|
|
||
|
|
The Election of 28-O, 1990 Four years ago, in the fall of 1986, I had the good fortune of witnessing the election of the Parliament of the Autonomous Basque Community and of reporting it in the BSP newsletter in an article entitled "The Election of 30N." Last fall I once again found myself in the Basque Country during the community-wide elections. While the players were largely the same, the contrasts in the campaigns were striking, and important. Overview of Political Party Structure There are four representational assemblies to which a politician from the Basque Country can aspire. In ever widening circles they are: 1) the Assembly of each individual province: Guipuzcoa, Alava and Vizcaya; 2) the Parliament of the Autonomous Basque Community, located in Vitoria-Gasteiz, which establishes legislation for all three provinces; 3) the Parliament in Madrid which legislates for the entire Spanish state; and 4) the European Parliament in Strasbourg. The election reported upon in 1986, and the recent election of 28-O (October 28, 1990), each concerned the makeup of the Parliament in Vitoria-Gasteiz. As was the case in 1986, political parties in Euskadi may still be categorized according to two factors. First, they are differentiated by traditional left-right or liberal-conservative tendencies. In a second fashion, parties are characterized by their adherence to Basque nationalism or broader Spanish nationalism. The former are regarded as nationalist parties and include HB (Herri Batasuna-Unity of the People), EE (Euskadiko Ezkerra-The Basque Left), EA (Eusko Alkartasuna-Basque Solidarity), and PNV (Partido Nacionalista Vasco-Basque Nationalist Party). The Spanish parties are represented by the PSOE (Partido Socialista Obrero Español-Spanish Workers' Socialist Party), CDS (Centro Democrático y Social-Democratic and Social Center) and the right-wing PP (Partido Popular-Popular Party). Thus, on a nationalist tangent, EE has more in common with the PNV than the PSOE. On the left-right continuum, it shares greater affinity with the latter than the former. A voter is able to vote his ideology: Basque and left or right, or Spanish and left or right. Circumstances Peculiar to the 1986 Elections Beyond these basics, the circumstances for the elections were vastly different in 1990 than those existing four years earlier. In 1986, the Basque Nationalist Party (PNV) had recently split, and Carlos Garaikoetxea, the first Lehendakari (Prime Minister), had left the venerable party to form the Eusko Alkartasuna (EA) party, giving rise to a bitter division among moderate Basque nationalists. Until then the PNV parliamentarians dominated the legislature and thus had been able to govern alone, without the consent of other parties. After the schism forced new elections in 1986, no one doubted that the political picture in the Basque Country would be drastically different. With the dilution of moderate nationalist votes, it was virtually certain that no party would gain an absolute majority in parliament. Consequently, a coalition government, composed of two or more parties, would be required in order to govern. The elections of 30N were characterized by strife, bitterness and disillusionment among moderate Basque nationalists along with considerable uncertainty. Furthermore, the Basque Country had been ravaged by a lengthy economic recession. Unemployment skyrocketed to nearly a quarter of the working force. On the Madrid front, the transfer of governmental functions from the central Spanish government to Vitoria-Gasteiz, as called for by the Statute of Guernica, had ground to a standstill as a result of conflict between the governments of the Autonomous Community and of the Spanish State. The middle of the decade revealed an economy in shambles, high unemployment, continued sporadic incidents of violence, labor unrest, an impasse with Madrid and deep division among the moderate nationalists. The election of 1986 was the culmination of a very trying and difficult period in the Basque Country. Coalition Climate Resulting from 1986 Election The clear winner of the 1986 election was the Spanish Socialist Party (PSOE) with 19 seats, the highest of any party, followed by the distribution of 53 of the 56 remaining votes among the highly splintered Basque parties. None of the parties enjoyed a clear majority in Parliament, and it was necessary for the Basque Nationalist Party (PNV), with 17 seats, to form a coalition government with the Spanish Socialist Party (PSOE). The PNV negotiated for itself the position of Lehendakari (Jose Antonio Ardanza) and half of the ministries. By most accounts, the coalition was quite effective. Its tenure coincided with the strong rebounding of the area's economy. Businesses began to make money, governmental revenues increased, and unemployment was slowly whittled down. Political Focus on EEC Psychologically, the second half of the decade in the Basque Country and, indeed, in all of Spain and Europe, was dominated by a fixation on 1992. This magical year would mark Columbus' 500th anniversary of the discovery of America, the World's Fair in Sevilla and the Summer Olympics in Barcelona. More importantly, it marked the end of international European economic borders and the beginning of a unified European Economic Community. For the first time, internal customs controls would disappear and goods would flow unhampered throughout Europe. Businesses, as well as governments at all levels, quickly understood this new economic base to represent a two-edged sword: 1) markets accessible throughout Europe, increasing mass production and lowering costs while enhancing the availability of goods; and 2) at the same time, Europe-wide competition threatening to eliminate all but the most efficient businesses. Driven by this carrot-and-stick reorganization, businesses, political parties, governments, educators, environmentalists and others began to measure themselves against their counterparts throughout Europe and not just in Euskadi and Spain. Within this larger cosmos, the former obsessions of the Basque and Spanish governments with each other appears to be waning. For the Basque nationalist parties, the notion of a unified Europe has meant that, with time, Euskadi might be able to interact directly with Europe-without going through Madrid. Ironically, this is one area where the PSOE joins HB in raining on the parade. Felipe González, PSOE President of Spain, counters that "the Basque Country without Spain would not represent anything in Europe." Political Climate Surrounding the 1990 Election The political and economic backdrop for the elections of 28-O was much more positive and harmonious than four years earlier. It should, then perhaps not come as a surprise that the campaign of 1990 was also less acrimonious, less bitter, and less conflictive. Each party portrayed greater confidence in its platforms, in its politicians and, seemingly, in its constituents. The campaign was positive to such a degree that each and every one of the parties took note of it and lauded the new political climate. In many ways, the campaign reflected the new positive reality of the Basque Country itself. Similar to the election campaign of 1986, some issues won unanimous support from all the principal parties: the fight against drugs and petty crime, the fight for consumer protection, programs for the youth, protection of the environment, improved quality of life, improved housing, more jobs, better work conditions, improved technology and programs for senior citizens. The campaign literature of all the parties was also saturated with language calling for peace, a more just society, defense of human rights, tolerance, an end to social discrimination, a better, more modern, more European education system, and stability. Perhaps for the first time the parties took great care in including women among their list of candidates and in displaying them prominently. Most parties included women's rights as part of their platform. In 1986, one of the most emotional issues related to the armed organization ETA (Euskadi ta Askatasuna--Basque homeland and freedom), founded in 1959, which favors an armed struggle to create an independent and Marxist Basque Country. Politically, there was considerable movement in this area in 1989 with the signing of the Pact of Ajuria Enea (Basque White House). The Pact was signed by the so-called "democratic block", referring to all of the major political parties active in the Basque country with the exception of HB. The Pact calls for an absolute rejection of an armed struggle for political purposes. Furthermore, the parties agreed to deny a political forum to those who do not condemn violence, that is to say HB, by not organizing any debates or other political activities to which HB would have to be admitted. HB insists that the problem represented by ETA will not go away until there is direct and substantial negotiation between the armed organization and the Spanish government. All of the other parties emphatically refuse to even admit the issue, nor the party which espouses it. This had the effect of isolating HB from a part of the political process which, ironically, HB rejects. Cultural issues continued to permeate the campaign in 1990. Most Basques believe euskera, the Basque language, is the nucleus of their identity and should constitute an essential ingredient of education and of public life in Euskadi. While less than a third of the people speak Basque today, there has been a virtual renaissance of the language in the last ten years. All of the political parties claim to respect and support the use of euskera and, indeed, official party platforms do not reveal great differences in this regard. And yet the language issue was perhaps more acutely divisive in 1990 than in 1986. Basque nationalists believe that since the language has been discriminated against or even prohibited under the Franco regime, and since its use is not equal to Spanish, it should receive consideration and support. Indeed, many inroads have been made during the preceding decade, in terms of public funding for the previously clandestine/private all-Basque schools (ikastolak), the development of government-sponsored adult Basque language classes (HABE), and the requirement for Basque speakers for some employment (some teachers, administrators, etc.) in the public sectors. The Spanish parties disagree with this affirmative-action approach to euskera. Non-Basque speakers, largely represented by the Spanish parties, have leveled charges of discrimination by the Basque government, for violating the civil rights of non-Basque speakers seeking jobs. Unidad Alavesa also included in its platform a 15-year moratorium of the Basque language's implantation in Alava and, to gauge by the impressive victory of this party, may have struck a responsive chord among its constituents. The language issue touches upon a larger and potentially more sensitive issue of ethnic identity. The Basque Country is like a tremendously diverse fabric woven from multicolored threads of varying origins. This social and cultural fabric is, to some degree, in constant tension as the country attempts to reestablish its ethnic character without discriminating against its numerous emigrants who, in some areas, constitute the majority of the population. While all parties claim to represent all of the region's inhabitants, the PSOE and other non-nationalist parties may have been trying, in this election, to capitalize upon a possible backlash against nationalist programs. In the words of PSOE party leader Ramón Jáuregui: "There are people who believe themselves more or less Basque, in relation to their attitude toward the use or command of euskera, origins or surname. I want to assert that we are all equally Basque." The balance of power between Madrid and Euskadi, like the issue of cultural identity, was central to the elections of 1990. Just before the election, the tenth anniversary of the Statute of Guernica was recognized at a ceremony under the Oak Tree of Guernica. The Statute of Guernica, adopted by the Basque Country in 1980 pursuant to Spanish constitutional authority, articulates the distribution of governmental functions between the central Spanish and autonomous Basque governments. The Statute represents the foundation upon which all Basque institutions rest. At the ceremony, Lehendakari Ardanza underscored the "shared space which unites all of us which is called the Statute of Guernica," referring, in part, to the fact that all parties (except HB), whether Basque or Spanish, accept the Statute as the legal framework which articulates the specific rights of the Basques within the Spanish state. HB does not accept the Statute and, as a result, it has not accepted the legitimacy of the provincial, community-wide and Spanish parliaments. While it participates in the elections, its representatives attend parliamentary sessions only on a selected, issue-by-issue basis. The Statute is, however, a flexible document, which, like the American Constitution, is subject to a wide range of interpretations. The authority over many of the functions of government has already been transferred from Madrid to Vitoria-Gasteiz since 1980. Some functions, such as customs and national defense, are viewed as incapable of transfer. But, not unlike the constant tension over the respective jurisdictions of American states and the federal government in Washington, all of the nationalist parties, whose authority is rooted in the Basque Country, continue to demand further jurisdiction from Madrid. They argue that the Statute of Guernica specifies only the minimum autonomy guaranteed by the constitution of the Spanish state. Consequently, all of the nationalist parties wish to see the broadest interpretations of the Statute's provisions met as quickly as possible. ... Continued on next page |
|
|
|
|
