Democracy and votings (XXIV)
XXIV – Democracy and votings
Iñaki Aginaga and Felipe Campo
According to the traditional formula coined by its ideologists (when they are forced to face a – relative – theoretical difficulty), the legitimacy of the current French and Spanish “revolutionary or transitive” despotism is affirmed by these agentes by availing it on the ‘consensus’ that the People does supposedly grant to the political norms and power of that de facto régime. But not even in Latin can the misunderstandings disguise that, in a true democracy, the People does not have to grant any agreement, or to consent or assent or endorse anything because the rules are made by it; and that it is the People itself which constitutes the democratic political power.
Freedom and democracy are historical products which took the English several centuries and various caprices of Fortune to detach from their feudal sources. Now then, in the opinion of the Spaniards “it cannot be said that the English People is very intelligent”, although it possesses the intelligence “that is strictly needed to live”. The French consider themselves to be the most intelligent People of the Globe, and even so it took them “the great French Nationalist revolution” to get to what they call freedom and democracy. However, for the Spaniards it was enough with a decree of “The Little Butcher of Malaga”, and with a mandate of the Minister-Secretary General of the Phalanx (“Political Reform Act”), to accede to the self-reform of the Francoism and to what they call “the democratic transition”. Whether they believe it or not, that’s another issue; but centuries of Asiatic Despotism, Absolutism, and military, nationalist and fascist Dictatorships are not an appropriate school for French and Spaniards to know – or want to know – what Freedom, Human Rights and Democracy are really about.
It would be more difficult to imagine that the English People – even with the handicap of the intellectual deficit that the Spaniards attribute to it – believes it, and it would be interesting to know what the English would do and say if a régime such as the Spanish or the French one was imposed on them. (Which will eventually happen to them, if they do not tread more carefully and less confidently that they do now, and continue – no longer as isolated as in the past – keeping their bad company on the Continent.) But there happens that the duopoly of the Hot or Cold War and the hegemonic order in the post-world war period have their exigencies; and after all, the “new” Francoism is not so bad for the Spaniards. It is even better than what the Western “democracies”: who knew what the score and the cattle were, would have dared to hope or had come to fear.
It is also possible and even understandable that, after many centuries of Despotism, the French and the Spaniards might not have already the slightest idea of what the political power of the People can be, not even that of their own; and that they truly believe that the modern façade of papier-mâché, fake democracy and political under-development that they have mounted: behind which is hidden the French-Spanish totalitarian power of the fascist army and the big capital, of the Nationalist great bourgeoisie and land-owner aristocracy, and of the National-laicism and National-Catholicism, does constitute the essence and foundation of genuine Democracy. It is also possible that they couldn’t care less about it.
Be that as it may, but encouraged by such solid convictions, the disseminators and vulgarizers of the Francoist post-organic democray are currently devoted to discrediting all reticence and attempt of Resistance that they perceive in the face of the absurdities that they spread, by teaching those who they describe as ignorant in the matter that, “in democracy, the policy is made by getting up on a crate and asking for the votes of one’s fellow citizens”. A simple, acute, direct and sincere speech, which obtains without difficulty the enthusiastic adhesion of the multitudes of feeble-minded persons that the fascist monopolies of ideological befuddling and conditioning of masses do daily produce at an open-pipe range from newspapers and television, with the help of a swarm of ignorant or venal journalists-mercenaries.
Yet, so as to make policy “in” democracy, one must first be do the democratic policy that builds and constitutes the democratic régime, and not the imperialistic and fascist policy that builds and constitutes the totalitarian régime; which is what the fascist propaganda tries to hide from its defenceless patients by making them believe in a “democracy”, a State and fellow citizens fallen from the sky. Since, logically and historically, it is beyond any doubt the fact that the creators of the established régime neither implanted it nor do hold it by getting up on a crate and asking for the votes of the fellow citizens but did so through criminal aggression, and then lying about what had happened. Now then, things are clear: the war of aggression and the fascist monopolies of criminal Violence and totalitarian indoctrination of masses are reserved for the conquerors and holders of the political power; the getting up on a crate, for the applicants to the “democratic opposition”. It’s this how the post-organic defenders of the Spanish imperialistic fascism understand democracy.
It is necessary to clear up – although its evidence should make it unnecessary – that there is nothing less universal than the so-called “universal suffrage”, nor anything more ambiguous and distorted than the universality of the vote. The patent bombast and ambiguity of those terms serves to hide that the purported “universality” of the suffrage in question excludes the vast majority of humankind; surely enough: votes and majorities do pre-suppose a State and a political power already constituted in their territory, borders and population, which necessarily exclude all the others. There are no political majorities or minorities without the political régime that does precede and constitute them; a régime that, in the case of imperialism, does not come from votes, elections or voters but from an insurmontable and criminal initial constitutive Violence, responsible for imprescriptible crimes and for violation of inalienable and indefeasible rights.
Moreover (and in this same line so unfortunately necessary of having to dispel myths as ingrained and fatal as absurd), it is also unquestionable that votes, consultations, referenda and elections do not and cannot “lead” to freedom, since if there is no prior freedom, “votes and elections” are not free; and if it does already exist, then it is not those “votes and elections” that have led to it. To establish PREVIOUSLY a free and democratic régime: founded in the validity and respect for the fundamental human rights and above all in the own right of self-determination or national independence of all Peoples, is an inescapable necessity for any People that, subjugated under an imperialistic régime, aspires to be able to subsequently exercise in full freedom a genuine and democratic majority vote.
There are no tricks, “polls or votes” that – neither for good nor for evil – do allow a People to spare going through that path of achieving national independence, as all free Peoples in the Earth have understood in fighting first of all for their independence; something that also the Basque People should urgently understand if it wants to be the agent of its own destiny, and not remain as an inert subject bound for manipulation and inevitably for destruction under the totalitarian French-Spanish integration “you to the North and I to the South”.
In history, the Peoples that have not become independent is because they have been prevented form doing so and have not been able to achieve it; but there is no one single example of People that, after having reached to national independence, has decided to return to its previous state of domination so as to benefit from “the polls, votes and self-government” of the oppressor. In the imperialistic ecosystem of Spain and of France there is no the less place for the Basque People or our nagional language, the Euskara. He who would say that he cannot see it so and affirms to the contrary it is because he is lying or because he doesn’t want to see it, and it was said that there is no worse blind man than he who doesn’t want to see. It is in both cases about the suggestions or siren’s songs that indigenous Renegades, Traitors or Collaborationists follow. For a People subjugated under the imperialism, to move away from them and not listen to them; or on the contrary to accept them, is simply a matter of life or death.
Elections and referenda do not constitute the political régime; it is the political régime: whether democratic or totalitarian, that constitutes elections and referenda in correspondence with its own nature. Votes, elections etc. imply a previous political power that establishes them. In a political régime, whether de factoor de jure, the power is already necessarily established prior tothe elections: from the very moment in which that régime exists, the base of the real power does effectively exist; and it is this power that fixes the frontiers, constitutes the Government, establishes the order, and determines the citizens who can and cannot vote as well as the rules under which this should be done, besides being the power that implements the use or the monopoly of the mass media.
The fetishism of “votes and polls” intends to hide a basic fact, namely: that the political and juridical freedom depends on the rapport of forces, and therefore those only do – or do not – acquire sense based on this relationship. In short: if there has not been previouslyachieved that the régime that “calls” for elections is a democratic régime (that is: a régime in which fundamental human rights and above all the right of self-determination or independence of the Peoples: first and forecondition of all of them, are guaranteed), the result that emerges from these “elections” will not alter the nature of the régime that convenes them and that is already previously in power.
Whether it be democratic or totalitarian, they aren’t votes, elections, majorities or minorities which do found the political power; it’s the political power which, in use of its monopoly of violence (either it be democratic and therefore legitimate, or totalitarian and therefore criminal), founds, produces, determines and conditions the voters, elections, majorities and minorities; includes and excludes voters, candidates and alternatives; and decides on the consequences; which in an imperialistic régime of military occupation like the one that is subjugating the Basque People from eight centuries ago, are those that we have in sight.
A political or “juridical” system, whatever its feature may be, is never founded – neither logically nor sociologically – upon electoral results or other forms of suffrage. Actually the purported “universal” suffrage is a derivative, secondary and belated procedure of a political régime that has already been previously constituted, and therefore that procedure in no way can found nor legitimize the latter. “Pacts, Constitutions, majorities, elections, consensus, referendum, law” etc. do previously imply the existence of a State, no matter what its nature may be: either democratic or totalitarian. Therefore, suchsubsequentmechanisms cannot found the State – nor eventually the democracy – but by begging the question (petitio principii), i.e.: on a forgery. The “theory” of the foundation and legitimation of a State and its “rule of law” through “the Constitution, the universal suffrage and its majority” is a complete theoretical emptiness, it means absolutely nothing, and it is pure ideological verbiage to manipulate the fools and defenceless people that the totalitarian régime does lavishly produce at a mass range. The elections and referenda – even though when called of “self-determination” – under a régime of military occupation are, bedsides other things, a bad joke.
For greater security, and as it posits the totalitarian ideological system, the majority, the minority and the “rights” that protect the imperialistic régime are and always are assumed to be simple, sufficient and inclusive; whereas on the contrary the alleged majority and rights that are opposed to that régime are by designation and are always assumed to be qualified, insufficient and exclusionary. The “universal suffrage” under an imperialistic régime does only serve for “the recognition and legitimation” of the occupation régime, and to “decide” to what extent the imperialistic strategy is pursued either through the management of the auxiliary services of the local political sub-class, through the direct work of the official fascist Party and its puppets and management committees, or through the direct administration of the army. In the “elections” the fascism does only play to win, or not to lose its fool’s bargain. If it “wins” (that is: if it re-validates the domination it already had previously), the result allows it to give an additional turn of screw. If it “loses”, the real political-administrative power and the real process continue, nothing changes, it all is tried again, or the rules of the game and its players are changed, or the army “intervenes”. Unless it cannot rise up because it had already revolted before.
It’s precisely this one the fundamental political régime that the fascist ideology is trying to hide: it does not lack reasons for it. The aim pursued by the fascist ideology on the “elections” and other expressions of the “universal” vote is, actually, to exclude all questioning of the fundamentals of the political power. This real political base: established upon the military aggression, dismemberment and armed occupation against the Basque People and its State the Kingdom of Nabarre, legitimally, voluntarily and historically constituted, is thus artfully hidden and “disappears”. The resulting “democracy” is confined to derivative and secondary forms of the imperialistic political regime; a régime whose incurable and criminal origin and fundamentals, which are null and void, thanks to this legerdemain are intended to have disappeared and are discarded. The universal suffrage was, at times, a demand against Despotism; but that institution has been long ago perfectly controlled and used by the totalitarian political power.
Freedom and democracy do not begin with the “freedom to vote or stand in elections” but with the freedom to build up the democracy, without which there are no democratic elections. Democracy: the political power or the People, begins with the respect for fundamental human rights and in particular for the right of self-determination or independence of all Peoples. And fundamental human rights: inherent, inalienable, indefeasible and un-renounceable as they are, do not admit to be voted since they do not depend on wills or majorities. No “majority” has any democratic value against fundamental human rights. These rights are the sole foundation of a free and democratic society; and the right of self-determination or independence of Peoples is the first of human rights and the precondition of them all.
No “majority” has legitimacy against the right of self-determination of the subjugated Peoples, that is: against their right to live free in their own Homeland, on their own territory and in secure borders. Without the respect for the fundamental human rights and especially for the right of self-determination or independence of Peoples: rights that are original and do not come from votes, nor from majorities or minorities), the “free and democratic elections” are just a caricature, an effective food for fools of the imperialistic and fascist ideology. For a subjugated People, the independence from imperialism does necessarily precede all voting or “consultation”. A Constitution is not undemocratic because an occupied People has not “endorsed it” with its votes, but because it has been imposed by the constituent régime of military occupation BEFORE any vote. The fact that it would have been “voted and endorsed” by the 100% of the population would not change anything its undemocratic nature. The previous evacuation of the forces and institutions of occupation is the precondition of democratic real constitution and formal Constitution, and of subsequent democratic votes.
Under the conditions of a military occupation, the voting not only possible but more or less wide for the candidates of the imperialism does only reveal the degree of repression and intoxication suffered by the subjugated and colonized People. The strange thing, under these circumstances, is not that such voting can occur, since the overwhelming reality of the de facto power pre-supposes the governmental voting as total or widely majority. Quite to the contrary, the strange thing is that, even so, there are people who in a greater or fewer number abstain from voting or vote candidates or options at least dubious, and this is sufficiently revealing of the reality of imperialistic domination. Such facts do not occur in Poitiers or in Valladolid, only occur in the subjugated and colonized Countries. They reveal the vote that would actually occur should the conditions be reversed, after centuries of independence.
In colonial Algeria and even on the eve of its independence, the French “won free and democratic consultations” while the slogans of the provisional Government of the rebellion were followed by 14% of the locals. Immediately after the independence, this 14% had become 100%; and after the French colonists had been repatriated, there remains not a single trend that claims the annexation of Algeria to France, when shortly before, this was – supposedly – the object of the “unwavering adherence” from the vast majority of the population. The majority or the independentist vote in the subjugated and colonized Countries does not normally exceed one third of the population, with one-third undecided and another one adverse; which was considered as an acceptable operational base for the American insurgency, driven by the independentist-terrorist colonists – according to the established national and international law – who created the USA at the cost, once again!, of the indigenous “minority”.
A previous democratic basis, in whatever variant that it can be, is a condition for the democratic validity of an eventual technical operation of elections through majority voting:
“It would be wise to examine the act by which a people becomes a people; for this act, which necessarily predates the other, is the true foundation of society. For, indeed, if there were no prior agreement, whence would arise (unless the election were unanimous) the obligation of the smaller number to submit to the choice of the greater one? And whence comes it that one hundred persons, for instance, who might desire to have a master, had a right to decide for ten others who might desire to have none? The choice by a plurality of votes is in itself an establishment of convention, and supposes that unanimity must at least for once have subsisted among them.” “There is but one law which, from its very nature, needs unanimous consent, namely: the social compact; for civil association is the most voluntary of all acts, since every person having been born free and his own master, no-one, under any pretext whatsoever, can make any man a subject without his consent. To decide that the son of a slave is born a slave is to decide that he is not born a man.” (J. J. Rousseau, ‘On the Social Contract; or, Principles of Political Rights’; 1762.)
The Spanish and French Nationalism: which has subjugated this Country by means of Violence and Terrorism of war, of occupation and of State and not by means of “elections”, has destroyed by means of them all traces of our own and legitimate institutions, and therefore of all democracy. In the absence of that necessary “previousdemocratic basis” referred to above, the liquidation of any “voluntary convention or social compact” is total. Next the aggressor, preventing by means of violence and destruction of the others any possibility of all genuine democracy (which is necessarily based on the respect and validity of fundamental human rights and above all of Self-Determination or Independence of Peoples), has imposed on the Basque People his own laws and his own totalitarian and imperialistic “elections”, as an ersatz and simulacrum of “dialogue and democracy”.
Yet the “elections” are won by the power that organizes them. These “elections”: with the issues, limits and conditions that are determined by the political imperialistic monopoly, imply the “right”, that is the obligation of the “voters” – whom the established power qualifies or disqualifies – to vote as and what it wants to; they involve procedures, geometries, and a system of simple or qualified, general or local majority, which have been established according to the interest and the prospect of the totalitarian power. Thus, the six “Basque provinces” are an electoral whole to give the “general majority” to the imperialism: reduced to four (or three plus one), they are diluted in the hunting ground imposed within the borders of the Spanish imperialism; and converted the others in the same way into a “French department” or part of it, they give the “majority” to the French imperialism. And this is so because, anyway, “what counts is the vote of the whole of Spaniards and French”, which are the only Nations that there are according to their own “legality” and jurisprudence.
If suffrage did really consist in the power of the People, or led to it; and if so believed the Governments that actually wield the real power while they issue hypocritical proclamations concealing that reality, then they would be against the suffrage the same as they were in the past when, given the weakness of the People, they did not fear it and allowed themselves to despise it.But it isprecisely these oligarchic and bureaucratic-military forces that do now, with full conviction and resolution, put the immense resources of the fascist monopolies of criminal violence and propaganda in the effort to achieve the vote of the masses: a safe and riskless means of comforting and legitimizing their own political power, since – under the conditions established by these monopolies, they have managed to totally recuperate and distort these procedures of “votes and majorities”.
Let’s see: either the subjugated People has strength, or it doesn’t. Yet, even in the first case, participating in the “general elections” of the imperialistic régime under its conditions unilaterally established (which means accepting that power as legitimate and democratic), is the same as losing in advance; and in the second case, there are not even elections. The only enterprise able of reversing the conditions imposed by the imperialism consists in the transformation of the People into a strategic agent capable of altering the rapport of forces which this imperialistic reality is based upon; that is, in the empowerment of its spontaneous basic strength, which is the primary condition, through the application on it of elaborate ideological-political structures that are irrecuperable for imperialism, which are the secondary condition; with the strategic qualification of those forces as a result. Without popular forces girt with a strategic qualification, there is no anti-imperialist policy.
The fact that the “moderate and non-violent Basque opposition”, with the constant support of the “patriotic, radical and violent opposition” that has “declared a hot war on abstention”, have been collaborating for forty five years now and continue to collaborate until today in the “electoral and democratic” consolidation of the Spanish imperialistic and fascist régime of military occupation on the Basque People and its State, illustrates by itself the actual function that both of them have assumed. The Resistance to participate in a fool’s game that is rigged in advance is inseparable and the first condition of the strategic and institutional development of the democratic forces; but these ones had been thoroughly countered and ruined by the organic, bureaucratic and corporate rear-guard of the promoters of the Pnv-Eta “institutional path and the armed struggle”, from before and during the Spanish “transition” to Second Francoism.
The “struggle for the majority” that holds the bureaucratic-liquidationist group Pnv-Eta and its satellites is focused on an impossible goal. The belief or hope that “many things will be possible when we have 80% of the votes” is an illusion that has caused thegreatest disasters since the end of our Wars of Independence in the nineteenth century. No People has ever won such pseudo-democratic majority: not even local, in the conditions of a régime of military occupation. As indicated, the USA were born from the will of a third of the colonial population under the illegal – and therefore criminal, proslavery and terrorist according to international law – direction of Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Franklin. In any case, the situation prior to the independence both in the American Colonies and in Algeria provides us with a clear lesson: under an imperialistic régime of military occupation, the model of the usual three-thirds – against the imperialistic régime, in favour, and neutral – is perfectly operational, and it turns into the totality after the independence.
No sujugated People has the slightest chance of establishing such majority under the military occupation of an imperialistic régime. If that majority doesn’t exist, the imperialism will of course take advantage of it; but even if it existed, no “majority” Pnv-Eta, great or total though it might be (either of 80 or 99%), would lead the imperialism to accept the right of self-determination of the Basque People, that’s to say: the national independence against the foreign régime of military occupation, since “what counts is the majority of all Spaniards”, as established by the ‘Constitution’ and its armed guardians who hold “the guns: the most important integral part of the constitution”.
The REAL alternative offered to a subjugated People in the adherence to such a “policy” boils down to either losing the elections, or eliciting the more or less relative, tactical or strategic change of the colonial policy. Indeed, an eventual and imprudent “electoral rise” is only either the prelude to the suppression or correction of the established “autonomous” régime, the signal for the military and fascist rebellion, or the announcement of the new migratory invasion that unbalances the “electoral” balance and prepares the new “majority” for the new “elections”. The Pnv “electoralism” during the Second Spanish Republic led to the military, monarchical and fascist uprising, to war and disaster; and the Pnv-Eta “electoralism” in the post-war period, to the rise of fascist repression.
The democratic vote is founded on the validity and effectiveness of fundamental human rights and above all of the right of self-determination or independence of Peoples: first of fundamental human rights and precondition of them all; therefore, it implies the prior exclusion and abolition of the imperialistic régime of occupation, that’s to say: the effectiveness of Self-Determination or Independence of Peoples from imperialism. However, the “electoral strategy” developed by the collaborationism-liquidationism of the Pnv-Eta bureaucrats under the imperialistic régime of the Second Francoism is inseparable from their denial of the Basque People as an owner-agent of its own, original, inherent and inalienable international right of self-determination of all Peoples; from their denial of the imperialism as a reality that oppresses our People and State; as well as from their recognition of the régime of the French-Spanish régime of military occupation as a “legitimate, non-violent and democratic” one.
It’s pathetic to see how those who argue the supposed weakness – demographic or other – of this Country in order to deny it all strategic virtuality, are nevertheless “unable” to discover the inanity of any pretension to win by means of the “vote” in the framework and conditions of the imperialistic régime: which is the theoretical assumptionin which they make rest their entire “strategy”. Apparently, they are unable to grasp that “the majority” is something that can perfectly be fabricated, conditioned and qualified: nobody knows this better than the ruling classes.
Once a certain political power has been established aloof from the fundamental human rights, and upon that despotic basis, there can be established next – through the formal and integrated procedure of “votes and majorities” – as many different and conflicting systems as lines can pass through a point. There can, above all, be built the more undemocratic totalitarian systems that can be conceived. Fascism, imperialism,slavery and genocide – as well as murder, cannibalism, (legal) kidnapping, or rape of minors (and adults) – are perfectly compatible with totalitarian “elections, universal suffrage, law of the majority, and the consequent democracy”.
Now then, if, as it is claimed by the imperialistic ideology (which “the Pnv-Eta patriots” of our Country have fully endorsed), the source of all legitimacy is the will of “the majority”, which that ideology does moreover identify as “democracy”, then any human group can “legitimately and democratically” deny and destroy the fundamental human rights of a People, and “democratically” reduce or liquidate any other State, if it can consolidate the war of aggression, the military occupation and the unilateral annexation of that People and State through a displacement of populations and an ad hoc electoral geometry: previously created by means of that criminal Violence, which will allow it to win “referenda and elections” – that its ideology of service has previously had the precaution to describe as “democratic” – by a “majority”. Only the agents of “the plurality and the fusion”: established under the conditions of a criminal military occupation for the benefit of their own aggressor, dominant and colonialist Nation, can “ignore” with shameless cynicism what this does mean for the smaller – and even for the not so large ones – Nations that have been occupied. Whether it be Red, Yellow or Green March, the procedure is always the same.
But without fundamental human rights, and above all without Self-Determination or Independence of Peoples, there is no democracy. From a situation created through the violation of those rights, to talk of democracy is a sarcasm that only presents of it a falsified external appearance, a substitute made of formal rites – “elections and majorities” – that imitate it and that are shamelessly presented as democracy but that actually cover up its denial: irretrievably established by the violation of fundamental human rights. Once again: withoutfundamental human rights there is no democracy, there is imperialism and fascism, sometimes with masquerade of periodic “elections” under military occupation.
With such a caricature of “democracy” China can – “majority and democratically”, according to the ideological agents of imperialism – get through or swallow not only Taiwan, Tibet and East Turkestan, as it is already trying to do, but also Mongolia, Siberia, all the Southeast Asia, Polynesia, Micronesia, Melanesia, the Southern Continent or any other country in the world, the USA included. What would have already happened “peacefully”, should the laws to cut the arrival of immigrants of yellow race had not been enacted in due time, once the construction of railways, canals and other works “of majority interest” ended and also ceased the need of them and of ending with them as they were arriving, after having made them work and having provided them floating graveyards of return
If the proper political conditions were given (either through political capitulation or, even “better”, through bacteriological warfare of Chinese influenza or thermonuclear defeat), “nothing proves” that the Chinese Empire would not next proceed to the transfer of population that – on the same relative scale – it has already carried out everywhere it has been able to do so. “100,000,000 of Chinese, perhaps, or 200,000,000, would be transferred to our Country”. (R. Aron.)
The displacements, exchanges, apportionments and transfers of population in the 20thcentury: which were not yet called ethnic cleansings, have brought about new “majority” democracies in various parts ofEurope: Russia, Turkey, Greece, Poland, Germany or Czechoslovakia. The immigration-partition-exclusion of populations in Palestine has created a “majority” starting from a minority of the 0.3% of Jewish population; and the subsequent partition into two independent States meets criteria that are applied to the contrary in other places where Serbs, Kurds, Albanians or Irish are too weak to oppose.
In this way, the “struggle for the majority” of the “Basque autonomous community”: between the official Spanish Nationalist bloc and the Pnv-Eta group, would had been “resolved” if the imperialism had managed to double either the killing, expulsion or colonization of the war and post-war period, or the Spanish immigration of the 1960s. What would the Pnv-Eta group have done then to get customers? Would it have proclaimed itself a Party of the infra-national minorities, or perchance philanthropic NGO to the service of the Abused Children?
The affirmation – constant in all totalitarian and imperialistic States – of the “respect for minorities” or the “right to autonomy”, with its corresponding “decentralizations, bilingualisms, optional powers and regional autonomies”, is a stale ideological resource whose real meaning is well known. The “particular vote” of the prefabricated minorities serves to keep them in their sad plight, waiting for their final liquidation. Because, anyway and once again, whatever the particular “relative majority” may be, “what counts is the majority of all Spaniards”. The discrimination and the liquidation of the muslim, jewish, guanche, aztec, inca and araucanian minorities and even majorities; or the “pluralistic and majority” repression against the muslim “minority” in Algeria: “an integral part of the French People”, are nothing more than examples of the way in which the Spaniards, the French and their cronies understand “the majority democracy”.
Spaniards and French – including their local henchmen in this Country – defend the “absolute freedom for all to participate in the elections on equal conditions” (even though the participation is directly, indirectly and even criminally compulsory). But “all on equal conditions” does really mean “all Spaniards and French” in the respective Spanish and French elections, and in the terms of the exclusive and excluding “right” of the Spaniards and the French in order to mount and impose them on the others. All of which implies their right to constitute their own State and to destroy that of others through war of aggression, conquest, military occupation and monopoly of criminal Violence.
As for the “Basques” which the Spanish law talks about (in the French one they do not exist at all), they are nothing else but “Spaniards settled in three (Basque) Spanish Provinces”, as the Spanish Constitution and the Statute say; even though only “for the purpose of this Statute”. (The other Basques do not exist and, therefore, have no “rights”.) The “Basques” can only “vote” in the Spanish “elections” as transvestites equipped with Spanish identity card. Apart from the “Spaniards” of the “Basque provinces” there are no “Basques”, and nobody can vote as such: the traditional term and concept are recuperated and falsified so as to fraudulently conceal and comfort a different idea. As can be seen, the double meaning of the terms, and the ambiguity and confusion of the concepts, are tricks constantly and deliberately elicited and used as ideological weapons by the Spanish imperialism against the Basque People.
Comentarios
Publicar un comentario