4.- NATIONALIST APPROACHES.

Status of associate free nation : Ibarretxe's proposal is based on three great pillars. The first, that the Basque people are the repository of a singular identity of their own, which is incompatible with any other, and that this cannot be banned by decree. In other words, the people have natural feelings, which do not depend on human will.
The second basic pillar of the proposal is that the Basque people have the right to decide their future according to people's right of self-determination. In other words, that although the Basque people have a native natural sovereignty recognised in historic rights existing prior to the Constitution, this is not enough. To this end, they have the right to legitimise it democratically by will.
And lastly, that the decisions taken by citizens within the decision-making process established in the Basque Autonomous Community be respected. That is to say, that the will of the people is over and above any legal restriction or commitments, agreements and consensus entered into until that time, these being able to be unilaterally broken without the other party being able to put forward anything.
The project shall be definitively ratified by taking into account the democratic majority in Basque society by means of a referendum held without violence and without exclusion within a short period of time.
The way of presenting the project has not been sought relying on the democratic support required to make it viable, and the deliberate avoiding of the issue of the existence of terrorism which conditions Basque political life means that this project is democratically unviable and that it can only be imposed by the effects of terrorist action taking advantage of constitutionalists.
The moment when the project was put forward (September 2002) shows that nationalism once again has redefined the terms of Basque political debate at the core of the Euskadi-Spain backbone and connection with its proposal of associate free nation status. Meanwhile, in the wake of the precautionary suspension of Batasuna, the central theme of political debate in Euskadi has been the problem of and models for internal coexistence of Basque society itself, in the democracy-totalitarianism axis, in how we Basques organize ourselves internally in plural, democratic coexistence.

Independence : independence is an international political and legal act which requires the legal recognition of the international community. The practice of Basque nationalism does not exactly lead towards extended independence as interpreted in the sense of establishing new international relations, but rather towards isolation of the European democratic political milieu, whereby it may be considered that the independence advocated by Basque nationalism is closer to achieving whatever it pleases without restriction.

Right of secession : or independence has no place either in the UN or in the European Union, or in the Constitution, or is it a natural right. Notwithstanding, in order to exercise self-government, the Constitution confers the right of autonomy, which does not mean sovereignty or may challenge the unity of the State; rather, it is a complement to it.

Right of self-determination : this has possible different interpretations: firstly, as an inalienable right, it is that which we are all able to enjoy - the protection of democratic rights by the laws of the State of which we form a part.
And secondly, a political project of some is the union and independence of Basque territories, is the right of secession. There is a desire to use self-determination as a political instrument in order to create a split in the State, as what we have here is an undermining of the democratic system, and democracy has been recovered so as to continue history, not to put and end to it.
There is no set of rules or practice in international law which can protect the dismemberment of a state like the Spanish one. For this reason, the Constitution, which incorporates international treaties, makes the prospects of secession unviable. Notwithstanding, independence is a legitimate political option, defendable in democracy, but not a right which obliges the rest.
The right of self-determination is not a univocal collective right, as the same UN resolution that recognises it for colonial cases, rejects it when it is used to partially or totally destroy the territorial unity of a member state.
The right of self-determination is provided for in the Spanish Constitution, section 10.2, which refers to international treaties ratified by Spain. The problem is that it is not applicable in Euskadi, because it is a question of a colony with regard to the Spanish "metropolis."
The right of self-determination is confused with the right of secession, and the United Nations' Resolution of 14/12/60 section 6 explains that: "Any attempt geared towards a total or partial split in national unity and territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the aims and principles of the Charter of the United Nations."
The right of self-determination means that the rights of individuals to establish new political relationships and found new states is over and above the stability of society. To this end, it is a right that is not provided for in any democratic Constitution.
Self-determination is conceived by nationalism as an act by nationalists to oppose the Constitution. It means claiming the right to be against the Constitution, not complying with it and thus being able to crush the general will.

Basque area of decision-making : Basque citizens have different areas of decision-making (municipal, autonomous, national and European) which are agreed upon by the area of coexistence we have provided ourselves with, the area of coexistence designed and defined by the Constitution, the Statute of Autonomy and European Union legislation. And it is democratic responsibility that unites our freedom of decision-making and the already-committed area of coexistence.
From the democratic point of view, the area of decision-making is the area which the Basque citizen accepts as valid in order for his or her decision to be incorporated with those of other citizens, together with whom he or she is committed to solving certain problems (Spanish, European), and not exclusively through the will of Basque citizens.
From the nationalist point of view, the Basque area of decision-making means the power to decide, irrespective of what the others involved in the matter may say. This means that, if one has a problem with another, the former takes the decision and the latter cannot say anything but comply with said decision, because the former says that the other party must respect "his or her" scope for decision-making. As can be seen, this is not a democratic way of solving and deciding about matters.
The Basque area of decision-making, from the nationalist point of view, ignores the reciprocal rights of the other party affected by the relation that is being tried to be broken up, because the one doing so acts "unilaterally". Notwithstanding, the breaking up of bonds of coexistence must be carried out by the free will and mutual agreement of both parties. The right of secession cannot be met by disregarding and harming the legitimate rights of the other citizens affected. It is a blatant contradiction to consider Spain and France as those responsible for an alleged "conflict" and then to propose that they be mere spectators in the settling of said conflict. Democratically-speaking, Euskadi cannot unilaterally modify its status within Spain.
The Basque area of decision-making implies delegitimising the democratic system, positioning itself outside the currently established democracy, outside the area of coexistence which we have mainly provided ourselves with (Constitution, Statute of Autonomy and European legislation) and, to this end, means attempting to split coexistence among Basques.
In reality, nationalists consider the area of Basque decision-making both in terms of failing to accept the principle of compliance with legislation in force, and in terms of preventing the wider areas of decision-making that we Basques have from interfering with the exclusive monopoly of nationalist-style Basque politics and culture. To this end, they wish to use the area of decision-making to deny the wider and lesser ones that we Basques have - in other words, to restrict the shared areas of decision-making that we possess to just one, in which they may exclusively win and impose their theses.
In short, the Basque area of decision-making means restricting democracy to the nationalist taste. It concerns an exclusive model of nationalist decision-making which implies breaking away from the current consensus as regards the democratic rules laid out in the legislation in force at any given time, even in order to modify it. It is taken for granted that all Basques identify an ideal Euskal Herria as being the sole, natural framework for solving their problems, and not Spain, of which they do not consider themselves a part.
The authentic Basque area of decision-making is that of the ballot boxes, that of the electoral colleges, that of municipal, provincial, autonomous, general and European elections, as it is in all these areas where we Basques decide about all the matters that concern us.

Pro-sovereign way : according to the nationalist trade union ELA, this is "a process to be gradually, steadily defined as regards time and content, but at whose central core must in any event be the principle that sovereignty lies among Basque citizens, that the form and content of self-government must at any given time be decided through pluralism and freedom, in accordance with their priorities and opportunities."
That is, acting without adapting oneself to any legislation, breaking away from the Constitution and the Statute of Autonomy, and defining steps according to circumstances and possibilities until achieving the objective of imposing a political system that enables the monopoly of power to lie exclusively and forever in the hands of nationalists, excluding the constitutionalists.

Superseding, going beyond and a process of breaking off of the legal framework, a process of national emancipation: according to Otegui "the democratic model of the Spanish State is incompatible with the Basque people."
ETA and Batasuna use coercion and intimidation even against the PNV, who they do not trust to supersede, go beyond, break off or emancipate themselves from ties with the rest of Spain..

De facto: : acting de facto means not accepting the democratic processes agreed upon by census, or the minimum rules of coexistence; it means not limiting coexistence by right, by law, but rather by force. Acting de facto and not by right is the basic principle of dictatorships.

Udalbiltza : this is a nationalist body which is exclusively parallel to the democratic institutions already existing, with the vocation of replacing them. Udalbiltza is the nationalist union against Basque political pluralism, in order to build the nationalist nation state with everyone's money.
It is said that it is a Constituent Assembly , but they have not been elected to constitute anything, but rather to administer municipal interests; to this end, the desire to be constituent can only be supported by the use of violence in order to impose their theses on the majority.

Estella Agreement - Lizarrako akordioa : according to the signatories, parties, trade unions and social organizations, this was an agreement between nationalists which shall serve to make the ETA ceasefire a permanent one, and to convert EH into a pro-independence party with exclusively parliamentary activity. Nonetheless, neither of these objectives have come to fruition..
In the Estella Agreement (12th of September1998) two basic proposals were put forward: one, that political negotiation is necessary in order to put an end to terrorism, and the other, that said negotiation be based on the proposals and desires of nationalist ideology.

Being in order to decide: firstly, one "is" by definition, by nature, without any argument, one "is" an heir of the past which is over and above the will; one "is" a natural community which has always been on both sides of the Pyrenees, whereby that "being" is in the blood and is impossible to explain.
Secondly, the fact of ·being" (a people) implies the obligation to endorse it by vote (to decide). This means that it is not enough to "be" by nature - this must be coated in the democratic vote. Thus, we shall have a Basque people differentiated by its origin (being) and by its will (to decide). Yet the democratic will often play dirty, and what happens is that the inhabitants of some of the seven (or six) territories claimed as being integral parts of the Basque people do not endorse the "being" with their vote (will).
This contradiction presents no problem for nationalism, because what is natural does not depend on will - in other words, if one "is", everything is decided.

Referendum regarding self-determination : the desire for a referendum on the part of the Lehendakari (Basque President) regarding self-determination is outside the bounds of legality, in the light of the legal code in force. This is because according to the law, a referendum may only be consultative and never binding, and moreover may only be within the scope of the State and there exists no such Basque scope. Lastly, it is the exclusive responsibility of the State, whereby the Lehendakari is not empowered to call such a referendum.
The referendum, in addition to other legal considerations, serves to confront Basque citizens with the risk of a social split in terms of coexistence, given that there is no legal authority to do so. And it also constitutes political fraud, because it is an attempt to consult Basque society about the partisan claims of nationalism unilaterally, without consensus, and this is inappropriate for democratic political life.

National construction : in recent times, autonomy has been challenged by "national construction," although building a nation from the democratic point of view means building a society sustained by citizens based on respect towards all sensibilities, and on reciprocal acceptance, on the ideology and experience of those who uphold it.
Notwithstanding, nationalism attempts to create a community; to this end, it tends to confuse the part (the nationalists) with the whole (Euskadi) and also seeks conflict with the rest of Basques to whom they deny legitimacy. This is the path towards creating two communities.
The current strategy of national construction of the PNV and EA is the creation of a nation of nationalists in civil society by using autonomous institutions and trying to discredit state institutions as much as possible.
Thus, they think that there only exists a nationalist community; "the other" does not exist, either due to surrender on the part of non-nationalists, or because it cannot exist, or because the non-nationalists are on Madrid's payroll, or because they are from outside, given that nationalism divides Basque abertzales and pro-Spanish or those that obey the state.
The logic of discrimination is even used, which is associated with processes of inequality, implying that the other is inferior and may be treated as such ("simple people who have come to earn a crust" and "true Basques"). The problem arises when said "other" attempts to be equal and have the same work, social and political rights; then there is xenophobic and exclusivist behaviour.
By spreading fear and phobia in Spain, nationalists try to create two antagonist and irreconcilable realities, thus shutting the door on the possibility of being Basque and Spanish at the same time - that is to say, of being able to have multiple citizenship.
In practice, national construction means the destruction of the country in terms of plurality. The notion is being put forward that all Basques must be nationalists, or at least that they should not stand in the way of them and, to this end, terrorist violence serves to domesticate the unruly ones who do not wish to yield.
Nobody can ask nationalism to stop being nationalist, but rather that it shrug off its exclusive, anti-democratic and xenophobic dogmas. This means all of us setting about defeating ETA both socially and politically and establishing pluralist coexistence - that is to say, authentic national construction, or in other words, democratic patriotism in which we all fit. What is more, in a society as plural as the Basque one, democratic nationalism has already been invented -it is autonomy, and moving away from that has given rise to clearly anti-democratic stances.

Sovereignty : sovereignty is often mentioned when there are problems in legitimising power, or when there is a lack of agreement as regards the subject to which we should apply sovereignty. By taking a brief look back over history, we can see that in the absolutist era, sovereignty was interpreted as being absolute power without limits and whose subject was the monarch. In the Age of Enlightenment, the subject was the nation, interpreted as being a group of individual sovereign citizens, or as a people-nation - in other words, as a collective subject. Therefore, it is the collective subject that shall be interpreted as the people who shall hold power, sovereignty.
It was through democracy, as this right means putting limits on power through sets of rules, that the idea of sovereignty as absolute power would become restricted.
The Spanish Constitution states in its section 1.2 that "national sovereignty lies in the Spanish people, from whom the powers of the State emanate." This means that it uses an ancient concept of sovereignty - that of "lies in the people," but that said sovereignty is not interpreted as being absolute power but rather that exercise thereof be limited by the set of rules laid out in section 9.1: "Citizens and public powers are subject to the Constitution and to the other legal codes" and, by the rights and freedoms of individual citizens as laid out in section 53.1: "The rights and freedoms of chapter II (individual rights and freedoms) bind all public powers….".
That is to say, in modern democratic societies, the concept of absolute sovereignty does not exist, as it is limited by constitutionalism, which establishes that sovereignty should be limited by law and by individual rights. This means that in democratic societies nowadays, the basis of power is not bound to the abstract concept of the general will (Rousseau) or to people who are a product of a common history, tradition, language or culture (as a collective subject), but rather to the basic binding law for those who have taken part in its debate, drawing up and approval (constitutions) with the limits that the very same law puts on the notion of sovereignty as absolute power.
Notwithstanding, Batasuna interprets the fact that "sovereignty is equivalent to the area of decision-making" and "essentially means that the financial, natural and cultural resources of our country be administered without interference and in the interests of a progressive social and socialist majority which the left-wing abertzale movement is trying to head and organize." And, it adds, "sovereignty means power in order for the MNLV to be able to exercise it in its own way and without concessions to the minority." Moreover, the current situation is characterized by being a "clash between those who are pro-sovereignty, those who feel Spanish and those who do not." That is, that "sovereignty necessarily implies independence with regard to external powers and authority over internal groups."

Popular sovereignty: Rousseau shaped the modern concept of sovereign power as that of the general will. Said general will is superior to individual wills, and shall be the patrimony of the people, of a collective body who shall own and exercise it.
Popular sovereignty is a concept that has been subject to different meanings, depending on the moments and areas in which it has been used, or that by having meant so many things now means nothing.
When popular sovereignty is alluded to, two different matters are referred to: one is in terms of the controversy regarding the origin of knowledge of legal and political principles; and the other is in terms of the origin of power.
The term popular sovereignty is also used to recognise that the people have been granted constituent power - that is, the power to positively establish the Constitution of the State.
Popular sovereignty may also denote that the people do not only have ownership of the constituent power of the State, but also the exercise of constituted power.
Popular sovereignty appears above all as a principle of legitimacy. There is coincidence in pointing out that power is only legitimate when it derives from the people and is based on their consent. The Government of individuals is only possible in a lasting form when there exists sufficient agreement as regards what is legitimate or not.
The main idea of popular sovereignty is interpreted as being a group of people who hold the same essential rights and subjects in the political order of equivalent wills.
The value of popular sovereignty as a criterion of democratic legitimisation of power stems from the fact that the agreement or consensus over which the majority decision be organized be the product of rational deliberation reached under formal conditions, which enable there to be an ideal communicative situation and have as its objectives interests that may be generalized or needs that may be shared through communication.
National sovereignty is the fact of power corresponding to the power of the nation, which is what occurs in democratic regimes, meaning it is the same as popular sovereignty.

Shared sovereignty : its detractors say that it would inevitably represent a split in the balance between the basic rights and freedoms of citizens and the exercise of the right of self-government on the part of the Autonomous Communities, by dismantling the legal, political and ethical bases upon which the autonomous state is sustained. This would give rise to a serious risk for peaceful coexistence and solidarity among Spaniards.

Nationalism : when one speaks of nationalism, different senses tend to get mixed. Sometimes one speaks of it as if it were simply the attachment and affection towards the community of origin - that is, love for the land where one was born or grew up, or the mere fact of being the citizen of a nation, or the defence of a democratic national project. Notwithstanding, nationalism is nothing of the kind.
Nationalism is the doctrine and movement which, being backed up by an intense devotion for the country itself, ends up sometimes becoming exclusivist, and it becomes apparent in its desire for greatness and, in particular, for its independence in all areas by extolling the virtues of personality and identity.
Nationalism means declaring that, in the political field, the superior value is the nation interpreted as being a racial, spiritual or cultural community, and to achieve this, it must do away with the democratic nation which is based on individual political rights.
Nationalism implies accepting the authority of a group or some leaders in terms of their imposing on the whole collective personality that they have invented, in an attempt to shape everyone to their values and entering into their private sphere.
One thing is the concept of national, which reflects the legitimate interests of each nation without detriment to other nations, and another is that of nationalist, which covers up the selfish interests and pretensions of those oppressive wearers of capes under a nationalist cloak, and gives rise to conflicts with other nations.
The exaggeration of national feeling and the appeal to the alleged superiority of national interests tramples over human rights, contrasts some people with others in terms of national, ethnic or ethno-confessional criteria, and humiliates the human dignity of other people.
In spite of the fact that it may seem like the opposite, nationalism is a political doctrine which attempts to impose itself within the plural society itself, thus destroying it, although it is presented as a doctrine which seeks to free itself from the outside.

Democratic nationalism : according to some, this is autonomous nationalism and is already invented. It is one which respects and is loyal to current democratic consensus. Nowadays, the PNV has abandoned this type of nationalism.
According to others, it is nationalism which morally condemns violence, does not actively support it, but also fails to combat it, because it coincides with their pro-sovereign aims.

Ethnic nationalism : also known as ethno-nationalism, it is today a universal phenomenon (the former USSR, Sri Lanka, Quebec, Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland, Flanders, Euskadi, Catalonia, Corsica, the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, etc.) which is apparent in fully-developed states such as Great Britain, Canada, France and Spain.
It origin and extension are due both to a defensive reaction against real or imaginary threats to identity, and the assertion of ethnicity and identity arising from the non-nationalist nature of the Western State following the 2nd World War, although above all is characterized by being a reaction against the internal plurality of society.
Ethno-nationalism considers that the ethnic group is the only subject of rights and that ethnic groups have the right to have their own state. Ethnicity has its origins in relations of inequality, and its construction is at the same time economic, aesthetic and political, and implies the production of both objects and subjects.
Ethnic nationalism attempts to impose a single, exclusive national ideological project on its own society even by means of violence, when in reality that modern society is dynamic, urban and post-industrial with a mixed heritage resulting from the combination of diverse cultures. In order to be able to put an end to plurality, they divide and put society under strain until it breaks and fractures into true and bad patriots, so as to be able to obligatorily impose their ideology, which they consider irreconcilable with the democratic rules established.
It exists as a reminder of wars (against Romans, against Charlemagne, against Franco, etc.) and as a desire to purify the community of traitors and polluters by means of exclusion and physical elimination. It tends towards ethnic cleansing, provided that it has sufficient strength to do so.

National conscience; patriotism; abertzalismo : its fundamental values are the spiritual and cultural unity of the people. The civic virtue is interpreted as being a bond with the ethnic and religious unity of a people. It is often the expression of a feeling of linguistic groups which do not possess their own political organization, shaped by the myth of a natural value, by an idealized prehistory, by a "self-awareness" which involves nothing more than rights (always unknown to the others who must give said right to them), by an ideology which is not devoted to justifying a reality, but rather to transforming what it finds.
It is based on a historic past shared with the will to build a community of destiny. These are feelings of attachment to the land, of the solidarity of sharing the same blood, and of anger and hatred of all things Spanish, as well as the special features of race, language, culture, tradition and customs, etc, which constitute the homeland.
As nationalists like to say, patriotism (abertzalismo) is a feeling inside, and this is why it is so difficult to explain.
If nationalist patriotism is based on hatred of the other, it may make it impossible to be patriotic and democratic at the same time, as has occurred in the case of a large proportion of abertzalismo.
Historically, national conscience is an invention on the part of an urban elite with possibilities of holding political power, and not of citizens with less economic or cultural who live in the suburbs and working-class neighbourhoods. Deep-down, the question of who is Basque or not, identity, etc., boils down to a problem of legitimisation: who is more or less legitimised to hold posts, to represent all Basques, and to have privileges or not, etc.
Nationalists tend to treat those who are non-nationalists as people who have no national conscience and, yet, non-nationalists are not anti-Basque - they have the same rights as the rest, they love their country just as much and, nowadays, have a more plural, integrating and democratic vision than nationalists.
Simply, the democrat's conscience does not desire a patriotism based on land or on blood, but rather, prefers coexistence to be guided by reason and to share rights and freedoms, because this is much more worthy of human beings.
The so-called "national conscience" of nationalism can be rejected because nationalism is not only the feeling of love of one's own country, but the ideological manipulation of such feeling so as to convert it into the legitimisation of a political elite, as nationalist ideology does not have to derive from the feeling of love of a countryside or a land. One may feel that they belong to a nation without being nationalist - in other words, without being considered as a foreigner or as having fewer rights than other citizens who think differently.

Historical conflict : basing the birth of nationalism and subsequently ETA as a consequence of and response to a permanent conflict which started with the Carlist wars, and with the abolition of the fueros in 1839 and 1876 shows a lack of historical truth.
The Carlist wars of 1833-39 and 1874-76 were dynastic, legitimist and ideological wars, but were not the expression of any dispute between the foral (autonomous) provinces and the central Government.
The abolition of the fueros in 1876 was a consequence of the wars, not the cause of them. Said abolition was even corrected in 1878 with the Economic Agreement which served as a powerful instrument for the first industrialization and increase in affluence in Vizcaya and Guipúzcoa.
Basque nationalism was born in 1900, on the one hand, as a reaction to the modernization that liberal ideas which challenged autonomous reintegration entailed in political organization; on the other hand, as a reaction to the economic and social changes of Basque industrialization which was seen as a threat to traditional identity (fueros, the Catholic religion, the Basque language and rural life).
The conflict was created at that time due to the resistance of a sector of the population to cultural and political pluralism as a product of industrialization, thus generating a deep division at the heart of Basque society itself.
Likewise, the birth of ETA was not the response to Franco's dictatorship or to an unresolved historical conflict, as between 1977 and 1979 amnesty, democracy and the greatest level of autonomy in Europe was achieved. Rather, terrorism, far from subsiding, in fact worsened. ETA has created a new conflict in terms of its deepening the division in Basque society, by combating democracy, using anti-democratic methods, advocating independence in order to obtain political power and control society without democratic limits, by attempting to resolve the historical proposal of nationalism in putting an end to pluralism in Basque society.

Political conflict : nationalism says that there exists a conflict of a political nature, yet in reality what it is saying is that it is of a historical nature - to be precise, 160 years, in the words of Ibarretxe: That is to say, a political conflict which historically-speaking has not been resolved. However, the reality is very different, because the historical problem has already been resolved in the Statute of Autonomy, given that, if it is of a political nature, it has arisen from the normal political pluralism existing in Basque society in which there exist different concepts and proposals with regard to what our organization should be with the rest of Spain.
In Euskadi, there exist political problems, like in all communities and countries, but there does not exist a previous, unresolved political conflict which can justify the superseding of the current legal framework, let alone justify the violence.
According to nationalism, there exists an oppressed people in the origin of time which never became integrated by its own will into the institutional framework of the Statutes in which it stands and which denies its identity.
Nationalism considers that it is a conflict that is so particularly different from ordinary conflicts, that it needs to resolved over and above considerations of the system of legality- in other words, it must be resolved by breaking the rules of the game agreed upon by consensus and established as the rules of law, namely the Statute of Autonomy and the Constitution.
In Euskadi, there is no ethnic, religious, social or cultural conflict; we are not victims of national domination on the part of another country, or by another ethnic group, nor is the Basque culture or language being consciously or voluntarily attacked by anybody. With the Statute of Autonomy and the Constitution we have resolved the conflict as regards the national question, with democracy and the institutionalisation of plural citizenship being re-established. The only conflict existing is that caused by the terrorists and those who are intolerant against democrats and their institutions.

Conflict with the State: nationalism defends the theory of dispute or conflict with the State, which is based on the fact that Euskal Herria is a distinct community which is being undermined by a centralist, colonising State; what must be done is restore the initial situation and resolve "the historical dispute with the State."
However, there are many Basques who do not accept the notion of the dispute - that is to say, that they do not share the myths which certain "elites" repeat over and over again, to the extent that they brand those who do not accept such catechism as not being Basques. The only dispute or conflict in which Basque democrats are immersed today is that of the violence and terrorism of ETA.

Conflict between Spain and France and Euskal Herria : in Udalbiltza "Euskal Herria ezagutzen", it is said textually that: "Euskal Herria is located between two States that deny its identity as a people and that, today, we Basques do not have any common institution."
No unified Basque people have existed either historically or legally or have unduly aspired to such unity. The political ideal of the nationalists of a united Euskal Herria or nation which is about to be born, may be compared to that proclaimed by a Greater Germany, a Greater Serbia or a Greater Israel which claim far-off territorial limits (from the time of David, etc.).

Bilateralism : bilateralism confuses country with ideology. Basque politics has been interpreted as the bilateral relationship existing between the Party of the corresponding Nation (PSOE or PP) and the PNV. This means that the PNV is considered as the sole representative of the Basque Country and their partisan interpretation of the Statute of Autonomy is that which represents all Basques, etc.
Notwithstanding, in the last general elections in the year 2000, the electoral result in Euskadi produced the following sharing of the 19 seats: 7 PNV; 7 PP; 4 PSE; 1 EA. In other words, 11 seats for constitutionalists and 8 for nationalists. It is obvious that the swing caused by terrorism acts as a non-democratic bonus for nationalism.

The right to be different; the differential fact: the right to be different is a myth, as the fact that there exist differences does not necessarily imply that they must be preserved, or that their existence should have to give rise to any right.
Experience shows that if the difference is as regards what is considered strange is emphasized, this is linked to the difference within the social group and translates into political imposition, into racism.
Notwithstanding, the right to be different is used to justify inequality in terms of the rights of individuals in a society. The right to be different is justified because the ethnic group is interpreted as comprising a community whose members share a series of differential characteristics which provides them with their own personality. And this personality, by the mere fact of being different, possesses the right to be respected over and above the universalization of the rights of persons, as the difference is determined by natural, original factors - that is, prior to the universalization of civic rights.
According to nationalism, it is not the individual who has the right to be different, but rather the community which should have power and control of it. Thus, the right to be different in terms of the community is claimed in order to establish the homogeneity of the members of said community. Individuals are homogenous, are not different, as only ethnic groups are different from each other. Dissent within the community itself is not allowed, as this who dissent are not Basque, do not belong to the community and must be expelled and/or wiped out.

Racism : racism interprets people of mixed race as being the start of the "degeneration"; however, races are not biological phenomena, but rather cultural ones in a state of permanent change. There exists no person, no social or political movement which voluntarily becomes attached to racism. Nobody proclaims or acknowledges that he or she is racist; it is always others who are racists. Notwithstanding, Basque nationalism was founded by a racist, Sabino Arana y Goiri, and proof of this is in his writings, that he was an old-fashioned racist. Racism, like all ideologies, adapts itself to new times in its forms, but persists in the form of hatred of outsiders, in certain racial purism and intolerance in failing to accept that there exist racial mixes. Basques, like all peoples, are a racial mix, we are people of mixed race and diverse.
The eternal search for difference ends up distorting reality and presenting a non-existent fiction in terms of a country, merely by stating that we are different. Yet, above all, by over-stressing the difference in terms of what is considered as being from outside and at the same time praising the enrichment that this entails, we are made to be ideologically vulnerable to racism and xenophobia based on origin (hatred and rejection of what is said to be Spanish) and to segregation. The cry of "go away from here" (alde hemendik) must be eradicated from this country, as it is a racist, exclusive and anti-democratic slogan.

Hatred ; xenophobia : nobody acknowledges the hatred, that we are always hated. Yet if somebody dresses in red and yellow, or somebody receives a present which is red and yellow, this produces disgust and repugnance among many Basques. What they wish to hate is Spanish. Being Spanish is the biggest insult among nationalists, and means being cast out of the group community, not being admitted to the group, exclusion. Because we all know that social, economic and political exclusion from the group of the privileged is the purpose of hatred and xenophobia.

Ethnicism : Characteristics in common with other human beings always dominate over distinguishing features; the internal diversity of the group which aspires to being ethnically homogenous is so huge that it makes it impossible to establish what its special features are based on. The permanent search for purity implies leaving the majority of the population out of the pure equation.
Ethnicism is based on the fact that individuals are capable of being mixed race, but peoples no; one cannot merge, but only juxtapose, because peoples are conceived as being homogenous on the inside and separate on the outside. Notwithstanding, what are referred to as originally pure ethnic groups are no other than people of mixed race whose keys have been forgotten or disguised by the mythical reconstruction of history and literature.
We Basques have so many things in common with the rest of Spaniards that to deny so would mean denying ourselves.

Totalitarianism : this is an ideology that attempts to subordinate the human being to complete, total domination by the omnipresent State by means of the socio-pyschological and ideological manipulation of the behaviour of the masses, the repressive control of all walks of public and private life of each citizen through terror on a daily basis.
It is noteworthy for the all-powerful and terrorist control of the whole of society and each and every one of its inhabitants.
The totalitarian regime uses the image of the enemy to maintain psychological domination over the masses, and inhibit human intentions by degrading and destroying personality; it transforms the individual into an instrument of bureaucratic machinery. It eliminates civil society and militarises public life, and crushes human dignity. Displays of totalitarianism are based on the ideas of fascism, corporatism and nationalism, etc.

Irredentism : this was an idea that originated in Italy at the end of the 19th century, which based its political justification on the recovery of territories lost in previous times. It is a form of nationalism whereby new "irredentist" territories are invented which must be united because they form part of the authentic nation.
One of the problems faced by Basque irredentism is with the demarcation of territories which should form part of a hypothetical Basque state. There is no agreement as regards this, given that some, when basing the idea of nation on history, justify it by proposing the existence of an alleged Duchy of Vasconia (13th century); others, conversely, propose recovering the Kingdom of Sancho III the Great of Navarre (1005-1035) as territorial demarcation, as he was the most powerful Christian king on the peninsula, etc. However, the most widespread stance today is that of those who base the nation on the language linked to medieval territories, whereby they propose the current Basque Country, Navarre and part of the French Département of the Pyrenées Atlantiques as territorial limits to be recovered. Notwithstanding, it would seem very difficult to recover something that historically has never existed.

Distortion of history: many political proposals in Euskadi have been legitimised, and are legitimised, by history; thus, we have Historical Territories, Historic Rights, etc. - that is to say, the use of history as legitimisation is a very common resource in nationalism.
Notwithstanding, the different assessment granted to historic factors is precisely one of the differences between nationalists and constitutionalists.
From the nationalist point of view, history is a permanent dispute between the "Basque people" and the Spanish State, which in principle was the dispute between the Basque people and the Romans, then against the Goths, then against the Kingdom of Castile and in the last 160 years with the dispute with the Spanish State. This justifies the fact that there are first-degree Basques, the euskaldunes, who throughout history have resisted and have not allowed themselves to be Romanised, and then second-degree Basques, who have allowed themselves to be Romanised.
There has been a distortion of history, and the historical archetypes such as Roncesvalles, matxinadas and Zumalakarregi, etc, attempt to justify centuries-old oppression and continuous war.
To this end, the history of Euskadi is presented as a continuous loss of territory, since the time of the alleged Duchy of Vasconia (7th-8th centuries), which must be reconquered and recovered. This is the myth of what we had and what has been taken from us, and we must be acknowledged through the legitimisation of history: that is why we have been at war for 160 years due to lost independence.
Moreover, it is considered that the aim of the history of the Basques is independence, and in this way, an attempt is made to overcome and conceal the class struggle, the struggle for freedoms, autonomy, etc. as dynamic elements in the future history of the Basques.
Nationalist history is one made only of its own heroism and grievances by others: Moreover, it modifies geography and even biology in order to shut itself inside a hermetic identity which in this way divides into an irreconcilable "them" and "us".
Deep-down, it is matter of eliminating all trace of culture or interpretation of history from Euskadi which does not happen to be nationalist, leaving the other Basques without a memory in terms of history.
For constitutionalists, however, contemporary history is the dispute between two parts of the Basque people with two distinct models of the Spanish State, because history is the realm of freedom and not of need.
In the history of Euskadi, the wealth of all schools of thought does not appear, but rather only the nationalist one, when in reality Basque nationalism came into being at the time of the Carlist wars (160 years ago) - that is to say, in the struggle against liberalism, by defending the legitimism of the former patrimonial system.
Without denying that there have existed many fundamentalists and reactionaries in our history, it is necessary to claim the contribution to the modernisation and progress in Euskadi carried out by the Enlightenment, liberalism and socialism, etc.. Thus, the contribution on the part of Basques towards the construction of the Spanish State is something that is historically beyond question, and that only the prejudiced and ethnocentric trends of Basque nationalism attempt to conceal, therefore lacking truth.
History can also not base itself only on the point of view of the a priori existence of a collective nature of the Basque people as, on the one hand, this nature is changing and, moreover, its behaviour over time is not determined beforehand and therefore , as occurs among other peoples, the collective nature of the Basque people has been inconsistent with itself.
In Basque history, it proves necessary to: objectify the stereotypes burdened with prejudice and xenophobia which are not specified (e.g. everything Spanish should be rejected or concealed); avoid divisions between friends and enemies, good and bad; and consider that the scope of history is not just the nation-state, but rather that we are members of other bodies (city, region, continent) or of groups that are not defined by territory (women, men, professions, urban, rural, workers, aristocrats, etc.). The history of a country cannot be confused with political history, nor may it boil down to this, let alone can it be thought that that country is superior to another due to the mere fact of being ours.

Criminalization of nationalism : criticizing is not condemning, in the same way as reproaching one for a mistake is not a synonym for calling someone a liar: Only if one has something to do with the crime can it be thought that he or she is being criminalized when an error is pointed out to them. An error is not a crime. Errors are not the exclusive property of anyone - we all make mistakes depending on what we know and understand, but we should also know how to accept criticism.
The problem lies in the fact that when contradictory messages are constantly sent by nationalism and there is no great consistency, possible interpretations may be made which link nationalist ideas with crimes. Thus, when it is said that self-determination has nothing to do with violence, but immediately afterwards it is suggested that sovereignty needs to be recognised in order to reach peace. In such case, there must be some kind of relation. Or when Begoña Errasti repeats that EA has the same aims as ETA, but uses different methods, when we all know that it is very difficult to separate aims and means.
Even Basque bishops state that from the ethical point of view, it is not legitimate to confuse nationalism with terrorism. Clearly, nationalism is previous to terrorism and it is possible that terrorism may end and nationalism may continue, but it must not be forgotten that terrorism does not appear out of nowhere, but rather that it is developed and protected in the political references of nationalism, whereby the relationship and responsibilities existing between them must also not be forgotten.

Identity : there are two ways of understanding identity or - either basing identity on the difference with the other, encouraging this so-called difference as a rejection of diversity and plurality which means the exclusion of the other, or stressing the common characteristics at the heart of diversity.
This means that we all have different levels of identity: personal identity, group identity which is the identification with diverse non-exclusive groups to whom we belong (regional, national, etc.), and which exists in diversity and must be open to change; and identity based on equality among all human beings which in Europe means the will which makes up political decisions that should not be arbitrary but rather regulated by laws, human freedom, social justice and progress.

Shared identity : the nationalism of some Basques, with their backs turned on history, has contrasted the Basque being with the Spanish being, and this contrast has been tried to be imposed on all Basques. It is very limiting to restrict personal identity to being Basque or being Spanish, as the richness of a person lies in the sharing of identities. We Basques cannot relinquish our Spanish identity given that the cultural, social and linguistic references are common, to a great extent, with those of the Spaniards. This would be like asking us to deny ourselves, by our basing ourselves on a false contrast, on a distortion of history and of current reality, which we must accept as it is.

Collective identity of Basques : defining the Basque collective identity is a very complicated task, because if we base it on universal values (human rights, etc.) which are accepted by the majority of citizens, we do not differ from the others;; and if on the other hand we base it on very different values, they cannot be accepted by the majority. That is why it is never accurately defined, and requires an authority which can say what the collective identity of Basques is at any given time.
A common authority shall have to be socially accepted in order for cultural identity to be accepted, so as to define it. The party is the one which defines identity, who is Basque and who is not, who is authentic and who is not, who protects identity and who combats it. In reality, the so-called Basque collective identity is nothing more than the ideological approach of a party which is attempting to impose its ideas on all Basques.
National identity, for the purpose of being a democrat, must be accompanied by a parallel conscience of plurality, as permanent and uniform national identity does not exist.
Loyalty towards a democratic constitution is the only way of guaranteeing collective identity - namely, national identity - given that it is then established in loyalty towards the democratic uses and essential rights of the person, as the collective identity is not threatened in a democratic society.
The constant search for the identity of Basques leads to a distortion of reality, its being based on myths, because the features of any identity cannot be defined, given the plurality existing within the community and, moreover, it is today considered as a feeling of wanting to belong to the nationalist community in contrast to another, non- existent community.
The search for identity is nothing more than the need for one to be exclusively recognised in reference to him or herself, because his or her identity is open to question. It is the obsession with making oneself a constituent subject of everything; in other words, we Basques only define ourselves and shape ourselves without interference from anybody. Notwithstanding, identity is received and shaped in relation to others, in acknowledgement of the other, so that the other may acknowledge you and shape him or herself around you. In the modern political world, nothing can be shaped for oneself, considering others as enemies who put my identity in jeopardy, when in reality the others (other societies, countries and identities) are essential for shaping the identity which nowadays is always changing, and therefore plural.
The essential incompatibility arises between those who feel they belong to the Basque nation, and those who feel they belong to the Spanish one: In this way, the majority of Basques are not taken into account, either those who feel they belong to both, or those who do not especially "feel" they belong to either.
The identity of Basques cannot be defined by its alleged incompatibility with a large part of itself - that is to say, by its incompatibility with Spain - but this and other incompatible myths are put forward regarding the identity of Basques so as to make it impossible to find a solution to coexistence in plurality. Thus, a national Basque identity is considered as being the only one possible, unchanging and eternal and incompatible and, therefore, exclusive in terms of other identities.
In reality, we Basques, like all human beings, have multiple, complex sentiments and identities which are not of an exclusive nature, but rather complementary. Moreover, such sentiments have been changing throughout our history.
Notwithstanding, in Euskadi, in spite of efforts by nationalists, there is no clash between peoples or identities, because non-nationalist democratic Basques, despite everything, desire coexistence with the nationalists.
The collective identity that really exists is made up of traditions and borrowed things, of things that were born here and of things that have come from elsewhere, of people with native family roots, of emigrants and, above all, of a great mixed race of people somewhere between the two. To deny this is to make it impossible to have a plural society.
Fortunately, no human being is pure; we are all of mixed race, as migration has been and is the natural state of the human species: To this end, modern societies are the result of great migratory movements and complex mixed races.
The diverse national traditions must know how to play down the importance of exclusive sources of political legitimisation; otherwise, these shall end up turning into Nazism. As identity exists and is replacing territory, it must limit itself and/or be limited, because otherwise we would be creating ethnic nations rather than cosmopolitan ones.

Incompatibility being Basque and Spanish: this is an idea put forward with backs turned on history, whereby an attempt is made to impose this comparison on all Basques. The cultural, social and linguistic references of Basques are, to a great extent, the same as those of the rest of Spaniards. It is part of the political strategy of nationalism to avoid other comparisons such as those between democrats ad totalitarians, pacifists and violent types, those who are pro-autonomy and those who are pro-sovereign, etc., because in this way the comparison is total, it is a group comparison.
It is repeatedly suggested to us Basque citizens that we can only be Basque nationalists: Basque nationalists or Spanish nationalists; there is no room for anything else. One cannot be Basque and Spanish at the same time, or Basque and French, or simply that one is not particularly concerned about such matters of ideological attachment. It is even thought that being a Basque nationalist is a matter of pride, while being a Spanish nationalist is a synonym for "extreme right-wing" or "fascist", when deep-down they are the two sides of the same coin: nationalist.

Normalization : this is a term used by nationalism that must be accompanied by the object of said normalization (normalization in the use of the Basque language; political normalization, etc.) The term "normalized society" has no meaning when we live in a democracy, except where this situation is not accepted.