09.07.2014 - 12:02
Ada Colau is without a doubt one of the emerging figures in Catalan politics. After years fighting in the area of social movements and community mobilization, she has decided to begin Guanyem Barcelona [Let’s win Barcelona], a proposal that seeks to gather groups together to present a “disruptive” candidacy for Barcelona City Hall. Her wish is to gather together non-organized citizens, community movements and political formations that are looking for change in the power structure in line with what she calls “true democracy”. While Iniciativa signed up quickly, the CUP is cautious about participating with the former group who has spent so much time inside the institutions and governing the city that they now want to turn around. We spoke with Colau about these issues and her Yes-Yes choice in the November 9th referendum.
You explained a few days ago that you will vote Yes-Yes in the referendum because you see Catalonia’s independence as an opportunity for beginning a “deconstruction” process [procés destituent is a play on words on ‘procés constituent’, or constitutional process]. What would that opportunity consist of?
Before explaining that, I want to make something clear. For me and for Guanyem Barcelona, the important bit is the right to decide. The community is clearly demanding more democracy, and better quality democracy. Obviously the demand is with respect to Catalonia’s self-determination but it is also with respect to many others areas of decision making. The debate is in this broader context. Therefore, the least common denominator must be the right to decide. And not only in name, but in fact, taking it seriously. It must be put into practice day by day, not just when you’re talking about independence.
Have you become pro-independence?
I have never been pro-independence or nationalist. Borders don’t make any sense in this global world in which we live. I feel a strong aversion for the confrontation between peoples. At the same time, in the current context there is a very strong mobilization in favor of the right to self-determination of peoples, which is an undeniable, fundamental democratic right. And whether we are more or less interested in the question, any democrat must defend this right. The defense of this right must be resounding, unequivocal, and absolute. But with the current Spanish regime at the height of decadence, reacting in ways that push it toward authoritarian, recentralizing positions that create institutional obstacles, voting Yes-Yes right now is an opportunity for stimulating a democratizing process. A process that could be carried out both in Catalonia and Spain.
Federalism couldn’t stimulate this democratizing process that you defend?
True federalists would have to vote Yes-Yes. Because it’s obvious that with the Spanish institutional obstructionism, the only possibility of having a balanced relationship is to be previously recognized as an equal, as a valid interlocutor. Right now, Spain does not consider Catalonia to be a valid interlocutor. From a purely democratic point of view, the referendum is an opportunity to open a democratizing process that goes beyond Catalonia. It’s a process that doesn’t depend exclusively on the November 9th referendum, but that could be greatly helped by it. November 9th must also serve to question the way the institutions are designed, not just in Spain but also in Catalonia.
Why?
The regime that we are confronting is a regime inherited from Franco and the transition, but it is also the child of economic policies that have refused to take into account the opinion of the people and of a hijacked democracy. The institutions are allied with and dependent on the economic, financial and institutional powers that be instead of listening to the majority of the population and letting it participate. The problem is not just Spain; it’s also a problem with Catalan institutions. For me, the most important part of the sovereignty process and of voting Yes-Yes is the generation of this debate about what kind of democracy we want and what kind of Catalonia we want. Democracy is not transformed by proclamations of independence and administrative changes. We will win democracy if people speak out. The best version of the sovereignty process and of the Yes-Yes vote will be if the people lead the change.
But no one can doubt that it has been just like that.
Yes, yes. Until now, it has been the people who have moved the process forward and marked the rhythm. The debate about the right to decide would not have made it to this point if it had not been led by the people. We are where we are because the will of the people completely overwhelmed the institutional framework. We have been able to see that with the demonstrations that have taken place over the last few years. I worry that when the referendum comes and there is no institutional will from the Spanish State to allow it, we will get stuck and the people won’t say what they need to say. It’s obvious—and no one imagines anything else—that in Madrid there is no desire to allow the referendum to be held. And it seems like CiU has no intention of disobeying this prohibition.
If that happens, what should be the response?
If the referendum is not held because of a lack of institutional will, it may generate frustration that radicalizes extreme positions. To get over the obstacles and avoid the frustration, it will be necessary for the people to speak up and exercise their right to decide. When blocked, the best thing we can do is disobey. Disobey peacefully, but disobey. And we have to be clear that the most natural thing is for the people to be consulted about their opinion. The best option is for the people to organize to make the ballot boxes available. And to see if any institutional power dares to stop the democratic will of thousands and thousands of citizens.
And you don’t also see a Yes-Yes vote as a way of undoing political, economic and social injustice that Catalans suffer just for being Catalan?
It’s true that there is institutional mistreatment from the Spanish government that punishes Catalan dissidence. With laws that take advantage in order to recentralize, cutting back the autonomy of the city governments, taking back competencies, and so on. That has been constant and should not be discounted. But while it’s certain that it particularly hurts Catalonia, it also undermines the dissidence of the other peoples of the State. It’s not a confrontation among peoples, but rather between the political and economic elites. And the people who pay the consequences of this swing towards authoritarianism are the citizens and the peoples.
There isn’t a conflict between Catalonia and Spain?
All of that talk about a conflict between Catalonia and Spain scares me a lot and generates a strong aversion inside me. The lack of Spanish democracy today—what these days in the town squares is being called the hijacked democracy—doesn’t only have to do with the regime of the transition, but also with these institutions that have been hijacked by economic powers. This phenomenon is not exclusive to the Spanish State. It’s a global tendency of a loss of real democratic control. It’s not just that we think that democracy is much more than voting every four years. It’s that even if we vote, we know that we’re not deciding things. The decision makers work separately from the citizenry, in Spain, but also in Catalonia.
With independence the citizenry will be closer to the centers of power.
I have no guarantee of that, given Convergència i Unió’s policies, that in an independent Catalonia there will be a better or more democratic government. CiU has governed for many years and has never put the right to decide into practice. It has not consulted the population about any big decisions. If it truly believed in the right to decide, it has had many opportunities for proving it. And it’s only now that it has taken up the flag of the right to decide. And it does so to hide the other debates in the background that affect Catalans like prioritizing spending, privatizing basic services, etc. Not all of Catalonia’s problems come from the authoritarian swing of the Spanish government.
Not all, but certainly a good portion.
It’s one of the big problems we have. I’m not underestimating it, but it’s not the only one. An independent state does not guarantee true independence. You have to define what independence and sovereignty are. We want true sovereignty that lets us decide the solution for all of our problems. Who will tell us that when Catalonia is independent, the excuse will not be Madrid but it will be Europe, the troika, the external debt? If there is no commitment beyond the November 9th referendum about a true sovereign people, there is a problem. In order for Catalans to have true sovereignty, there must be a commitment that goes beyond November 9th.
Can a platform claiming to do “new politics” sit on the fence with respect to a demand that is mobilizing the most people in Catalonia?
I don’t believe that seriously defending that there be more democracy and the right to decide is sitting on the fence, as some have said. And I think that that which has moved more and committed more people is the right to decide. And that is a strong position. If you truly defend the right to decide, that has a lot of consequences. We have decided to democratize the little democracy we have through a way of understanding the profound right to decide that is not just a right to self-determination. I don’t think that’s sitting on the fence.
The huge mobilization in Catalonia is for independence. And the slogan of the right to decide comes from the fact that they are not allowing us to vote. But the motor is pro-independence and the people shout for independence.
I don’t see it that way. It seems to me that there is an immense majority of Catalans who are mobilized for the right to decide, while independence only has the support of about half of the population. I’m pretty convinced that my choice of voting Yes-Yes without ever having thought about independence is pretty typical. There are many people ready to vote for independence in democratic terms without having ever thought about it for identity reasons. I don’t think that the mobilization is in favor of independence above all else. The majority view is a desire for democracy and to provide the people with real power. Without underestimating the value of other motivations that go further.
Can you turn around the way that Barcelona has been governed for decades?
Guanyem Barcelona is not inventing anything new. Our proposal is not an invention by Ada Colau or by anybody in particular. A wide variety of people who have not come from political parties are proving something that is already happening: a confluence throughout the city of people who are not organized, of community groups and movements, of political formations. It’s a confluence that has come from the street, from demonstrations, from the evictions, against budget cuts, in defense of healthcare, nursery schools… against the commercialization of the city and the public spaces… There are a few common threads that have brought us together. And these shared demands must be brought to the institutions.
And do the people who have worked in the institutions have to be involved?
If we want to create a broad process with some common priorities, we have to bring together different kinds of people. From the start, it’s necessary to involve non-organized people who don’t have any particular political reference points because they didn’t feel represented by the party system. Afterwards many people have mobilized but they haven’t taken the institutional step. And finally, the political formations who see that a process of breaking away from the old regime is necessary. We have to make a break with the old way of doing politics, but with the knowledge that nothing is totally old nor nothing is totally new. The old regime politics is what the governing parties have created. PP and PSOE in Spain, CiU and PSC in Catalonia. Obviously, these parties are to be excluded from the confluence process that we are beginning.
And all of the others fit in?
The rest of the parties have to agree with the minimum demands that are in Guanyem Barcelona’s manifesto. That might include newer formations like the CUP or Procés Constituent or Podem in Catalonia, or Podemos in Spain, but it also includes formations that haven’t been in the driver’s seat, like Esquerra and Iniciativa. That haven’t been majority parties that have designed how institutions should function, even if they have participated sporadically in governments. But now they have to choose between coalitions with the old regime, like Esquerra is doing with CiU in order to implement serious budget cuts. In contrast, ICV is more critical in its positions and has realized that things must change. And now, beyond declarations and announcements, it has the opportunity to prove it. Confluence doesn’t mean eliminating differences, but rather being able to prioritize common objectives. ICV has looked to support more social and progressive policies in the governments of which it has been a part and its base broadly supports the democratic revolution that we want to carry out. It’s important that the critical spirit not lead to fragmentation and impotence.
Why is it always necessary to create new frameworks instead of taking advantage of the dynamics and the work already achieved by formations like the CUP, which is disruptive and has an assembly-like character? That already happened with Teresa Forcades’ Procés Constituent…
With all due respect to the CUP, which is a pioneering proposal that has looked for new ways to act politically, it is still one of the already existing political players which acts in opposition to the other players with which it competes in elections. We are proposing something else. It’s not an electoral framework: we are proposing a confluence that has to be able to integrate formations that have competed with each other. To get over the logic of competition, it’s impossible that the initiative come from one of the players that is already competing. CUP says that they are the space of popular unity. ICV also says that they have opened the process “Ara és demà” which is trying to integrate other groups… It’s impossible to have confluence with one group within another. There must be a community initiative that proposes a neutral territory.
But maybe tomorrow a new proposal will come out with another name that wants Guanyem, CUP, and ICV to be a part of it.
It’s possible. We have already said that if we don’t see that confluence is viable, we’re not going to go ahead and run no matter what. We don’t want to make the electoral panorama any more complicated. The idea is the opposite.
One of the characteristics of your proposal is that you intend to make changes “from the bottom up” and you mistrust excessive leadership. But in practice, heavyweight names stand out a lot in formations like Podem, Procés Constituent and Guanyem. How do you explain this contradiction?
There is a big difference between the leaders and spokespeople of a particular movement and the management and leadership of a political space. We are very used to vertical, non-transparent politics, in which the leadership has all of the decision making power. In our case, and those you have mentioned, we’re talking about something else. Yes there are some visible faces, because a media-based society demands it and that brings us to contradictions that we have to take into account and recognize. But this leadership is not executive. It is the result of a collective management and deliberation system. Our visible faces are spokespeople for collective decisions and values. The risk of converting these leaders into the old way of doing politics is there and we have to be aware of that to avoid it. The key to avoiding it is transparency. There are always reference points, and it’s good that they’re there, but you have to know how to manage it in benefit of the collective project and never for individual interests.
