Politics : from a democratic viewpoint, politics is an activity which is used to reconcile opposing proposals of coexistence and interests in conflict; it is the administering and defence of coexistence. It is an area for freedom, it is all things civic, it is the organising of coexistence, it is all things related to the citizen.
From an instrumental viewpoint, politics is interpreted as power; governing is confused with ordering.
From a religious viewpoint, politics is interpreted as compliance with certain high values or ways which extend to all people. Political activity is a service, a personal ethical commitment, a sacrifice that imposes the necessary salvation of the homeland. The homeland has a destiny and speaks, bit requires an interpreter, a priest, in order to make the faithful aware what it wants at any given time. Conversely, political adversaries only require the armchair, the power, personal enrichment, they do not have high values or a destiny to fulfil such as recovering what has been lost and which we had by nature. They are not believers, which means they are not legitimised to govern, to be able to translate what the people or the homeland really want.

Means, objectives and ends : it has been said that the end justifies the means. However, the most democratic stances maintain that the end does not justify the means, as the end is in the means itself. It is also said that the means condition the end, meaning that if you use totalitarian means, then you are not going to magically turn into a confirmed democrat. Nonetheless, it has been said that the ends condition the means to be used, because depending on what you want to achieve, you will use one means or another. This shows us that there is a certain relation between means and ends, whereby it is not easy to separate them, as the means is the rehearsal for the final result.
Notwithstanding, the EA President, Begoña Errasti, has on numerous occasions stated that they have the same objective as ETA - that of independence - but that they differ in the means.
In the case of ETA, what is more disturbing - the shooting or the purpose? The means or the end? The bombs or independence? According to many nationalists, what constitutionalists find most disturbing is the purpose (independence), not the shootings or the bombs. In other words, we don't care that people are killed.

Government and opposition : in recent years, a peculiar phenomenon has been taking place in Basque politics - the PNV has been in Government and Opposition at the same time. It has been backed up by the Constitution and the Statute of Autonomy to govern and at the same time has rejected them in order to form the Opposition. This is what the ambiguous side of nationalism consists of, in showing moderation in Government and radicalism outside it through the party.
While HB continued to fight against the democratic institutions, the rest of the political parties, the PSE has predominated in opposition to the Government in order to be able to sustain the permanently harassed Basque institutional framework.
Notwithstanding, following the signing of the Estella-Lizarra Agreement in 1998, this situation has been modified, and now the nationalist parties (PNV and EA) benefit from the Constitution and the Statute of Autonomy in order to continue governing. To this end they support and maintain the Basque Government and at the same time, have created, together with HB, Udalbiltza, as an alternative to the institutional power of the Basque Government itself. In other words, opposition duties have been transferred from the party (PNV) to a body which constitutes the agreement of several parties, but is maintained, essentially, by the ideological principles of Euskal Herritarrok.
This new political situation has also resulted in the ways of forming Government and Opposition being modified, thereby meaning a major weakening in Government work and a greater reinforcement in anti-governmental work. Basque nationalism does not establish governing and defending democratic institutions as being a task of paramount importance, and as its opposition work focuses on the Estella Agreement, troubled in content and pace by EH, the PNV has stopped being its own opposition; it cannot clearly carry out the "double game." However, it still tries to be at the same time in Government and Opposition, by propping up the institutions and leading political strikes, thus being the management and trade unions at the same time.
In the midst of such a peculiar situation, in which it has to try to govern but is committed to being in opposition, a certain socio-political opposition has become apparent on the part of groups of citizens; and faced with this, the structure of the PNV has been used, with the connivance of the Basque Government, to repress protests and demands. As an example of this, the PNV has used the organization of the party as a repressive element against the demands for freedom and inequality on the part of the population, specifically in Vitoria-Gasteiz following the murder of Fernando Buesa (PSE).
In order for there to exist a situation of governing and, at the same time, opposing oneself in the political game, different factors have been combined: the existence of terrorism coinciding with the approaches of nationalism in opposition; the lack of social organization outside the sphere of nationalism to a large extent due to the threat of terror.
The simultaneity of governing and being in opposition is only sustainable if on the one hand, both the agreed upon "double game" at the heart of society exists and functions, and the threat of the fact that no social organization or ideology other than a nationalist one may arise; and, on the other hand, a lack of clear alternative which may oppose such a double game.
In short, what has been missing in Euskadi over the these last few decades has been a true opposition, an organized opposition at the heart of society, as the role of the opposition defines the truly democratic nature of a representative Government. Although this opposition is today starting to become better represented, both socially and politically, we Basques should nonetheless be familiar with a true opposition - that is to say, we should be aware of a democratic and autonomous alternative for all Basque citizens.

Alternation ; change : these prove necessary when there is an emergency situation due to the inactivity or incapacity on the part of the Government to solve serious problems affecting society as a whole. They become possible when there is a situation of isolation; the Government and its social mass become isolated and it stops incorporating any will that goes beyond its policies, when it stops sharing, and when there exists a social and political body which is at least somewhat structured and which may maintain alternation and change.

Centrality : some intellectuals and political analysts think that the PNV is the central party in Euskadi, and that nothing can be done without it or against it. Notwithstanding, others think that since the PNV abandoned democratic unity and the Ajuriaenea Agreement and set nationalist unity and the Estella Agreement in motion, it has lost said centrality on losing the capacity to negotiate an agreement with all the parties.
In Euskadi, the PSE-EE says that it is the centrality party because it is the only party capable of maintaining dialogue and reaching agreements both with nationalist and with constitutionalist parties.

Legitimisation : the democratic legitimacy of the public powers is not only based on the universal suffrage which has established them, but also on the determination to obtain the protection of the individual rights of all citizens and the full validity of public freedoms.
Only the human rights of individuals recognised in the Constitution and the Statute of Autonomy are the source of legitimisation which make all us Basques equal in terms of rights and freedoms. In Western democracies, the ownership of power is that of individual citizens, and it is not a question of democracies made up of territories or communities.
Neither surnames, nor biological features, nor origin, nor history, nor language, nor ethnic group, nor party, let alone commitment to an ideology may be considered a worthy source of special rights and denial of legitimacy to those who do not take part in models built around these aspects.
Legitimisation by surnames and biological features continues to persist when reference is made to the fact that mass immigration has corrupted and blurred the Basques, as these are still used as "pedigrees" of the authentic Basque. In so much that, if someone has many Basque surnames but is non-nationalist, he or she is considered to be a traitor.
Origin cannot either be considered as a legitimising source of the fact that Euskadi should be only made up of its natives, the ones who arrived first; expressed in a better way, those of us who have been here since the time of the "caverns" are worthy of special rights and are very sparing on the legitimisation of those who arrived afterwards.
In reality, origin legitimises some so as to exclude others. Origin is a requirement which some have as opposed to those who do not possess it, due to their lacking lineage or faith; however, human rights, an authentic source of legitimisation, are the rejection of what is native, and make us all equal.
Likewise, nationalism bases its legitimisation on an alleged tradition, on a historical need or on a mandate of destiny, by attempting to show that nationalist ideology is more natural than the others. It is necessary to understand that all social and political situations are shared cultural and historical products and do not have a natural origin.
In reality, all this set of proposals of legitimisation by origin, history, ideological commitment, etc., are nothing more than attempts made by one social group to legitimise itself as the sole formula for power, and thus prevent others (the non-nationalists) from taking part in and being able to be equally legitimised in order to govern Basque society itself.

Delegitimisation of democracy : nationalism, even from the Basque Government itself, permanently questions the legitimacy of the democratic state. It does not respect the channels established within the current legal framework.
The PNV does its utmost to delegitimise the democratic system, providing the paradox of the democratic system in that Euskadi is today defended by those who are persecuted, by those who require an escort.

Tolerance : this is respect and consideration with regard to the opinions and practices of others, even though we may not share them, but on the condition that the principle of reciprocity is met. That is to say, exclusivist opinions or practices cannot be accepted, because they attempt at any cost to do get rid of the others, at imposing oneself on all dissenting voices, or destroying will and thought.
Tolerance is a condition which is necessary for the survival of coexistence because it enables dialogue to be maintained between different cultures and schools of thought based on mutual respect and equality in terms of rights.
Tolerance constitutes the basis of modern democracy because it ensures religious, ideological and political pluralism, provides a guarantee to minorities against majorities and ensures sovereignty of the personality.
If limits are not put on tolerance, the risk is run of playing down the importance of and relinquishing the basic values of democratic coexistence.

Non-tolerance : we cannot be tolerant when faced with domination, oppression, injustice, genocide, racism or xenophobia, etc.; this would be to accept or tolerate what is intolerable.
The activities which threaten the essential values affecting human life, such as freedom , social justice, development and solidarity among human beings should not be tolerated. This non-tolerance of what is inhumane should not be confused with intolerance.

Intolerance : intolerance is based on a dogmatic, normative idea of what the human being is and should be and rejects any other point of view or behaviour as being deviant and perverse, on a form of rigid, reducing, purely analytical and dichotomic thought, and on a competitive and aggressive notion of life.
The intolerant person believes that there is only one form of culture, political system and lifestyle which he or she considers natural; the rest goes against nature. Thus, the right of the Basque people to self-determination is often heard in terms of being a natural right.
The intolerant person practises specific hatred towards other countries, systems, churches, social groups and minorities, etc. In this way, emigrants are denied the chance to take part and are hated because of their language, their religion, culture or because they resist assimilation.
A common practice with regard to intolerance is the exclusion from the job market of those who fail to comply with the natural forms of culture, as well as justifying the unequal distribution of work and resources.

Political loyalty : this means accepting and respecting certain basic rules of the game in terms of coexistence and political play, and is the commitment to others, whereby loyalty to the commitment to oneself is not enough, or the notion that "my kingdom is not from this world." The PNV is especially careful not to take on political commitments, not wishing to enter into agreements that may bind it or limit it, because its mission goes beyond the tangible (it lies in history, in origin, in lack of definition, outside that relating to the citizen, beyond reason because it is a feeling, etc).

Civil disobedience; refusal to do military service: civil disobedience is widely admitted in the case of tyranny or dictatorship, but requires greater precision in the case of a democratically legitimised society, because disobedience is often proposed by those who are nostalgic for a dictatorship or by "anti-establishment" groups.
Honourable claims are not always being defended when civil disobedience is spoken of, as in a democratically legitimised society, civil disobedience should only operate where said democratic society has in some way ceased to be one.
Combining disobedience towards an unjust, non-democratic law with the acceptance and strengthening of the rest of the democratic system is a balance, a challenge and a line of activity to be pursued in a democratic society.
Civilly disobeying in order to attract attention to an anomalous situation within the democratic system is a democratic means of participation in political life. Refusal to do military service on the part of democratic Basques means a refusal towards ETA, it is a refusal to yield to the imposition and social control demanded by terrorism.
Those who refuse to do military service are critical of the compulsory nature of having to do it, when the problem is not so much a military one as that of a concept of the State and its relationship with the citizen.
Notwithstanding, refusal to do military service as proposed the abertzales means doing what one wants without any limit; it is always anti-democrats who express a refusal to do military service and are disobedient towards democracy, towards its values and its laws. All fascists have been and are disobedient towards the democratic system.
Even the Lehendakari Ibarretxe has proposed not paying for or complying with laws; in other words, disobedience towards the basic rules of the democratic system when it concerns political negotiation which should always be carried out within strictly democratic channels, but never using disobedience towards laws as a threat to breaking the rules of the democratic game.

Political disloyalty : this means always wanting to keep one's hands free, not committing oneself to others because one does not wish to share, because it is an exclusivist project.
The fact that the nationalists condemn the constitutional-statutory agreement in order to modify it is a form of disloyalty, when any opportunity to modify said agreement should be considered by complying with the consensus on it. In other words, it is not loyal to condemn the fact that Statute of Autonomy has died a death and that it does not present common ground, so to then propose its modification.
In any other walk of economic or business life, etc., attempting to modify an agreement cannot entail its previous breaking-off; it is not loyal to put forward the desire to modify an agreement as the breaking-off of the agreement itself, but rather this should be put forward as an open process within the agreement itself.
It is very difficult to trust the loyalty of he who unilaterally breaks off the agreement we have with him, saying that it has died a death and serves no purpose, and immediately afterwards requests its modification. Without doubt, we would ask: hey, you, what are you playing at? It is not loyal that the solution be sought through the breaking-off of the agreement, of the consensus, especially when it concerns a basic consensus in terms of coexistence, which means an act of rebellion, disloyalty to the democratic system, which has its own modification procedures that must be complied with.

Consensus : this is the unanimous agreement or acceptance on the part of all people comprising an association or group. It is the coinciding of opinions as regards a certain problem of mutual interest which enables a common action to be established.
Consensus is also a method of reaching the objective, it is a commitment, an agreement, a desire for mutual understanding and a playing down of the contradictions existing between the parties.
There is no social process which does not include different forms and levels of consensus. The richer and more consistent the consensus, the more harmonic will be the social development.

Moral principles and law : The law may be demanded, but consensus only so if the others abide by the principles which inspire it. The law may be imposed on everybody and is enforced against deviant behaviour. The law delegates other people to decide whether it is fair or not. Morals must judge on each occasion, and that is very difficult in a complex society. Moral conscience has become separated from tradition, whereas the law is the collective accumulation of experiences. For this reason, the latter is more necessary than ever, because the law may be demanded, is stable, collective, coercive and applicable to all and an expression of a shared way of life.

The will of the Basques : the will agreed upon by consensus is a sufficient right and the only real right that maybe defended. Yet the will to be the law must comply with conditions so that it may be firm and clear, freely expressed, shaped and backed by qualified majorities, agreed upon by consensus and broad. The will of the majority must confine itself to the relevant authority and comply with laws that are on a higher level and procedures, as the law cannot be exercised unilaterally, because minorities also have rights whereby responsibilities are shared.
If it is understood that only the political will of the individuals who make up the nation is the valid one without any limit, the impossible situation of stable relationships is reached, of commitments, of consensus, etc., because when it is assessed in this way, the will means that any relationship, contract or consensus, etc., may be unilaterally broken. This implies encouraging the breaking-off of democratic coexistence. That is, that the law and the regulations governing coexistence at any given time need not be complied with, thus creating the type of legal insecurity typical of totalitarian regimes.
The will does not govern in many walks of life as the most effective and democratic system; thus, in order to carry out social justice, modern societies base themselves on "obligatory solidarity" (progressive taxation, redistribution policies, etc.) and not on the voluntaryism of citizens.
Nationalism expresses the ideal of the natural existence of the Basque nation, and it is the will of the Basques who are duty bound to corroborate it (national conscience). As the majority will of the Basques has thus far failed to corroborate the nationalist ideal, terrorism and its effects are resorted to in order to bankrupt, restrict and destroy the will of the Basques who do not share it.
If the nationalist ideal is not voluntarily accepted by individuals, they are said not to belong to the people, but immigrants are admitted if they show evidence of patriotism, which is nothing other than the will to accept the nationalist ideal.
It is surprising to verify that the will of the Basques is always in the future. ETA is the guardian of the future, is the guarantor of what is still to come, and kills in the present because it does not like it, so as to leave room for the future. According to nationalism, the Basques are and always will be freely deciding their future, but never the present about which they are never happy - the future which the Basques may freely decide about, certain that it will only entitle them to continue to think freely about the future and not in order for them to be able to live happily in the present.
In reality, the demagogic trick is used in order not to accept the reality of the present by invoking an uncertain, faraway and one-dimensional future which serves to conceal the present and its problems, such as the lack of freedom of political adversaries.

Majority : this means the democratic representation of the will of the people, but not necessarily its legitimisation. For instance, Hitler and his Nazi Party obtained the relative majority which became absolute with the alliance with the Conservative Party. That majority does not entail its democratic legitimisation, because it is possible to use the mechanisms of the democratic system in order to get rid of it and establish a dictatorship.
Ancient or totalitarian democracy consisted of the majority Government, without being subjected to any type of restriction. It has been considered as an undesirable political regime because it necessarily led, through demagogy, to tyranny. Conversely, the modern ideal of liberal democracy places individual freedom over and above the democratic process of decision by majority. Basic freedoms or human rights restrict that which politicians may agree upon (however democratically-elected they may be).
The majority does not guarantee democracy if it is not accompanied by compliance with and the active defence of democratic values and principles. The majority cannot decide any thing and be legitimised by it; for instance, if the majority in Parliament should decide to physically exterminate the minority, would that be a democratic decision?
Democratic policy demands respect for majorities, but also respect for what is agreed upon as a formula for coexistence. In the case of Euskadi, this means respect for the Statute of Autonomy and the Constitution which cannot be modified by a mere majority.
With regard to the shaping of the majority, the important thing lies in the procedures and means by which said majority has reached it. That is to say, whether talks and negotiations have occurred freely and rationally, or under threat or coercion.

Political integration: this is a state of coexistence which implies equality, understanding and respect among people with different ethnic backgrounds. Nobody can be compelled to assume an identity which they do not desire; we Basques can and must be and feel very different. In Euskadi, it proves necessary to set the mechanisms of political integration of citizens in motion so as to prevent social fracture such as exclusion due to ideological reasons.
However, for nationalists, integration not only means paying taxes, taking part in politics and complying with laws; it also means accepting the concept of collective identity which they themselves have defined. This is why, like other Basques, immigrants are accepted if they agree to comply with the duties demanded by the predefined Basque collective identity.

Political assimilation: political and cultural assimilation means that people from other cultures may unilaterally adapt themselves to the dominant majority culture.
The political assimilation of Basques who are not nationalists is occurring and will occur through "cut-and-thrust" means, indoctrination and other resources tried by the exercising of power.

Exclusivism : Exclusivism of approaches avoids all sensibilities and all citizens who do not follow orders or, worse still, choose to combat them. Exclusivism translates into contempt for democracy and, therefore, for citizens' will.
It is said that there only exists one project in Euskadi, that of sovereignty; this is not the case, as among many other projects are the democratic-autonomous and federalist ones, etc.
The idea that the nation may only be pro-sovereign or patriotic is too widespread; the others have another nation. Deep-down, an attempt is made with the idea to dominate the territory exclusively, without sharing it with the rest of citizens.
That is to say, nationalism says that Euskadi is only governable by nationalism itself; the rest is empty, is a risk and a threat to the survival of the country. Notwithstanding, all political options may govern and defend autonomy and progress in Euskadi, as Euskadi is not or cannot be owned by anybody.

Solidarity : this means commitment to problems in the third world, which is a curtain for concealing the most absolute lack of solidarity with those beside you, with your fellow citizens.
In a largely globalized world, local issues only have meaning if we adapt them to global ones; to this end, interrelations with others mean gaining new friendships, and there is a need for understanding to be encouraged between the parties in order to gradually overcome the divisions existing.
Notwithstanding, in Euskadi, the process of isolation is worrying when it attempts to make worlds impervious and closed on the basis of hatred of everything we do not like, instead of practising respect for others in order us to be able to be respected.
We must view Spain as the democratic country it is, and maintain solidarity in terms of close links which have historically united us, without this being detrimental to autonomy, by overcoming a socially sick relationship whereby everything that may be rejected is branded as being Spanish.
However, the idea is very widespread that the nation can only be made up of those who are pro-sovereign or patriotic, and as the others have their nation, then the latter may protect them. Deep-down, this is an attempt to dominate the territory exclusively, without sharing it with the rest of citizens.
Thus, for instance, applying the term "immigrant" to those from Andalusia and Extremadura is a way of showing a lack of solidarity, a true aggression, as it is never said that Iñaki Gabilondo or Angels Barceló are immigrants in Madrid.

Political fracture : although the conscience of a rejection of terrorism is increasingly greater, there exists greater political fracture among Basque citizens. It has been proven that there is more widespread fear and pessimism among new sectors of the population. Coexistence has seriously deteriorated and looks like it can only get worse in the short term.

Civic courage, democratic firmness, civic will: democratic will as opposed to terrorism means not leaving behind democratic principles and values, not falling in the trap of "one Hail Mary for peace."

Adding extreme tension : according to nationalism, this occurs when the mood of HB leaders is altered - in other words, when their plans are messed up. Thus, all steps taken against terrorism, such as the Law governing Political Parties, etc., only serve to add to the extreme tension.

Immobilism : this is the understanding that nationalists have of the democratic firmness and civic will in defence of individual freedoms that democrats have. Immobilism means not accepting nationalist proposals which are unacceptable from the point of view of democratic principles and values.
The victims of terrorism are branded as being immobilist because they do not wish to be ill-treated and vilified by proposals of equidistance and wish to defend their dignity.

Something is moving : there is always something moving within HB and ETA, "in that world." It serves to make accusations of immobilism at those who maintain stances which are different from those equally firm stances of nationalism. This practice has shown that the notion of "something is moving" has only served to relax the political contrast and struggle subjected to nationalism. It is never said in which direction something is moving; all of us Basque democrats hope that it be in the democratic direction, but so far this has not been the case: Rather, on the contrary, it has gone from bad to worse.

Victimization, feeling persecuted : victimization is above all a form of social and political legitimisation which attempts to win over the logical sympathies that awaken the weak and the persecuted, although the facts are distorted in order to do so and, above all, the roles are changed and all situations are always interpreted as being in terms of the victim. Examples of this may be evidenced on a daily basis in Basque politics.
Thus, victimization makes anti-nationalist campaigns seen from all sides (this document will also most likely be branded as forming part of some orchestrated, sinister campaign). In this way, the Basque language is always being threatened by somebody or other; the abertzale executioners are the victims; self-governing is threatened, etc. If the press criticizes certain pseudo-racist or non-democratic declarations, this is viewed as a campaign orchestrated by the media Brunette; if drugs are circulating, it is because the destruction of Basque youth has been programmed; if there is an economic crisis, this is viewed as a mechanism for the deliberate economic plundering of the country; if a company moves away from Euskadi due to the legal insecurity of pro-sovereign sentiment, this is viewed as a political operation from Madrid; if the people shout slogans against nationalism, this is an operation orchestrated by Cesid (the Spanish secret service); if the Academy of History draws attention to the distortion in the teaching of history, this is viewed as a campaign against nationalism, etc.
Victimization presupposes that everything revolves around oneself, that there exists nothing else apart from oneself, the feeling of being the centre of the universe. An example of this is the fact that the General Secretary of the majority nationalist trade union, José Elorrieta, even said that the murder of Fernando Buesa was carried out against Lizarra, or that the President of the PNV says that the car bombs ETA have planted on murdered people have in reality been planted on the Estella Agreement. When the whole world objectively knows that to be precise the bombs have not been planted on anyone from the Estella Agreement, but rather on those who have been expressly excluded by it.
In practice, victimization serves as an alibi for all political crimes, as murderous arguments are used to present the other as the persecutor and executioner, due to the mere fact of being the other.
Nationalism makes all the actions of its followers innocent by unconditionally granting them the status of victims. When a murder occurs, the guilty one is the State, as the true victim is the oppressed people who cannot decide. In short, the executioners have usurped the place of the victims.
Moreover, when something does not go right for nationalism or its ideas are criticized or contrasted, it believes itself to be the victim of orchestrated campaigns whereby it reflects the authoritarian willingness itself of he who does not wish to acknowledge mistakes, because he possesses the absolute truth.
The victims of terrorism cannot feel victimized, because the on feeling vicitmized is precisely the one who usurps the role of the victim. Generally-speaking, this is common among subjects with an eagerness to be the centre of attention, halfway between narcissism and paranoia, which leads them to take on the role of the dead at the burial.

Fear : according to surveys conducted by the Basque Government, 7 out of 10 Basques are afraid to express their political ideas publicly.
Nobody wants to acknowledge that they are afraid, so that they can be called a coward. Yet fear has certain symptoms that cannot be concealed; that caused by threat, coercion and intolerance tends to get disguised in silence. Even expressing sporting preferences: Real Madrid means fascist, it may give rise to rejection, to lack of social acceptance.
Those who distribute guilt as equally as the lack of dialogue, disagreement, etc., are afraid to negatively assess violence and anti-democratic ideas, etc.
Another symptom is saying that there are different sensibilities and that both must be respected. Such sensibilities are those of the murderers and of the victims. According to Basque bishops, "every distinct sensibility existing in our country must respect the identity of the others, appreciate the values that are embodied in them."
In Euskadi, there is a fear of telling the truth, of disturbing the one who may burst out into a rage, of "adding to the extreme tension," etc.- this is why it is said one should not go on about things, or criticize nationalism too much, because then there is a risk of "social fracture" or "civil confrontation," etc.
Fear makes one moderate and reduce one's political project so that the nationalist one may come to the surface, regardless of the democratic status of each of the projects being put forward.
In short, there exists a fear not only of physical death (murder) but also of civil death, which is nothing less than complete social, economic and political marginalization.

Speech about fear : this is the speech about the consistently permanent threat whereby if we do not do as nationalism wishes, things will get worse for us. Thus, during the Autonomous Elections in 2001, the PNV said that there would be a disembarkation from Madrid, but that they would not govern against the nationalist social majority, that there would be more terrorism. It also said that if the constitutionalists were to win, the Ertzantza would become militarised or that the Spanish army would intervene in the event of independence being achieved, etc. Subsequently, it has been heard to be said that by banning Batasuna, this would give rise to more violence, etc.
Basque bishops, in one of their sermons, even state that those who are themselves threatened are going to be at greater risk if Batasuna is banned.

Civil confrontation : this is part of the speech about fear. This is brought to the surface, always by nationalists, when an anti-nationalist protest is started which does not take nationalist principles into account.

Dialogue: the culture of dialogue, negotiation and consensus has been practised in Euskadi since the time of the first democratic elections in 1977 and it is since the signing of the Estella Agreement that there has been a widespread lack of communication among the political parties in Euskadi. It has been the triumph of the most anti-democratic theses at the heart of nationalism which has caused that dialogue to break down, which will only be possible with the defeat of terrorism, because an institutionalised society means that dialogue is organized, as that is what the institutions are for. Today, it is precisely terrorism which makes dialogue impossible, as it deepens the lack of communication; it must be combated and defeated so that true dialogue may take place.
Notwithstanding, nationalism refers to dialogue as nothing other than the payment of a political toll to ETA, by virtue of which the terrorist organization leaves us alone in exchange for all Basque society accepting a domineering and totalitarian project of national construction. For nationalism, dialogue means "admit that I am right once and for all, because I know it," and that is why dialogue is sold as the withdrawal and relinquishment of the opinion and freedom of those who are non-nationalist.
When nationalism speaks of dialogue, it is not thinking of a dialogue among equals, of a democratic dialogue. It is only thinking of a dialogue with ETA so as to make progress with the objectives of national construction by using the democratic parties as mere acritical appendages of its strategy.
In theory, dialogue is based on the principle that two interlocutors are considered equal, whereby they may mutually exchange stances and put themselves in the place of the other in the course of communication. If they were not considered equal, such exchange of stances would not be possible. The problem in Euskadi is that today there does not exist such equality for dialogue when one party murders the other, although at times this is presented as if it were the dialogue itself which favours the relationship of equality. To this end, good will has no use in dialogue when faced with those who lack it or, put in another way, dialogue in itself does not possess the virtue of favouring a relationship of equality needed for negotiation and therefore, under such conditions, dialogue does not constitute a guarantee of achieving a good objective agreed upon by consensus.

Dialogue without limits or without conditions: all dialogue has very clear limits; there is no place for it or it makes no sense to speak of anti-democratic or xenophobic matters, etc., which is why, without certain prior minimum and shared criteria, such dialogue is not possible, and concealing this reality means trying to deceive Basque society.

Negotiation : negotiation is not now referred to because terrorism does not seek negotiation which would entail acknowledging the other, acknowledging plurality, but rather seeks the exclusion and extermination of its enemies.

Contrast, absence of; absence of self-criticism: terrorism has made nationalism fail to contrast itself with other ideas in society; it has taken away the freedom of those who do not think like it, and that has resulted in more anti-democratic stances triumphing at the heart of nationalism.
Ideological and strategic debate is avoided, aggressions and terrorist attacks take place against freedom and human rights, against any concept or idea of our society which may be different from that of the violent groups, and the opponent is physically eliminated. Thus, all attacks or criticism of nationalist stances become an attack against Euskal Herria, and all dissenters of the official doctrine become anti-Basque.
Moreover, the political and social practice has been established in many ways of discrediting and excluding anybody who should happen to disagree with a concept of society other than that of "national construction."
Nationalism has filled the institutions and civil society (cultural and sports societies, etc.) so as to paralyse the latter, instead of trying to make it dynamic. In this paralysing work involving the normal and necessary contrast of ideas which must exist in all societies, violence in the form of threats and murder plays a very major role because it prevents non-nationalist ideas from being able to be freely expressed in either in said institutions or in those in civil society. This is why dialogue is lost, as are the mutual contribution of ideas and projects and, above all, the minimum consensus required in order for a society to be able to function with normality.
For quite some time now, Basque nationalism has not accepted any observation or suggestion, let alone criticism, and it uses many ways to reject such things. On the one hand, it asks not to be criticized, to be trusted and to be left alone. On the other hand, they say that those from elsewhere do not understand, nor can they understood them, and that they are the only ones who may judge themselves. It is taken for granted that only what is identical may judge what is identical, because what we are will determine the judgement we make; in other words, that the most important thing is not the message, but rather the messenger, whatever is said. Ye the most common situation which occurs is resorting to the fact that they are the object of an orchestrated lynching campaign, whenever any criticism is levied against them.
Like all the others, nationalism is an ideology that requires its contrast, but this self-protection and blinkered attitude practised by nationalism in recent decades has meant that it has not been renewed or adapted to new situations; in fact, quite the opposite has occurred - it has enabled more reactionary and anti-democratic stances to have triumphed at their heart.
The ideological renewal of nationalism is something all us Basques, nationalists and non-nationalists need, in order to be able to lay down the foundations of democratic and plural coexistence, as this is not possible in view of the stances being currently maintained.

Perversion and manipulation of the language: the main function of the language is instrumental, it serves for us to understand each other. However, language and thought are not the same thing, in spite of the fact that they are closely linked: at times, language conceals thought, while on other occasions language falsifies thought. The traps in which one may fall with the unconscious use of the language was already stressed by empricists in the modern age: one may end up believing that the use of a term invariably entails the existence of a reality designated by that term or expression.
Nationalists know that political battles start to be won or lost according to the use itself of words, the fact that key terms are adopted, that they are given a false or unilateral meaning which may favour the case being put forward and manage to spread their use among speakers. Some examples: the former Batasuna, so as to try to avoid its banning, became known as "Sozialista Abertzaleak"(radical left-wing nationalists), as if it were a left-wing a party when in reality they are ethnic nationalists; through the Estella Agreement (nationalists will always refer to Lizarra, although it is written or spoke in Spanish), Ibarretxe adopted the term Euskal Herria, hitherto only used by ETA and Batasuna and a non-existent legal reality, like Hispanoamérica (Spanish America), but in the fantasy world of nationalists, it constitutes the true Basque State which must be attained; the abusive use of the syntagm Spanish State in order to prevent Euskadi from being a part of Spain by avoiding this word and, consequently, its concept, etc.
In addition to being a means of communication, language is an instrument of domination, control - in other words, of power. Already in Socrates' dialogues, reference was made to the art of rhetoric, an art which knows nothing of truth or reality, but rather of seduction. Rhetoric invents the world, invents subjects who, when speaking, believe the world to be tailor- made for them. And in that world of fiction there is no place for knowledge, only for belief. Sabino Arana noted this dimension of the power of the language very early on and, his not being able to use the Basque language as a vehicle for his project, given the minority knowledge of this language among Basques - his own mother tongue was Spanish - and faced with the impossibility of following Whorf's hypothesis: the language as a basis of determinant national identity of our vision of the world, a false idea, as has been demonstrated by the psychology of the language, but very popular still among nationalists, he invented an abertzale form of Spanish, voluntarily apart from the grammatical rules of Spanish, with Basque-like words and spelling and a channel for its own hegemony and element used to define enemy circles. In recent times, such control of names has been carried out to extremes by all sectors of nationalism and has compelled others to accept them if they wish to form a part of the nationalists community.
Thus, the use of rhetoric is very frequent in the case of the Lehendakari : "How much longer are you going to fail to listen to the voice of the Basque people?" (The Basque people is identified with nationalists although the elections have repeatedly shown that at least half of the Basque population are not). Or, "What's wrong with we Basques deciding?" Or, "the Basques will always be what they want to be, irrespective of regulations and laws." (the will of principles is put before the rights of individuals). At other times, an objective is defined and HB adopts it as such. Thus, when the pacifists made peace fashionable, HB started their 1993 campaign based on peace and, in 1998, when the step was taken to ask for democracy and freedom, HB focused its debate on requesting freedom and ETA on putting forward a democratic alternative. In short, this is an attempt at borrowing the word in order to give it another meaning different from the group and for others.
In journalistic language, the use of euphemisms is too frequent which are always in favour of ETA and terrorism. Examples of these are: "armed activists," "military apparatus," "legal members," "low intensity violence" and "revolutionary tax," etc.
Nationalist politicians are also prone to using figurative language, exaggeration and allegory in order to undermine the democratic world.: "Media Brunette," "educational terrorism," (referring to the simple advertising of educational validations), "frontism," "extreme tension," (referring to the simple fact of disagreement), "social fracture," civil confrontation," etc.