Or rather, it once was held up as being so. The perfect system cannot exist, and it clearly no longer does in Spain. Regional debt has been the underbelly that has softened Spain's finances to the point that the belly, starved of monetary nutrition, has suffered a prolapse. Valencia needs a bailout, so does Murcia, and Catalonia has admitted that it might do as well.
Prescriptions for tackling regional debt are as many as those for dealing with the debts of Spanish banks, and many are simplistic in that they disregard the institutional barriers to effecting them. One, that of just doing away with the regions, would, apart from the practical nightmare it would entail, run up against the calligraphy of the constitutional "carta magna".
The Spanish Constitution is not beyond change, but changing it in any fundamental way would be hugely difficult, and it would require a constitutional nuclear option if the current system of autonomy were to be done away with completely.
However, the Constitution makes it clear that the autonomous communities are not above intervention that goes beyond simply handing them a bailout. Article 155 of the Constitution states that if an autonomous community does not fulfil its obligations or acts in a way that seriously prejudices the general interests of Spain, the government may take measures necessary to compel communities to meet these obligations.
Article 156 grants the regions financial autonomy, so long, however, as this complies with "principles of co-ordination with the state treasury and the solidarity amongst all Spaniards". It is these two articles which give the national government authority to in effect take over the financial running of an autonomous region, but neither establishes a principle by which a region could be merely done away with.
Theoretically, Madrid could decide that all the regions are acting in ways that are prejudicial to national interests. Rather as the establishing of the autonomous regions under the Constitution avoided complications that a piecemeal approach might have created, so a uniform approach to financial intervention might in a curious way be more palatable. But whether intervention were on a case-by-case basis or across the board, the consequences would be the same. With financial autonomy stripped away, the regions would have a diminished reason to exist. The structure of regionalism wouldn't necessarily collapse, but it would be severely weakened.
The political fallout from intervention could, though, be dramatic. A regional president and government may well feel compelled to resign, but who would wish to replace them, unless there was some assurance that financial autonomy could be regained? More than this, however, is the potential for an undermining of the Spanish state and kingdom, always rather shaky in any event because of those historical claims. Which would bring the Catalonia issue in particular right back into the frame. Catalonia may be hugely in debt and so would seem mad to wish not to possibly avail itself of the new national fund to bail out the regions, but it has also long been one of Spain's principal providers, if not the principal provider.
Economic crisis has demanded a hell of a lot of soul-searching as regards Spain's entire system of public administration. One fancies we are nearing the end game, but the question is what this end game will be. The Constitution's calligraphy is suddenly looking less robust.
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
The constitutional impulse in granting autonomy was largely one of tackling the centuries-old claims of historical states within Spain - Catalonia, The Basque Country and Galicia. As soon as the autonomous cat was let out of the bag when the Constitution was in its drafting, Andalucía discovered a previously incoherent claim on quasi-statehood, and the autonomy that followed, which led to the creation of the 17 regions that included the Balearics (plus eventually the two autonomous cities of Ceuta and Melilla), became inevitable, as much by default in satisfying the claims of the historical states as by having been conceived as a laudable system of decentralised administration.
This decentralisation has been held up as an almost perfect governmental system. Or rather, it once was held up as being so. The perfect system cannot exist, and it clearly no longer does in Spain. Regional debt has been the underbelly that has softened Spain's finances to the point that the belly, starved of monetary nutrition, has suffered a prolapse. Valencia needs a bailout, so does Murcia, and Catalonia has admitted that it might do as well.
Prescriptions for tackling regional debt are as many as those for dealing with the debts of Spanish banks, and many are simplistic in that they disregard the institutional barriers to effecting them. One, that of just doing away with the regions, would, apart from the practical nightmare it would entail, run up against the calligraphy of the constitutional "carta magna".
The Spanish Constitution is not beyond change, but changing it in any fundamental way would be hugely difficult, and it would require a constitutional nuclear option if the current system of autonomy were to be done away with completely.
However, the Constitution makes it clear that the autonomous communities are not above intervention that goes beyond simply handing them a bailout. Article 155 of the Constitution states that if an autonomous community does not fulfil its obligations or acts in a way that seriously prejudices the general interests of Spain, the government may take measures necessary to compel communities to meet these obligations.
Article 156 grants the regions financial autonomy, so long, however, as this complies with "principles of co-ordination with the state treasury and the solidarity amongst all Spaniards". It is these two articles which give the national government authority to in effect take over the financial running of an autonomous region, but neither establishes a principle by which a region could be merely done away with.
Theoretically, Madrid could decide that all the regions are acting in ways that are prejudicial to national interests. Rather as the establishing of the autonomous regions under the Constitution avoided complications that a piecemeal approach might have created, so a uniform approach to financial intervention might in a curious way be more palatable. But whether intervention were on a case-by-case basis or across the board, the consequences would be the same. With financial autonomy stripped away, the regions would have a diminished reason to exist. The structure of regionalism wouldn't necessarily collapse, but it would be severely weakened.
The political fallout from intervention could, though, be dramatic. A regional president and government may well feel compelled to resign, but who would wish to replace them, unless there was some assurance that financial autonomy could be regained? More than this, however, is the potential for an undermining of the Spanish state and kingdom, always rather shaky in any event because of those historical claims. Which would bring the Catalonia issue in particular right back into the frame. Catalonia may be hugely in debt and so would seem mad to wish not to possibly avail itself of the new national fund to bail out the regions, but it has also long been one of Spain's principal providers, if not the principal provider.
Economic crisis has demanded a hell of a lot of soul-searching as regards Spain's entire system of public administration. One fancies we are nearing the end game, but the question is what this end game will be. The Constitution's calligraphy is suddenly looking less robust.
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
Saturday, September 03, 2011
Show Us Your Face
I say burka, you say burqa. Burka, burqa, let's take the whole thing off.
If you happen to be a Muslim woman and happen to habitually wear a burka (or burqa), then you might be well advised to give Sa Pobla a wide berth. Little Sa Pobla, a town fast seeking for itself the title of Mallorca's most publicity-attracting municipality, is to ban the burka. Good for Sa Pobla. Not because it's necessarily a good idea, but because it's a means of deflecting attention from the town's parlous financial state.
Banning the burka, however, could help to swell the town hall's coffers. A 50 euros fine here, 200 euros fine there, three grand for a serial burka offender. "Alhamdulillah"; Sa Pobla is suddenly rich again.
Sa Pobla has a relatively high Muslim population. Most are from Morocco, some 2,000 people out of a total of around 13,000 inhabitants. According to one blog, other Muslims are from countries such as Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, and the women can typically be seen, clad in the burka or niqab, at the gates of schools waiting for their children. I'll take its word for it.
The town is to become the first in the Balearics to say no to the burka. It follows where towns and cities on the peninsula have led, especially in Catalonia (and the blog I refer to is a Catalan one). The Catalans have bigged up a burka ban. The town of Lleida was the first and then Barcelona said show us your face.
There is no ban as such on the burka in Spain. The national Senate voted in favour of a ban last year, only for the Congress to not vote in favour. The issue is meant to be up for debate, but seems to have been lost along with a general law on rellgious freedoms. Nevertheless, ban or no ban, the Islamic Human Rights Commission has complained that the Spanish Government permits local councils to regulate as they see fit.
When I first heard about Sa Pobla's ban, my reaction was "how can they?". I am not against them banning the burka - it is an absurdity; obscenity even - but on what basis can local authorities take such a measure? An order of good government, citizenship and co-existence would seem to allow them to do so. However, this is an issue on which the state should be arbitrating and legislating, not a small town in Mallorca.
The state should be legislating because ad-hoc bans are questionable in terms of the constitution, which explicitly makes provisions for religious freedoms and for safeguarding (for all people in Spain) their traditions, cultures and human rights.
It is this constitutional aspect that ties up with mooted reforms of laws on religious freedoms. The key word in all of this is "co-existence", one seemingly invoked in the local law in Sa Pobla, and "harmonious co-existence" in particular. This, and its definition in law and under the constitution, is a potential minefield. What exactly would represent the parameters of "harmonious co-existence"?
For the mayor of Sa Pobla, it is pretty clear what it means. The town should not be subject to "elements which ... distort the co-existence". Moreover, there should be integration based on the "values of our society, which is Mallorcan". It is the very mention of "Mallorcan", however, that shows how complicated the debate is and therefore how complicated any legal or constitutional amendment would be.
Are law and the constitution meant to reflect the traditions of every individual part of Spain when it comes to co-existence and religious freedoms? Because this is what the mayor seems to be suggesting. In Andalusia, there are values, as there are in Galicia and in Catalonia.
And to raise the "values" word is a minefield of its own. What are the values of Mallorcan society in any event? Or indeed of Spanish society?
The values, for which read also traditions, will mean that in Sa Pobla a blanket ban on the face being covered will not be totally blanket. A son of Michael Jackson would probably be included, and the wearing of balaclavas will certainly be included, but exceptions will be made for the pointy-head hoodies of Easter processions, for demons and beasties and for the "big heads" of fiesta times.
The difference is that the burka is not something worn for a specific celebration. Its wearing is absurd. Sa Pobla is not wrong to seek its banning, but it is wrong in that it should be the state which is deciding and in that it, as with other local councils, should not be allowed to play fast and loose with the constitution.
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
If you happen to be a Muslim woman and happen to habitually wear a burka (or burqa), then you might be well advised to give Sa Pobla a wide berth. Little Sa Pobla, a town fast seeking for itself the title of Mallorca's most publicity-attracting municipality, is to ban the burka. Good for Sa Pobla. Not because it's necessarily a good idea, but because it's a means of deflecting attention from the town's parlous financial state.
Banning the burka, however, could help to swell the town hall's coffers. A 50 euros fine here, 200 euros fine there, three grand for a serial burka offender. "Alhamdulillah"; Sa Pobla is suddenly rich again.
Sa Pobla has a relatively high Muslim population. Most are from Morocco, some 2,000 people out of a total of around 13,000 inhabitants. According to one blog, other Muslims are from countries such as Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, and the women can typically be seen, clad in the burka or niqab, at the gates of schools waiting for their children. I'll take its word for it.
The town is to become the first in the Balearics to say no to the burka. It follows where towns and cities on the peninsula have led, especially in Catalonia (and the blog I refer to is a Catalan one). The Catalans have bigged up a burka ban. The town of Lleida was the first and then Barcelona said show us your face.
There is no ban as such on the burka in Spain. The national Senate voted in favour of a ban last year, only for the Congress to not vote in favour. The issue is meant to be up for debate, but seems to have been lost along with a general law on rellgious freedoms. Nevertheless, ban or no ban, the Islamic Human Rights Commission has complained that the Spanish Government permits local councils to regulate as they see fit.
When I first heard about Sa Pobla's ban, my reaction was "how can they?". I am not against them banning the burka - it is an absurdity; obscenity even - but on what basis can local authorities take such a measure? An order of good government, citizenship and co-existence would seem to allow them to do so. However, this is an issue on which the state should be arbitrating and legislating, not a small town in Mallorca.
The state should be legislating because ad-hoc bans are questionable in terms of the constitution, which explicitly makes provisions for religious freedoms and for safeguarding (for all people in Spain) their traditions, cultures and human rights.
It is this constitutional aspect that ties up with mooted reforms of laws on religious freedoms. The key word in all of this is "co-existence", one seemingly invoked in the local law in Sa Pobla, and "harmonious co-existence" in particular. This, and its definition in law and under the constitution, is a potential minefield. What exactly would represent the parameters of "harmonious co-existence"?
For the mayor of Sa Pobla, it is pretty clear what it means. The town should not be subject to "elements which ... distort the co-existence". Moreover, there should be integration based on the "values of our society, which is Mallorcan". It is the very mention of "Mallorcan", however, that shows how complicated the debate is and therefore how complicated any legal or constitutional amendment would be.
Are law and the constitution meant to reflect the traditions of every individual part of Spain when it comes to co-existence and religious freedoms? Because this is what the mayor seems to be suggesting. In Andalusia, there are values, as there are in Galicia and in Catalonia.
And to raise the "values" word is a minefield of its own. What are the values of Mallorcan society in any event? Or indeed of Spanish society?
The values, for which read also traditions, will mean that in Sa Pobla a blanket ban on the face being covered will not be totally blanket. A son of Michael Jackson would probably be included, and the wearing of balaclavas will certainly be included, but exceptions will be made for the pointy-head hoodies of Easter processions, for demons and beasties and for the "big heads" of fiesta times.
The difference is that the burka is not something worn for a specific celebration. Its wearing is absurd. Sa Pobla is not wrong to seek its banning, but it is wrong in that it should be the state which is deciding and in that it, as with other local councils, should not be allowed to play fast and loose with the constitution.
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
Sunday, August 21, 2011
The Council Tack
The Unión Progreso y Democracia (UPyD) party has nicked my idea. It has proposed that the islands' councils, and the Mallorca council in particular, be scrapped. You may know that I had suggested this recently, as I have suggested it before over the years.
I don't suppose for one moment that there are those in the UPyD who are paying any attention to what I have to suggest, but I'll settle for the fact that one party at any rate seems to see the sense in getting rid of the Council of Mallorca and therefore the lack of sense of its being.
There again, the UPyD, new kids on the political block, having been only formed in 2007, doesn't have much to lose by making audacious proposals. Not that it is necessarily that audacious. There are hints that the Partido Popular (PP) might be thinking along similar lines, while the PSOE candidate for national president, Alfredo Rubalcaba, has sort of flagged up the idea as well. The UPyD, though, is the only party to come out and say unequivocally that the Council should go.
The UPyD is a party that you might describe as being a bit like the Liberal Democrats. It is of the centre, and while it is against nationalism, and so distances itself from the PP with its nationalist tendencies, it also believes there is too much decentralisation of government in Spain. This is less an anti-regionalism philosophy and more a practical one.
The momentum towards eliminating the Council and therefore the cost of running it and the duplications it causes is gathering, as also a momentum is growing to cut back or eliminate other forms of provincial government in Spain below that of the autonomous communities (of which the Balearics are one).
What might hold this momentum back is the history of the Council. It is only relatively new, having been formed, along with the councils of the other Balearic islands, after the collapse of the Franco regime and with the introduction of autonomous government in the islands in the early 1980s.
Consequently, the Council is symbolic of the new democratic era in the Balearics and in Spain as a whole. And there is a bit more history to it. Island councils were due to have been formed in the 1930s, but the Civil War got in the way. Prior to this, there had only been a provincial deputation for the Balearics as a whole (which dated back to the first half of the nineteenth century). The fact that the Council's existence was delayed by some fifty years by Franco does give an historical as well as an emotional force that demands that it should stay.
The Council has a whole raft of responsibilities, granted to it under the constitution and statutes relating to the autonomous communities. To take these away completely, and so follow the trend started by the removal of tourism promotion and absorbing them within the regional government, would require a constitutional change. Or at least, one would imagine that it would.
Getting rid of the Council would be fraught with danger because it would be nuanced by parties with strong regional philosophies as turning the clock back to the bad old days and as undermining the authority given to the islands when they were made an autonomous community.
Of these parties, however, only the Mallorcan socialists really count for anything at present. PSOE (nationally if not locally) appears as though it might be adopting a more pragmatic approach which would allow for the Council's dismantling, while the PP locally would probably be prepared to go along with it. The UPyD doesn't really count for much either, but it has at least brought the subject fully out into the open.
The threat to the Council comes mainly because of financial pressures. The discussion as to its future is belated though, which may sound odd as it is an institution barely thirty years old. But its youth tells a different story. The Council was formed in the glow of the new democracy. It is symbolic, there is no question about this, but whether the organisation in that glow of democracy was the right one is the question that now should be asked. And it is being asked.
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
I don't suppose for one moment that there are those in the UPyD who are paying any attention to what I have to suggest, but I'll settle for the fact that one party at any rate seems to see the sense in getting rid of the Council of Mallorca and therefore the lack of sense of its being.
There again, the UPyD, new kids on the political block, having been only formed in 2007, doesn't have much to lose by making audacious proposals. Not that it is necessarily that audacious. There are hints that the Partido Popular (PP) might be thinking along similar lines, while the PSOE candidate for national president, Alfredo Rubalcaba, has sort of flagged up the idea as well. The UPyD, though, is the only party to come out and say unequivocally that the Council should go.
The UPyD is a party that you might describe as being a bit like the Liberal Democrats. It is of the centre, and while it is against nationalism, and so distances itself from the PP with its nationalist tendencies, it also believes there is too much decentralisation of government in Spain. This is less an anti-regionalism philosophy and more a practical one.
The momentum towards eliminating the Council and therefore the cost of running it and the duplications it causes is gathering, as also a momentum is growing to cut back or eliminate other forms of provincial government in Spain below that of the autonomous communities (of which the Balearics are one).
What might hold this momentum back is the history of the Council. It is only relatively new, having been formed, along with the councils of the other Balearic islands, after the collapse of the Franco regime and with the introduction of autonomous government in the islands in the early 1980s.
Consequently, the Council is symbolic of the new democratic era in the Balearics and in Spain as a whole. And there is a bit more history to it. Island councils were due to have been formed in the 1930s, but the Civil War got in the way. Prior to this, there had only been a provincial deputation for the Balearics as a whole (which dated back to the first half of the nineteenth century). The fact that the Council's existence was delayed by some fifty years by Franco does give an historical as well as an emotional force that demands that it should stay.
The Council has a whole raft of responsibilities, granted to it under the constitution and statutes relating to the autonomous communities. To take these away completely, and so follow the trend started by the removal of tourism promotion and absorbing them within the regional government, would require a constitutional change. Or at least, one would imagine that it would.
Getting rid of the Council would be fraught with danger because it would be nuanced by parties with strong regional philosophies as turning the clock back to the bad old days and as undermining the authority given to the islands when they were made an autonomous community.
Of these parties, however, only the Mallorcan socialists really count for anything at present. PSOE (nationally if not locally) appears as though it might be adopting a more pragmatic approach which would allow for the Council's dismantling, while the PP locally would probably be prepared to go along with it. The UPyD doesn't really count for much either, but it has at least brought the subject fully out into the open.
The threat to the Council comes mainly because of financial pressures. The discussion as to its future is belated though, which may sound odd as it is an institution barely thirty years old. But its youth tells a different story. The Council was formed in the glow of the new democracy. It is symbolic, there is no question about this, but whether the organisation in that glow of democracy was the right one is the question that now should be asked. And it is being asked.
Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
