Hash, you'd vote Ibarretxe in 2009 and 2005, really? What do you like about him?
And I still can't understand your vote on Bildu. It was understandable before May elections... but Martin Garitano has proven to be a bad person, almost a terrorist. and Juan Karlos Izaguirre, mayor of San Sebastian, is worse than Garitano... a terrorist, but a dumb one.
I sympathize with Basque nationalism. I like to cling to hopelessly stupid notions of nineteenth century 'Romantic' sub-state nationalism. The PNV is the party which is the closest to my views on the matter and I tend to support them. Ibarretxe isn't perfect, and neither is the PNV. They're not anything close to a fabulous party, but then again no Spanish political party is all that good. But they're closest to my views. I can't say I entirely agree with the Ibarretxe plan and especially the parts on citizenship vs. nationality which is a very slippery slope, but I can agree, as a sympathizer of Basque nationalism, with the aim it embodies. The PSE-EE is undoubtedly a decent party too and their hearts are generally in the good place when it comes to the national question. But how do you expect me (knowing my views and all) to vote for the party which now governs through a pact with the viscerally anti-Basque PP? (though it's slightly less bad now that it isn't led by the racists Oreja or San Gil). What is quite amusing when you consider how Patxi Lopez won the PSE's leadership from Redondo's gang in 2002. Amusing but it also makes him both dishonest and a swindling for pacting with the PP.
Calling Bildu a "terrorist force" is a mix of excessive hyperbole, dishonesty and overblown exaggeration. I can certainly see why somebody would strongly dislike Bildu and hate the guts of its leaders. That's quite understandable. I myself am not a fan of their little separatist posturing and their provocative symbolic gestures. But what is wrong is calling Bildu a "terrorist party". That's dishonest. Have its leaders, in the recent past, condoned any terrorist attack? Have they themselves committed acts of terrorism? Have they praised terrorism? Have they advocated the use of political violence and terrorism as a means of achieving their goals? Has Izaguirre, the "terrorist", planted a bomb himself? Have its leaders called on ETA to take up arms again and keep murdering innocents? Only a Francoist hack can answer 'yes' to any of the above. None of what they have done in power constitutes 'terrorism'. Moves in favour of etarra prisoners and their families are not acts of terrorism. They may, from your perspective, be equivalent to terrorism because of guilt by association (which is a weird position to hold in this case considering ETA's prisoners have, in majority, condemned violence); but I think from my perspective - I'm not a sympathizer of ETA - those actions are not akin to terrorism. If there is to be reconciliation, as there should be, then the issue of prisoners needs to be on the table. Supporting an end to the 'dispersion of prisoners' is not terrorism, in fact it's a normal political belief. Helping etarra families is not an act of terrorism either. As for the other symbolic provocative gestures... what do you expect? They're
separatists. They're not going to sing the national anthem or fly the Spanish flag with pride anytime soon.
I understand why you may hate them. They're separatists. They act irrationally. They do stupid things. They repeat provocative gestures and incidents which angers many. They have not called on ETA to formally disarm. But calling them 'terrorists' is... how should I say... totally wrong? None of what they have done so far constitutes acts of terrorism. In fact, they have condemned ETA's violence and unambiguously supports peaceful, democratic ways for achieving their aims. They have stated that the Hipercor attack was 'more than a mistake'. They have even said that one day there would be need to speak about 'the pains caused' by ETA's actions. Calling them terrorists is merely writing them off and the ideas they uphold - some of which are good. It is an ad hominem attack and it is the equivalent of Fox News' various incendiary statements about 'teh libruls'. You can disagree with them, hell that's politics, but you go nowhere and only act like an immature hack when you write them off as "terrorists".
I don't necessarily like Bildu (though I could have voted for them) or particularly care deeply about them, but I defend their right to participate in the democratic process. Their ideals and aims, like them or not, are shared by a significant portion of the Basque electorate. In a democratic society founded on the right to participate, the freedom of speech, freedom and so forth all parties - even if they uphold the most repulsive views (racism, condoning terror, Nazism etc) - have a right to exist and participate. Is a country where parties can be banned from participating in the political process a real democracy? Those parties may be awful parties who deserve to be kicked in the balls, but they express the political, legitimate opinions of at least some people in a democratic society even if those people don't support that same democratic society. By banning Bildu, its antecedents and so forth you are basically preventing (not actually, but theoretically) up to one-fourth of the Basque population from political participation and representation! Is that democracy? You'll tell me that ETA isn't democratic either and that ETA's violence totally rejects democracy as it is. It does. But, sadly, ETA's goals are supported by some citizens. By banning those citizens from expressing their legitimate, albeit heinous and repulsive, political opinions, you are taking away their right to political participation, political expression and political representation. Is a society where certain people can't participate, express themselves and be represented politically a true democracy? For me, the right to participation and expression is one of the founding blocks of democracy. Take away that right from a handful of people, and you are already undermining the foundations of democracy just like political terrorism undermines it. As much as people hold repulsive political views and as much as I personally would like those people to DIAF at times, I recognize and respect their right to political expression even though it results in something I hate (eg: the Harper government) or in something disgusting (eg: far-right parties). As far as I'm concerned, every convinced democrat should to. Those who don't undermine the foundings of democracy.
