3.-DEMOCRATIC-AUTONOMIST APPROACHES .

Constitutionalism : the constitutional system is characterized by enabling political change to be carried out without having to resort to violence, by means of the plural expression of ideas and their contrast by means of deliberation, the control of power, citizens' participation and the defence of democracy (the defence of freedoms and human rights).
The constitutional system demands the functioning of the democratic system (values, laws and institutions) and the free exercise of public freedoms.
It is necessary to understand that as democracy becomes established and spreads, constitutions are texts which become increasingly more legal and less programmatic - in other words, there are increasingly more norms governing coexistence than there is a doctrine or ideal to be achieved.
Constitutionalist culture is not very deep-rooted in Euskadi, due both to its poor diffusion and defence on the part of those who champion it, in the way that so-called moderate nationalism has always underestimated it.

Spanish Constitution : this is the basic law which sets out the political organization of a state and the basic obligations of citizens and governing classes.
The Constitution resolves the two constituent problems which existed in 1978: the changeover from an authoritarian regime to a democratic one, and the changeover from a centralist state to an autonomous one: Both changeovers are linked, as without democracy there is no autonomy, but also without autonomy, democracy cannot be consolidated.
As regards the territorial organization of the state, the Constitution starts with the notion that Spain is not only an administrative reality, but also a political and cultural one. Thus, two principles are combined: on the one hand, the principle of political and territorial unity and, on the other, the principle of autonomy.
However, unity and autonomy do not, in terms of the political commitment reached in the Spanish Constitution, have the same legal level and statute, as "unity" is the political principle while "autonomy" is the instrument or exercising of the principle of unity. In this way, territorial unity is asserted in the Constitution, and the right of autonomy is acknowledged, and additionally this obliges the participation of the state in any of the stages of the constituent process of the autonomies.
Basque nationalism, despite seeing all its demands met, did not wish to endorse the constitutional political commitment of 1978, although in fact accepted it by organizing all the institutionalisation and holding of Basque autonomous power over these last 22 years. Notwithstanding, in recent times, it has brought about a split in the political commitment to the Constitution, and as a consequence to the Statute of Autonomy, calling into question the very ownership itself of power.
In other words, nationalism today disputes where power resides, but when the Constitution says that "national sovereignty resides among the Spanish people (section 1), it is understood that all us Spaniards are unitarian as regards the ownership of power but, in turn, we may share in the exercise thereof. That is, the exercise of power may be shared (the principle of autonomy) but not ownership of power (the principle of unity).
And Western democracies are democracies made up of individual citizens, not democracies of territories or communities; to this end, constitutional sovereignty does not admit exceptions and resides among citizens, rather than what nationalism attempts to do with Udalbiltza, whereby sovereignty resides in territories or communities.
Likewise, the Spanish Constitution cannot be interpreted without the set of basic rules of the European Union and of the Statutes of Autonomy, with which it forms blocks of constitutionality - in other words, all of them draw up the scope of coexistence among Basques.
The drawing up of the Spanish Constitution was the fruit of a spirit of consensus, which means that it avoided all type of imposition. It is based on the protection and guarantee for citizens of a scope of freedom deemed sufficient to face up to all power, not only political, but also economic and media power, etc. And it finally lays down the framework in which everything shall be organized and developed, in so doing recognizing the status of regional stances, to the extent that all institutions regulating Basque self-government are based on the Constitution.
However, the enemies of democracy have very often said that the Constitution has been imposed upon us, restricting our freedom, given that it was rejected by the Basque people, when in Euskadi only 10.51% of the electorate voted against it and 30.86% voted in favour, with abstention on the part of 55.35% (as regards the Statute of Autonomy, ten months later, abstention was 41.1%). In reality, there does exist a problem with freedom in Euskadi, but not because of the Constitution, but rather due to ETA terrorism.
In spite of the fact that the philosophy of the Constitution is open and integrating, a political stance of fighting has been adopted in the last 24 years by Basque nationalism, with a mood of repudiation and arrogance, attempting by all means available to fail to reach constitutional consensus or to assume either commitment or loyalty to it, always maintaining the impossibility of being reconciled with the constitutionalist spirit. One has been given the impression that a constant attempt is made to avoid the Constitution through pre-democratic arguments (historical rights), anti-democratic arguments (rejection because it is Spanish) or lacking truth (which has been rejected).
Nowadays, rejecting the Constitution means not only trying to put forward a political project outside the commitment and rules established, but even aims that are incompatible with the rationality itself of the democratic system. It is repeatedly heard from the mouths of leaders of parties such as EA and PNV that they share the same aims as ETA and HB, but differ in the means of obtaining them, when it is known that the means employed condition and shape the aims, which are very difficult to separate.
Today, we find trends both pigeonholing nationalism in the anti-democratic and separating democratic nationalism from another fascist one. This means that in political practice, a clear, decisive commitment to the proclamation and defence of the freedoms and rights of citizens protected by the Constitution as a limit of political aims of the assimilationist policies of the nationalist project are not plainly visible, apart from the respectable exceptions of certain individuals from the world of nationalism.
Basque constitutionalists defend the Constitution because it guarantees them citizens' freedoms, because without it they will either be exterminated or have their rights and freedoms reduced, like the Germans in Majorca.
The PNV has reiterated time and time again that it is never going to approve the Constitution, that it would slash its own wrists before signing the Constitution, etc., but it also says that it was excluded from the constitutional address. Many of us ask: if they are never going to either sign or approve the Constitution, then why did they want to have been at the constitutional address?

Constitutional referendum :
RESULTS OF THE REFERÉNDUM ON THE CONSTITUTION
6TH OF DECEMBER1978

Basque Country Alava Vizcaya Guipúzcoa

Votes % Votes % Votes % Votes %
Yes 479,205 69.12 73,409 71.39 266,019 71.61 139,777 63.81
No 163,191 23.54 19,726 19.18 78,036 21.0 65,429 29.87
Blank/ Null 50,914 7.34 9,687 9.42 27,401 7.37 13,826 6.31
Voters 693,310 100 102,822 100 371,456 100 219,032 100
Abstention 859,427 (55.35) 70,590 (40.7) 503,480 (57.54) 285,357 (56.57)
Electoral roll 1,552,737 173,412 874,936 - 504,389 -

(% of voters)
Source: Central Committee of the Electoral Roll
Interpretations have been made from these results to suit all tastes. Arzalluz says that it was not approved in Euskadi; HB that it was rejected; the constitutionalists that it was approved. What is certain is that it really was approved and remains in force, because abstention does not mean rejection, as technical abstention cannot be joined to political abstention and it is precisely the latter which is used when something does not want to be rejected.
Political abstention might amount to around 14.21%, if we take the technical abstention of the statutory referendum which took place some months later as a reference and amounting to 41.14%. Therefore, even taking this into account, it could not be said that the Constitution was rejected.

Army and Constitution : paragraph 1 of section 8 of the Spanish Constitution textually says: "The Armed Forces are charged with the mission to guarantee the sovereignty and independence of Spain, defend its territorial integrity and constitutional code." The French Constitution is pronounced in very similar terms.
Notwithstanding, HB and Arzallus have on numerous occasions referred to this section, interpreting that there is no place for independence in the Constitution because the army would then act. HB people go a step further and see the need and legitimisation in this section for the existence of ETA.

Reform of the Constitution : the constitutional text devotes Title X, sections 166 to 169t, to constitutional reform. This means that the Constitution may be reformed and a procedure to be followed is laid out for such reform. The problem lies in the fact that nationalism does not accept the procedure of constitutional reform and has chosen other paths which have no place in said procedure.

Compliance with the law : To argue over the validity of a sentence from the Supreme Court, the highest body charged with interpreting the laws of the country, would be an unusual spectacle in any democratic country, but it is an attitude which starts to cause concern among our politicians. It has been some time now that observance of the law has not been a value that decisively provides a report on our coexistence. There is always a sense of political opportunity as regards the fact that the importance of compliance with the law may and must be played down.

Democracy : this is the notion of the state in which the actions of the governing classes are subject to the laws thereof.

State : historically, the state is prior to the nation, and states are really products of historical processes. The nation of citizens is a legal-political fact, not a product of cultural identity.
There exists a very widespread culture which views the state as an enemy of freedom, yet the state may be the guarantor of freedom; in fact, is its the guarantor and mediator in order for people to be exercise their rights, and is also the protector of individual citizens against Mafia-type groups.

Nation : the nation constitutes the agreement for the coexistence in freedom of different ideologies. The liberals invented the concept of political nation in the 19th century as the sum of individuals who share the same state, are governed by the same laws and are represented by a common Parliament.
Anti-liberalism (among these, nationalism) reacted against the idea and at the end of the 19th century proposed that the nation was a human community which was the product of history and possessor of a common culture and personality. Since nationalism came into being, it has used this idea of nation as "community" or collective subject against the changes of liberalism and democracy. According to anti-liberal thought, the nation is the repository of the tradition that forms the basis of its unchanging identity, is a fact of nature, a feeling, is inherited, etc.
Among the concepts of nations which are today in conflict in Euskadi, the following may be distinguished:
A).- The nation as a natural essence: the nation appears as a "natural" community in which it is born, and the group of people joined together by the bond of being fellow countrymen, and its members share customs, language and countryside and share by nature rather than by coercion. Yet it is not as natural as it seems and attempts to be seen when it is a question of imposing what each citizen should feel as a member of said nation through coercion.
The notion of homeland lies in objective elements (race, language, history, uses, etc.) which are more or less arbitrarily devised as common features. It is a community of people who live in a territory governed by the same Government and joined by the same ethnic or historical ties.
The nation as a natural essence is characterized by: the assertion of the group itself; the demarcation of its outline, by hating what is said to be from outside; the diffusion of its internal differences and the absorption of the individual into the community.
In short, it is a concept which looks down on citizens and subordinates them to a supposed perennial and irrevocable collective identity.
B).- The nation as a social contract: interprets political society as a human agreement which serves to facilitate free, civilized coexistence among individuals who hold differing aspirations and ideas. This means that the concept of a nation as a contract is capable of providing the majority of citizens with greater levels of safety and freedom than the concept of a nation as a natural essence.
The concept of a nation as a social contract has the following features: the consolidation of democracy, the absolute guaranteeing of the basic rights of the person; the strengthening of plurality and the relations with other people who share life with us.
The daily coexistence of a democratic nation, which welcomes immigrants, is a school of cosmopolitanism in a globalized world and mixed race like the we live in one nowadays. In Euskadi today, it is necessary to consolidate democratic behaviour such as: respect for difference, respect for freedom of expression, for the rights of each individual, and for the law which protects them, given that the homeland constitutes the complex and changing result of what the conscience and will of its inhabitants do in their life, with and starting from those elements and many others. The Basque homeland shall therefore be the living whole of the different models of a homeland which the Basques forge together.

State and nation : as regards the relationship between state and nation, the state historically always comes before the nation. The Spanish nation and others saw the light at the beginning of the 19th century. It was then that the classical states first used the idea of a nation to be provided with the elements of equality and freedom in contrast to the previously-existing absolutism.
This civic, constitutional nationalism from the 19th century has nothing to do with current forms of nationalism, which are communitarian forms based on social integration and consequently exclusion of "the other" ,which contradict the traditional foundations of liberal, modern society. The origins of nationalist communitarianism lie in numerous contemporary tragedies, as it always had to resort to violence in order to overcome resistance from civil society and its liberal political creed.
The nation is an administrative unit made up of citizens with equal rights, and who submit themselves before the authority exerted by the former, because in that way they can obtain advantages; for this reason, it is normal that different languages, cultures and ethnic groups may be found in a state.
Normally, in a plural state with a wide cross-section of citizens like in the modern ones existing, civil rights are safeguarded; however, in a state which has a collective identity, in which state and nation coincide, there is a serious threat to the rights of those who do not share this identity.
The autonomous, political and culturally plural and integrating state which we have provided with the Constitution and the State of Autonomy protects the individual rights of all Basques. This is a form of protection which, as we have seen, is not guaranteed in the "national construction" projects, with the homogenising aims of pro-sovereign nationalism.

Fragmentation of pluralist states: there has existed a trend in the last few decades in Europe towards fragmenting states in name of the politically established homogeneity of ethnic identities. The problem lies in viewing how a society of equals may resist a society of those who identical according to the special characteristics of cultural purity.

Nation of citizens : this is a society whose individuals enjoy ideological and cultural autonomy and freedom; what defines citizens as having a nationality is the fact of being subject to protected rights under conditions of equality by a single state. That is to say, the nation is defined by citizenship.
It is the same concept of nation as a community of citizens, without the implications of giving priority to ethnic groups. What is common to a nation is that the institutional abstraction of citizenship should reconcile identities and possessions so that these may take root and be considered natural. Ethnic groups are no more natural than nations, given that they also constitute historical constructions. Western liberal nationalism is political, concerned with the liberation of the individual, with cosmopolitan intentions, and which reaffirms the plurality of values in an evolving society that lives under a freely-accepted law.

Autonomy : autonomy is a political culture which has the great merit of being capable of legitimising the system of self-government, of providing cohesion and amalgamating Basque society as a whole and overcoming the traditional division existing between nationalists and non-nationalists.
Autonomy is based on the idea that all us inhabitants in Euskadi are Basques and have the same rights and duties, and that a modern organization of society is aspired to around parties with modern ideological options, within a framework of collaboration with the other peoples of Spain.
All Basque parties and institutions must provide guarantees of self-government and defend the Statute of Autonomy, as the latter has enabled pluralism to be reflected upon in society and has reinforced the solidarity of all its citizens. Moreover, autonomy must be used for coexistence, not against pluralist coexistence.
Autonomy is a form of progression and development in democracy, which brings citizens closer to political participation and acts as a formula for solidarity with the other citizens of Spain, by its being contrary to isolation.
Autonomous democracy is based on the rights of citizens in exercising their freedom, and not on history, or on a non-existent past which grants rights that cannot be waived. Yet autonomy is not only a formula for recognising differences and peculiarities, but also a way of consolidating national unity, by integrating minorities.
Autonomy is the power which municipalities, provinces or regions may have within a state to govern certain interests regarding their internal affairs by means of sets of rules and bodies of self-Government.
Section 2 of the Spanish Constitution "recognises and guarantees the right of autonomy to all nationalities and regions which make up the Spanish nation, in addition to solidarity between them."
The exercise of autonomy cannot underestimate the unity of the nation, nor imply economic and social privileges.
The only collective right recognised by the Constitution is the right of autonomy on the part of municipalities, provinces and regions.

Statute of Autonomy : this constitutes the basic institutional set of rules of the Autonomous Community and is an integrating part of the state legal code. The Statute is the social contract among Basques of different identities.
Nationalism attempts to view it as a law of transfer of powers, and not as a basic set of rules for coexistence with Spain as a whole. For this reason, decentralisation as interpreted by nationalists does not mean more democracy.

Referendum on the Statute of Autonomy. 25th of October 1979 :

Basque Country Alava Vizcaya Guipúzcoa

Votes % Votes % Votes % Votes %
Yes 831,839 90.3 92,535 83.7 460,905 90.7 278,399 91.9
No 47,529 5.1 10,023 9.1 25,216 4.9 12,290 4.1
Blank / Null 42,068 4.6 8,051 7.3 21,859 4.3 12,158 4.0
Voters 921,436 100 110,609 100 507,980 100 302,847 100
Abstention 644,105 (41.1) 64,321 (36.7) 375,629 (42.5) 204,155 (40.3)
Electoral roll 1.565.541 174.930 883.609 - 507.002 -
(% of voters)

Source: Electoral Committee.

Breaking-off of the Statutory Agreement: nationalism argues that the deadlock as regards competitive development means a breaking-off on the part of the state of the statutory agreement. Notwithstanding, the argument as to a total deadlock is not true, as some months ago, at the beginning of 2002, a major agreement was reached regarding the economic harmony.
The breaking-off of the statutory agreement has been due to the Lizarra Agreement and not to a freezing of transfers, above all when full autonomous development is demanded in order to do way with it. It is difficult to comprehend that full compliance with an agreement which has been considered useless, unworkable and ineffective is demanded because it has been surpassed.

Interdependence :. Interdependence is based on the idea that we exist in isolation neither as individuals, nor as a society and nor as a species. We are and we define ourselves by our relations, not by our isolation or by being on the fringes of the rest. Everything is intimately related to everything, and only by recognising others may we be ourselves. And it is precisely these relations of mutual recognition between the State and the Basque Country which have created a right of interdependence, as expressed by the Constitution and the Statute of Autonomy.

Constitutional, civic and republican patriotism: in societies nowadays which are characterized by being plural and democratic, in which origin loses its common characteristic and what joins them together is the present, the question arises of combining national conscience, or already-existing patriotism, with the plural and democratic of constitutionalism. In other words, combining the feeling of belonging to a group with the law.
In Spain, an attempt is being made to overcome the traditional Spanish essentialism of the right, in favour of an idea of the homeland which is modern and pluralist. The citizens of a country now have a post-national identity which goes beyond cultural traditions in favour of "constitutional" universal values.
Constitutional patriotism is based on the idea that only plural, democratic culture may guarantee the survival of any country. It is a patriotism deep-rooted in democratic rights and values shared by citizens, as well as in the democratic legality which protects and reproduces them. It attempts to integrate members of a community through universal values, which are those enabling all members to be included.
Constitutional patriotism does not attempt to encourage a sense of belonging among citizens based on the knowledge of history, nor on underlining cultural features, because in society nowadays, neither history nor culture are common to all citizens who come from the most varied parts of the world. Rather, it seeks to develop solidarity in people in defence of certain common democratic values - that is, a Spanish democratic way of living in plurality, which may have as a basic referent the set of constitutional principles upon which the Spanish nation is based.
It may be said that, thanks to the Constitution, we have a homeland, but also that such a country shall only be our homeland if it is possible to live in it under conditions of freedom. This is because the homeland is not the place where one has been born, but rather where one is free and may fight in order for all others to also be free.
Notwithstanding, this solution also has its difficulties, because the common citizen needs the security provided by reciprocity, trust and good faith, and not only that of the law and shared democratic values. Citizenship therefore implies a decision to show solidarity with other fellow countrymen, maintaining an attitude of help which starts with respect and understanding - over and above differences not only among groups but also personal conditions such as talent or character, or of diversity in terms of functions - and which paves the way for the possibility of reaching high levels of friendship with any members of one's own country. Solidarity which ends up sacrificing individual interests in the name of freedom for all - that is, sacrificing for freedom.
Constitutional patriotism attempts to join national conscience with the republican spirit, which means opposing the nation of citizens to the pre-political myth of people as a natural community of language and culture. This type of patriotism legitimises and assume different forms of life and culture, these all being accepted in a non-exclusive republic that is open to pluralism and to diverse types of mixed race. It is a question of shaping a sense of belonging which reinforces the values of participant citizenship, yet modelled along the lines of its institutional argument. In other words, something that goes beyond the single, exclusive sense of the group and that does not remain as a distant, solitary reference to the law.
Republican patriotism is the love of common freedom and of the institutions which uphold it, yet not of cultural or linguistic homogeneity, but rather of plurality. For republican patriots, the main value is the republic and the free way in which it is allowed to exist. It is the project of a nation of citizens joined by respect for individual rights and their common participation in a civic project. Republican patriotism interprets the civic virtue as the commitment to public freedoms and the institutions that guarantee them, given that citizenship is not born from ties to nationality. Habermas maintains that the experience of history shows the catastrophe of forms of nationalism based on ethnic or even cultural criteria. It is evident that the peoples who are the most homogenous from a cultural, religious or ethnic point of view are not those who have the greatest civic spirit.
The adulterated version considers constitutional patriotism as the out-and-out defence of the Constitution, its becoming constitutional fundamentalism, because it interprets constitutional patriotism as serving the purpose of defending the Constitution that is in danger, when in reality this is not the case.

Historical rights : when the Constitution was drawn up in 1978, it became aware of the existence of the historical rights of the foral (autonomous) territories of Alava and Navarra, whereby an attempt was made to reconcile the principle of autonomy with the historical rights of the autonomous territories. To this end, the historical rights are recognised and incorporated into the Constitution, and there is no place for any further historical rights, and the Statute of Autonomy has been updated, meaning that the door has been closed on what history may consider as a permanent source of political rights.
Notwithstanding, Basque nationalism interprets history as continuing to be a source of rights, and has expressed this in the negotiations regarding the most recent statutory transfers of power, arguing that, as is laid out under the Additional Provision of the Statute, "acceptance of the autonomous regime does not imply the waiver of other rights which because of history might be deemed appropriate."
We Basques are the only people in the world who do not have simple rights, but rather historical rights; this may better expressed as historical rights not of people, but rather of the territories of Alava, Guipúzcoa y Vizcaya.

Fueros : when liberal thought proclaimed equality of rights among citizens, the fueros (administrative and fiscal rights and privileges) were put in doubt; these were accepted provided that they were in accordance with constitutions. Basque fueros have constituted the means of institutional incorporation into the Spanish Monarchy. So much so that the historical rights are not used, nor have been used before France or Europe - only before the Spanish Monarchy.
Nationalism changed the historical interpretation and spread the idea that the fueros were ancient Basque laws. However, fueros were provincial, but became enshrined in the 1978 Constitution, thus closing the contentious door on autonomous reintegration or on historical rights. Notwithstanding, nationalism continues to interpret those historical rights as being prior to the Constitution and thus are able to surpsede it. Today, democratic societies must be based on human rights and specific laws, not on unspecific "historical rights."

Self-Government : this is the democratic participation in the decisions of the state. For democrats, constitutionalists and liberals, self-government is a democratic principle, not an end in itself, let alone an alternative objective to be pursued according to territorial area. Self-Government is not a specific right of Basques, it is a principle which inspires all democratic political structuring, from the European Union to the institutional organization of Euskadi. It is not an attribute that Euskadi has, it is an attribute of democracy.
Notwithstanding, for nationalists, it is a right which helps them to unilaterally break the political contract.

Democracy : this is achieving the common acceptance by all political actors, without marginalization or exclusion, of all basic rules of coexistence based on human rights, in a way that democracy may become the only way of playing.
Democracy is based on the agreement or consensus that political relations must be exclusively regulated by laws that are accepted and respected by all citizens, but also on the resulting acceptance of the values of respect for and protection of individual freedoms and rights.
Democracy is not popular representation, but above all respect for individual rights, for ideological pluralism and people's autonomy.
Democracy is not a simple relation of forces, is not the will of the majority at any given time without limit as, in reaching extremes, the majority might decide to physically exterminate the minority. Individual freedom is over and above the decision-making of the majority in the democratic process. Basic freedoms or human rights establish the framework of what politicians (however democratically-elected they may be) may agree upon.
Moreover, democratic Constitutions teach us that the rule of the simple majority, which is used to solve common problems in a regime of freedoms, sometimes proves to be insufficient and unsuitable in solving crucial matters, for which purpose qualified majorities are required.
Democracy implies a participant community, whereby the incorporation of its members must be increased. In order for there to be voluntary participation in the political management and plural shaping of the collective unit, democracy imposes the waiver of the discriminating privilege of origin.
A democracy is not only built from freedoms and rights, but also from duties, responsibilities and loyalties without which coexistence would break up into tribalism, into a pillage of privileges and grievances.
In short, democracy entails only using its own set of rules to achieve political objectives. Because in democracy, not all ideas are admissible, given that there are not only illegitimate means (violence) but also illegitimate ends and ideas (racism, violation of rights and "apartheid", etc).
Democracy, as an accepted system of coexistence, is an evolving essence, and today it would be desirable, for instance, to promote the path towards equal democracy among men and women, or that democracy should not only be based on the election of candidates but also that the selection of candidates be extended.
Consensus and transactions guarantee coexistence in terms of diversity, and condemn a society to imperfection, to the moral of the lesser of two evils. According to the mood of those who defend them, there are perfect dictatorships, yet democracies can only be imperfect. This shows that democracy is not easily consolidated, given that it is a fragile consensus and that it must be permanently looked after and strengthened.
Achieving democratic consensus involves promoting a way for the citizens of Euskadi to mutually come together and acknowledge each other under conditions of full respect and equality in all walks of political and social life.
Euskadi can only be constructed by consensus and by an understanding between nationalists and constitutionalists, because Euskadi cannot build itself up against anyone, as the consensus cannot be imposed; it needs a democracy, it needs to be agreed upon.
It is essential to recover the democratic consensus, but to do so, the idea must be overcome of identifying peace with "national construction", among other things.
In the current situation, it is necessary to reconstitute many of the foundations of coexistence which have been damaged in recent years by nationalism which, while the most anti-democratic theses triumphed deep within it, has gradually weakened the central cores of the great agreement and consensus which the approval of the Constitution and the Statute of Autonomy entailed.
In Euskadi, on the one hand, a major part of nationalism has been openly fighting against democracy since 1978, since the time of approval of the Constitution and, on the other, the powers of the State have been used on some occasions as anti-democratic formulas, one of the darkest and irresponsible episodes being the creation and subsequent activity of "GAL". Despite such efforts, democracy has been restored among us, although it is fair to say that our Basque institutions give the impression of putting up with democracy rather than defending it.
So much so, that many boast of not having approved the Constitution - that is to say, the basic set of rules for democratic existence, and democracy is rejected because it is from the outside, because it is Spanish, thus opening up the possibility of imposing a (….Basque) dictatorship In the same way, the public institutions administered by the PNV have stopped celebrating the anniversary of the Statute of Autonomy, rejecting requests that have been made.

Euskal demokrazia : in recent times, the idea has been spread of "Euskal demokrazia" (Basque democracy) which in reality is an organic democracy, given that it is not the citizens who decide vote by vote, but rather exclusive collective entities such as Udalbiltza. The Basque citizen is treated as a subject, not as an active citizen, because he or she is understood as only being able to really defend Euskal Herria and therefore only those who feel themselves to be Basque nationalists have the vote, since non-nationalists have another homeland - namely, Spain.
Moreover, it is a "democracy" in which everything is decided by "the people" (Euskal Herria has the floor," "Euskal Herria must decide," "let the people speak," "democracy for Euskal Herria," etc.), but not the group of Basque individuals; or, in other words, it is a "democracy" designed to exclude non-nationalists. In reality, it is a dictatorship disguised as democracy, a fictitious democracy.

Representative democracy : this is based on the fact that the political subject is the will of specific individuals who sign a social contract and do what they do by consensus. There is no collective political subject over and above said will of specific individuals. There is only one legitimacy and a single citizenship, which may have many loyalties but is only constructed in a plural way and is only viable in a plural way.

Plebiscitary democracy : today in Euskadi, plebiscitary democracy (by means of consultation, referendums and plebiscites, etc.) is considered as a superseding of, as an improvement in democratic quality - in short, there is a desire to supersede consensus by replacing it with plebiscite. Notwithstanding, plebiscitary democracy is of a merely self-confirmatory nature, typical of totalitarian regimes which do not recognise internal plurality in society. In referendums, the electorate is only asked to take a photograph of a certain moment from history, with the hope that this be the appropriate moment for the interests prompted by the referendum itself. In the referendum, there is no debate in the democratic sense, because the parties invest their energy in tactics to determine when such a referendum should be held and what the question should be, because both the moment and the question influence the result.
An example of this was when in October 2001 Arzalluz proposed that the youth of his party (EGI) should hold a possible plebiscite in order for "the Basque people to formally tell ETA that they should disband." This means not admitting that terrorism goes against human rights, and that a referendum is not needed on the issue.
The obsession that nationalism has for referendums is simply an attempt to legitimise by will what they consider as a natural right that is alien to said will. In other words, they say that the Basque people is a people "per se" with its own identity, but as this is not acceptable in terms of democracy, they aim for it to be recognised with a coating of democratic legitimisation.

Democratic deficit : nationalists are constantly referring to the existence of a state democratic deficit, and they argue their case by means of alleged tortures of detainees, or that the Audiencia Nacional (Spanish Supreme Court) violates the presumption of innocence, etc., with the aim of discrediting the state institutions, and that constitutionalists appear as defenders of non-democratic institutions. For ELA, it is the insufficient democratic legitimacy of the legal frameworks that must be overcome.

Human rights : these are the minimum consensus of human coexistence, they are the basic rights of all people; however, in Euskadi, individual rights are systematically being violated in the name of collective rights ("the right of Euskal Herria").
Human rights are the minimum common denominator of human dignity and should serve not only as a basis for democratic Constitutions but also as the ultimate criterion in judging the legal precepts and political regimes in any corner of the world.
Individual rights take priority, because the human scale of democratic modernity is the individual person, not the group. One thing is human rights which all us Basques possess, and another is the political projects of a few who attempt to disguise them as collective rights: "the right of Euskal Herria to be a nation."
Collective subjects (the people, Euskal Herria) cannot be holders of "human" rights, because collective human beings do not exist.
In Euskadi, group values prevail over human rights, because the group considers itself to be the repository of superior, "natural" values; to this end, human dignity has been called into question and the nationalist public powers fail to defend it.
The ideological debate today is between humanism and collectivism, between individualizing universality and homogeneizing traditionalism.
Today, there is no community concerned with discussing the issue of human rights, but rather double standards are being witnessed: that used to judge the group or community ("us") and that used to judge those outside the group (the "others"). Yet as human rights are not innate, nor are they forever, nor is respect for them either innate or spontaneous, one always has to fight for their defence and respect, given that human rights are too important to leave solely in the hands of Governments.

Guarantee of Human Rights : the protection of human rights is guaranteed essentially by the mechanisms laid out in the Constitution and those deriving thereof, and Governments are duty bound to promote and protect human rights and basic freedoms, so as to thus break the rule of impunity.
It is necessary to reaffirm the defence of the principle of non-discrimination - that is, of the basic principles of the human being, of dignity and of the value of the human person, of equality of rights among men and women.
Today in Euskadi, in fact, rights of life, freedom and safety of the individual and equality are threatened, restricted or suspended before the law, in addition to the right to exercise freedoms of thought, conscience and religion, opinion and expression; the right of free assembly and association; the right to take part in the Government of the country directly or by means of freely chosen representatives.
One cannot be neutral, indifferent or equidistant with racism, injustice and a violation of human rights. However, today in Euskadi a constant violation of individual rights is taking place due to "gangster-style" threats, and there is impunity due to the neutrality of public powers, which encourages and distrust, as the safety and freedom of citizens is not guaranteed. The public powers act neutrally with regard to those who violate and defend human rights, and are too often too concerned about neutrality and equidistance, in treating life and death, threat and freedom on an equal footing.
A graphic example of this is that when there have been protests against threats or murders and in favour of freedom, a group shouting "ETA, mátalos" (ETA, kill them) with impunity has assembled in front of those citizens who reject the violence; meanwhile the Ertzantza (the Basque autonomous police force) have - following the instructions of their commanders - positioned themselves in the middle, leading one to understand that defending the right of life has the same value as committing the crime of threatening it.
To this end, citizens do not remain silent when faced with violations of rights, and shout out loud to ask for what they are missing: freedom, freedom to be able to exercise their rights.

Freedom of equality : this is the right which is linked to freedom, and which is infringed through the limitation and violation of rights. According to the Statute of Autonomy, all Basque citizens are equal in terms of their administrative residence, with the same rights and duties.
Today, the value of equality continues to be a central issue, although, as it must be reconciled with pluralism, is considered as equality in terms of opportunities. Many maintain that equality before the law is the basic form of equality, but legal equality in itself is not enough, there has to be equality in terms of conditions in the sense of an approximate equality in the distribution of wealth.
That is to say, it is necessary to progress towards a right of equal opportunities, as room must be left for a much more extensive immigrant population. And above all, because the reasons of inequality are not natural or necessary, but rather cultural and ideological.
Yet the concept of equality cannot only be equality in terms of opportunities, but it is also necessary to have redistribution programmes; without them, we shall not come closer to equal opportunities.
Today in Euskadi, many people feel marginalized with regard to civil and political rights, and the public powers must be those charged with guaranteeing equality in terms of public freedoms.
Notwithstanding, there exist anti-democratic doctrines which have become deep-rooted in the bosom of Basque nationalism, which attempt to justify inequality (authentic Basques, and those who are not) and which, moreover, are used to defend and perpetuate discrimination on grounds of national, ethnic or ideological origin.
Equality is used in Euskadi to demand equality and comparison in terms of political projects, ideas and values, attempting to put such conflicting values as justice and injustice, life and death, totalitarian and democratic projects, etc., on the same level.

Freedom : there exist different concepts of freedom, each one of which reflects different aspects and positions.
There is a widespread feeling that freedom in an individual or group is defined as a negative right. It is the absence of restriction and unreasonable coercion on the part of other individuals or groups in order to be able to do one thing or another. The concept implies a private sphere within which the individual may act as he or she so desires, free of external restrictions. That is, that there are no more limits on freedom than the freedom of others, which means a vision of freedom in relation to what is outside, what is around us.
Another idea of more radical freedom is that which extols the virtues of "laissez faire", interpreting freedom as being able to do everything one wants and desires without any restriction and without taking into account any objective moral code.
Notwithstanding, democratically, an idea of freedom is defended based more on the relationship between the power of choice and responsibility. From this perspective, freedom is the power of man to choose his own line of conduct, which is, therefore, a responsible one. It is, in short, the quality of self-government of the human being.
This individual autonomy is at the core of a society whose rights must be protected, because the spirit of individual freedom ignores the matter of origin and places emphasis on a shared well-being.
Notwithstanding, we cannot completely delegate all our responsibilities in the collective sphere to different administrations, devoting ourselves only to the problems in the individual sphere, as if there were no relation to the others, but rather that a commitment is necessary to actively defend not only individual freedom for each and every member of society. Thus, considering freedom as the means and the end to politics means accepting the legitimacy of the other without treating him as an enemy, but rather acknowledging him as having his own project. This is a vision of freedom in relation to what is internal, towards inside the group of those close by, in which freedom is linked to pluralism.
This means that not only political freedom and rights must be achieved, but also the putting of them into practice. It is necessary that all us Basques should express our opinions without inhibitions, without fears, without threats, in order to be able to build a freer, more egalitarian society.
To recover freedom, it is necessary not to allow oneself to be intimated by all the talk which converts criminals into heroes, executioners into victims and terrorist blackmail into the peace process. And by those who say that peace is defended by those who let off bombs, and that the ones who suffer are the executioners. One can also not remain in silence in the face of threats or impunity to them, in the hope that those threatening will get tired and give up; well, the truth is, they are not going to do that if freedom is defended step by step, day by day.
The threat has generated passiveness, but the commitment must be taken on to overcome this situation of silence in the face of violations of rights, whereby institutions are greatly concerned with "neutrality", in equidistance, in dealing with life and death, threat and freedom in the same way, whereby territoriality and independence, etc., is spoken of, not to mention threats to freedom and violations of the rights of individuals.
To this end, it proves so necessary to take on a social and political commitment to recover the exercise of freedom, which is no other than the fact that all Basques without exception may be members of the political community of Euskadi.
Although the citizen is duty bound by law to be committed to the defence of freedom, he is made to give this up through threat, aggression and murder. In Euskadi, neither the principles of freedom or equality are fully in force, because citizens are prevented from expressing their ideas to others, criticism is not accepted, and coercion is used to impose beliefs by force, with the drastic result that seven out of ten Basques feel that they do not have freedom when defining or defending their opinions.
In order for we citizens to be able to live in freedom, there must exist a legal system which is defended and a democracy which functions as one, as in its absence, the citizen will be subject to coercion from other, stronger individuals or groups. The law must grant not only rights but also their protection, and the Government must act with the will to protect them effectively.
Finally, it should be stressed that, according to nationalism, the subject of freedom is not the individual but rather the organic community; it is the people who have the freedom, and people are free as long as their freedom coincides with the freedom of the Basque people. Freedom gives the individual the right to belong to the community; said individual must belong to the group in order to be able to be free. Thus, citizens become subordinate objects of the social subjects of history, language, culture, ethnic group and territory, etc., thereby limiting his or her freedom.

Individual and collective rights : only the rights of individuals exist; languages, territories, peoples, etc., are not subject to rights. Nonetheless, reactionary trends against the school of thought of modernity attempt to transfer individual rights to collective subjects, so that they may be denied to individuals and better protect those in power.
An example of this is what occurs in Euskadi, as terrorism is the crudest expression of the denial of all individual rights, when a murder is committed based on claims for a so-called collective right. The people kill a citizen who forms part of the very same people, and the murder of said citizen is the expression of a dispute between a collective entity - Euskal Herria - and an institution - the State.
According to terrorist thought, how can there be someone who complains of being shot (of taking away all his rights) while Euskal Herria has no right to self-determination?

Plurality : peace in Euskadi implies not only recognising that plurality has always existed, but also accepting plurality, and above all accepting pluralism. This means not only recognising that we are a plural society, but also that such pluralism of different ideas must be protected and promoted as a positive value in itself.
A country is plural when is it is capable of harmoniously integrating different cultures, races, languages and religions, and that all of these may coexist. Political institutions work better the less they coincide with ethnic identities and the greater the cross-section of interests be allowed. That is to say, the premise of "one nation-one state" is not valid, but rather that they should precisely be disassociated from each other; it is better that states be plural, plurinational, so as to be able to thus better preserve the plurality of individuals.
Plurality demands that a single ideology, belief, party or association cannot exist and, therefore, demands that all individuals be protected. Institutions must protect the freedom of ideas and beliefs of individuals and the plurality of parties and associations with different ideologies. Converting nationalism into the official ideology of a country or of certain political institutions is not legitimate, democratically-speaking.
It is repeatedly proposed to Basque citizens that they can only be nationalists: Basque nationalists or Spanish nationalists, there is no room for anything else. One cannot be Basque and Spanish at the same time, nor Basque and French, or simply that they are not too concerned about matters of ideological attachment. It is even thought that being a Basque nationalist is a matter of pride, while being Spanish is a synonym for "ultra" (right-wing extremist) or "facha" (fascist), when deep-down, the two sides correspond to the same coin: nationalist.
In any event, what is clear is that, in spite of repeated efforts on the part of nationalists to make people believe that there exists no ideology other than nationalism, we Basques have many more ideologies and projects of coexistence which stress more the freedom of individuals and their development and are not limited to just one possibility for thought. That is, despite the intimidation, we live in a plural society.

Pluralism : this implies the existence of different trends of a political, economic or religious nature which may be freely expressed.
Pluralism requires accepting the legitimacy of the other, accepting that the other has his own project, which may not coincide in many aspects with mine, but which is as legitimate as mine in wishing the best for Basques. Admitting that there exists another "enemy" that is only there to put a stop to my project and therefore somebody I should eliminate is not pluralism. The totalitarian murderers also admit that there exists plurality, that there exists "another", but as an enemy, as an element to be removed, as an illegitimate element that must be eradicated, even physically.
According to Elkarri, it is necessary to "protect pluralism by defending equality of conditions for all political projects and clearly proclaiming that nobody is surplus to requirements here". In other words, it is proposed that the same conditions be given to totalitarianism as democracy, and that the terrorist and the democrat be treated on an equal footing.
In political practice, nationalism does not attack pluralism head on, as there exists great social consensus as regards pluralism. Notwithstanding, describing non-nationalists as enemies or foreigners, or denying legitimacy to non-nationalist parties, is the clearest way of denying pluralism.