False freedom

The reasons for a democratic slap

Until the results of the elections were finally revealed, on last March 14th, Jose Maria Aznar strolled in a tranquil manner with the air of an egotistical peacock talking about how gifted he was as a statesman in the 21st Century. Before the many questions of those who warned him about his unpopular decisions, he said that he was only defending the interests of the Spanish crown. The amount of authority of the political decisions made by Spain had been drastically reduced since the 19th Century because of the different crisis that had shaken the country. The President of the Spanish Government used to say that he considered himself a valiant leader who was not affected by the public opinion. The philosophy of his leadership was the one of a person willing to make questionable decisions if he was personally convinced that he could defend the supreme interests of his country, even if these decisions collided with the public opinion,.

Go away, Mister Aznar!
In 1996, after 14 years of a Socialist government, Jose Maria Aznar publicly replaced the figure of Felipe Gonzalez with a brutal and an discourteous tone. Evidently, Aznar did not quite imagine that he could end his administration period with such an inappropriate position. He had prepared his departure in a brilliant manner. After eight years, with only 51 years of age, and an enviable economic position, he designated Mariano Rajoy as his successor. That was until Thursday, March 11th, the fatidic date of the attacks in Madrid. Until then, all of the public opinion polls announced the triumph of the Popular Party (PP, in Spanish) on the day of the elections.

However, after the massacre of the Spanish civilians that traveled on the trains, the political perspective of this European country changed radically. One of the most criticized characteristics of the government became the center of attention. The arrogance, the manipulation of the public opinion, the disdain towards the opposition, the servile attitude that many of the news media showed when it came to discuss the issue of the official party… all of this became crudely evident. Aznar took the time of personally call several sectors of the media to blame the ETA, a terrorist organization, for the attack. Several hours later, the Spanish Government insisted on the idea that the Security Council of the UN had to approve a resolution that blamed the ETA for the attacks. The Spanish Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ana Palacio, told the diplomats not to explore any other possibility that would not lead the investigations to the ETA.

This compulsive wish to manipulate the information regarding the case soon began to show its flaws. Thanks to the alternative news media, the Spanish population began to realize that in the rest of the world there were other thesis, quite different from the ones made public by their government. Those responsible for the attacks were not the terrorists that the official party intended to blame, but a radical group of Muslims that had a partnership with the Al Qaeda. By blaming the ETA, the Spanish Government intended to get the party stronger due to its intransigent position before those who claim for the independence of the Pais Vasco. In case that those responsible for the attacks were the warriors of Ala, as they call themselves, the government would have to explain why did they unconditionally support the war organized by Bush against Iraq. At this point, everyone knew what were the results. Because of the lies and the shameful manipulation of the truth, the party represented by Aznar lost the elections. The electorate sanctioned their shameless behavior before such a painful situation for the Spanish people.

The circumstances in which these electoral results were made public, and the efforts that the government made to avoid these results question the democratic profile portrayed by Aznar. Now his perceptions about his statesmanship lack credibility. He not only tried to hide and manipulate information in order to make this situation favorable for him, but he also showed that he was not the leader of unbreakable convictions that he said he was. He showed very little respect for the citizenry in the best style of the past and the present dictatorships that he used to criticize in such a vehement fashion.

The Spanish people took the power away from the party represented by Aznar, and gave a lesson of democracy to the world. They consolidated their rejection to the war of Bush in which the leader of the PP got the reign of Spain involved. They unmasked the infantile thesis and the little commitment that the party had with the integrity of Spain. The electorate from the Pais Vasco and the Catalans –who support the idea of a multinational Spain and who voted massively against his party- repudiated the blames, the divisions, and the suspicions that the PP tried to create to put the citizens of this part of Spain between a rock and a hard place. They also spoke their minds against the arrogance and the thirst for power of a government obsessed with picking up the possible dividends of an alliance with Bush, against the ideas that promote the construction of a stronger European continent respectful of the international regulations.

The transformations of a politician
People can still remember when Aznar ended his first administrative period in the year 2000 because back then he seemed to be a humble person who had just ended a four year period without any mistakes. The Spanish economy had been improved and kept growing in a constant manner. In addition, Aznar had renovated his party, a right wing that seemed to be a recalcitrant institution in the past without a honorable profile under the image of Franco. At the time, most people supported his reelection. They also admitted that his economic and his political success were a reality and that he was indeed a qualified statesman. Aznar, who had previously worked for the internal revenue service, had amazed even his most tenacious adversaries.

However, with an absolute majority of votes obtained in the elections of the year 2000, Aznar changed radically. With his mind clouded by all the power he had, a prudent official became an arrogant person. Under the pretext that power was a responsibility that the Spanish population had given to him, he became more and more presumptuous. The manipulation of the media became a constant practice, until the situation was denounced by the European Union. Several critics have even questioned the privatization of the public institutions, a transaction that was handled by his administration. The restricted circles connected with Aznar would have allegedly taken advantage of the privatized institutions that formerly belonged to the State.

Regardless from the veracity of the former ideas, those who were mostly affected by the second administration period leaded by Aznar were the members of the opposition. Aznar did mistreat the opposition. The President of the Government repeatedly accused the opposition saying that it had betrayed the trust of Spain, simply because they had different opinions about the reign’s performance. Those who perceived a different reality about the independence of the different autonomies have been called either “anti-democratic people” or “the supporters of terrorism”.

Aznar lost in his own territory
Ever since he was elected, Aznar seemed to believe that fighting against terrorism was a fundamental pillar of his governmental plan. He himself was a victim of a failed attack perpetrated by the ETA. He rejected the cause of this organization and all kinds of terrorism, since “terrorism attacks our fundamental values, our right to life, peace, and freedom in the democratic societies. No mistake would be more serious than to consider that the best is to look aside, to ignore what is going on, to try to explain why things happen. We have the obligation to defend our societies”.

After the September 11th attacks in the United States, the Aznar administration managed –thanks to the support of the international community, which happened to be consternated by the violent events- to close a fence around the ETA. The United Nations declared that this was a terrorist organization, and that its members had to be closely watched by all of the countries that were members. At the same time, they established the necessary mechanisms for a better communication, and the legitimacy of an order of arrest as measures to fight against terrorism in the European Union. Since then, the ETA has had many obstacles to move around Europe, especially in France.

Because of these actions, Aznar became a strong man when it came to fighting against terrorism and eradicating it from Spain. Independently from the fairness of this cause, the most ironic aspect of this whole story is that he lost the support that had been made public through the opinion polls in the context of the terrorist attack in Madrid. The giant had feet of mud after all. It is evident to see that the Spanish security services failed and could not control the movements of the illegal groups. An independent investigation should analyze if the reason for such a dramatic mistake was not due to an excessive amount of jealousy to control the movements the ETA.

After knowing about the results, the government began to panic. They did not know about a better way to deal with an attack that caused such a commotion in the entire Spanish society. In this context, it can be explained why they tried to manipulate the news that now several journalists and news media are publishing. There are rumors about several agents that might intend to rise up against the security corps. They are infuriated by the government’s deliberated will to intoxicate the public opinion.

Some people will say that what came out to the public light during the three days that separated the attack and the elections, has been a small sample of all of the mistakes that Aznar made throughout his eight years as president of the Spanish government. The truth is that terrorism unveiled all of the pompous discourses of the famous Spanish politician who intended to be seen as a historic icon that fought against terrorism, and an official that intended to return to Spain, thanks to an alliance with the united States, its former splendor and a new image as of one of the most powerful nations of the world.

If you want peace…

The terrorist attacks that took place in Madrid on last March 11th cannot cause anything but sadness and indignation. The authorship of these attacks does not change the fact that this is crime. The German philosopher, Immanuel Kant asked the people to see the individuals as objectives, and not as means to achieve a purpose. This line of thought has plenty to do with what happened in Madrid, because it can be said that there are no political objectives that might be able to justify a human tragedy such as this one. To use the pain of almost 200 people who lost their lives, 1,440 injured passengers, and the anguish of their relatives to prove how powerful certain positions are is not a convenient way to legitimate their force.

The victims were common citizens. Most of them were immigrants who had left their countries to look for a job in Spain. They were only running away from hunger and the cold, looking for a place to stay, a roof over their heads, and a meal over their table. There was nobody famous among the people who lost their lives or among those who were injured. None of them can be called “the enemy” of those who allegedly committed this crime. The disproportion between the magnitude of the attacks and the weakness of the victims show that most of the times, the power that the attackers gain only increases the loss and the pain of the victims.

The violence of terrorism is not just another kind of violence, because it is covered with an array of justifications: the supremacy of a political or a religious creed, freedom… Probably those who put the explosives in the stations at Atocha (Santa Eugenia and El Pozo del Tio Raymundo), felt that they were contributing with a great cause. Without a doubt, it was the same thing that those who crashed the airplanes against the twin towers felt, or those who shot the defenseless civilians at El Mozote, or at the Sumpul River, or those who dropped the bombs over Baghdad and Hiroshima.

Terrorism is a stigma that has to be eliminated. However, this attacks will not be eradicated with intolerance. How useful is to have “a war against terrorism” and justify the aggression against the nations that have been accused as accomplices of these actions? The simple results of the military adventures in the Middle East lead some people to think about the disproportion between the objective of the military interventions (the eradication of terrorism) and the price that has to be paid (the pain of the victims). And if we talk about objectives and means, it is necessary to think that the objective never actually justifies the means. If the means are vile, the objective will be vile as well.

The explosions that took place on March 11th are one more evidence of how wrong things are going in the world. Most people thought that once the Cold War was over, and that once many of the violent encounters that took place along the 20th Century had ended, the new century would be nothing but peaceful. It is true that we have come a long way since the century of the “extremes”, as historian Eric Hobsbawm called the 20th Century: we have conquered more freedom of expression; we have acknowledged the presence of those sectors that lived beneath a shadow; we have seen how the nightmare of a terrorism of the State disappeared in Latin America.

However, there are many goals that remain to be accomplished. The technological and the scientific advances that place us only a step away from finding the cure against AIDS have not turned us into a better community. If the 20th Century was the century of the extremes, just as Hobsbawn described it, what can we expect from a century that right from the start has been shaken by the absurdity of the new extremes: terrorism and the forces against terrorism.

Spain has drank once again the bitter potion brewed by the pain of the victims. In a context when the death of Christ took place so long ago, how many more sacrifices will be necessary for us to change?

Take the case of Monsignor Romero. Before the terrorism and the violence of the State, he chose to follow a different path. He never encouraged people to respond with terrorism to terrorism itself. The Salvadoran population listened to him carefully. He could have acted as any other irresponsible political leader, using the sympathy of the population to accomplish selfish interests. However, he never used the power of his words to do harm. He even said that he disapproved of any terrorist attempt that might have been considered by the popular movement. He gave a different message to those who thought that the blood of the dead could be avenged with more blood. He knew that it was impossible to bring back people to life through vengeance. He preached and acted with the objective to find forgiveness. He even forgave those who would murder him.

A final thought
It is clear that during the following weeks the results of the elections will be the center of attention of the public eye. Nevertheless, it will take more than a group of new people in the government to change the feelings of resentment that load the guns of the terrorists.

During these violent days, when there are all kinds of promises and political attacks, a group of Christians asked the Congress to officially declare the period between March 24th of 2004 and March 24th of 2005 “The year of Monsignor Romero”. The commemoration of that year can be a valid reason to reflect about terrorism, violence, and the need to find answers inspired by feelings of solidarity and justice, not revenge and selfishness. It is true that in this country the explosions and the bombarding are both a thing of the past. But it is also true that there is plenty of violence in this country. It might not be terrorism in the strict sense of the word, but it is a violence that is generating a certain number of victims.

The year of Monsignor Romero can create public or private initiatives to end with all kinds of violence. The fact that El Salvador offers to send its troops when there are wars in other countries, puts this nation in the place of a country that tends to support violence, not as a country that promotes peace. The Roman sentence “If you want peace, prepare the war”, in which some people believe, is definitively not true. If you prepare yourself for a war, you will only get a war. If you prepare yourself for peace, that is exactly what you will give to others.