Laïcité and Republicanism

When the French citizens created their republic their aim was to remove the roots of the Ancien Régime from its public institutions. Their method was simple: republicanism and laicity. To remove the aristocracies and autocracies and install governments created by the citizenry they replaced an absolute monarchy with a republic. Republic: the most important asset to the democratic movement in Modernity; destroying the foundations of despots and undemocratic principles, allowing democracy and rights to flourish in the power of the people. Not forgetting a protagonist in the Ancien Régime, the republican movement also aimed at removing the clergy by means of laicity: removing the power of French Clergymen from political and judiciary powers. In conclusion: radical policies to destroy an undemocratic monster. Fortunately these important ideas of the early democratic movement spread throughout Europe in aims of removing other Ancien Régime, like the memorable Revolutions of 1848.

However the 18th, 19th and even early 20th Centuries are very different from the post 1945 Europe. The democratic movement found other formulas to destroy despotism just as despotism found democracies eldest formulas to destroy democracies. We have come to understand that despotism and totalitarianisms have made good use of republicanism and laicity; while democracies have found monarchies and clergy that have fought against totalitarianisms. In other words: not all Republics are democratic and not all Monarchies are absolutist. Just as not all laicists are democratic and not all religion-based groups political.
Looking at the 1980s where there were nine totalitarian Republics and ten democratic monarchies in Europe. Even in 2009 two democratic monarchies are at the top 5 of sustainable countries while the top 5 failed countries are undemocratic republics. One would naturally assume that attempting to remove democratic monarchies on the idea that they are not republics is unnecessary, if not pathetic. Especially attempting to destroy monarchies where democracies have excelled, some to the point of becoming social democratic achievements. The same has happened with laicity and religion-based groups. Totalitarian movements brutally enforce anti-clericalism in the name if laicity; whereas members of the clergy and religion-based groups strongly fought totalitarian undemocratic movements; Including the Presidential Medal of Freedom being granted to one of the highest members of the clergy for his participation in the fight against totalitarianism.

In conclusion: there was a time where Republicanism and Laicity were indispensable tools for democracy. That time has expired, especially in Europe.

The Swiss Warning

It has been said that it is a proof of extremist parties on the rise. That it is a dent on the libertarian ideals of Switzerland and the liberal foundations of Europe. The matter of fact is that the Swiss Minaret Ban is closer to a warning than anything else.

When looking at history and past events and actions, people are not moved for what is good or bad but what they think is good or bad. People react to what they believe. When the Swiss voted on their referendum, product of their unique direct democracy, they were considering if an architectural structure should be banned from being built along with a place of worship of a non-native religion. That is the idealistic question, but the practical question is: should we give a protest vote to what many believe as a threat to Swiss/European identity. The fact is, even if the ban had the contrary results and only 42.5 had voted in favour of the ban, that number is still high. The Swiss vote is the spectre of an idea that has spread throughout Europe: Moslems are a threat to Liberal Democracy and European identity, both in Europe and out of it. Is it true, is it correct, well it does not matter because many Europeans have come across that idea and believe it as a fact.

What are the reasons: In many of the countries where people who immigrate to Europe come from filled with intolerance and lack of rights and have more rights in Europe than they would ever have in their original countries. The most persecuted religion in the world is Christianity, a religion to which many Europeans identify. Many Moslem countries were critical of Europe over the Danish Cartoons, but not over anti-Christian activities in their countries, and some with murderous results. Turkey, although Laic but now heavily Islamic oriented because of the AK Party, has instigated Moslems to remove their accounts from Swiss banks or told Rasmussen to apologise if he wanted Turkey’s support to vote him for NATO’s Secretary General. The number of Moslem migrants is increasing quickly into the millions. More Halal -products are being offered over non- Halal ones, like Domino’s Pizza in the UK. Mosques are moving into empty churches in France. Not to mention the rise of terrorist attacks by terrorists of the Moslem faith for an Islamic political ideology.

What is the warning: many Europeans have begun to support extremist measures. It is not a question of a rise of intolerance in Europe; it is a similar question that has happened in Europe a long time ago. Many have begun to believe that major political parties (Left, Right and Centre) are not answering or commenting on their view of a subject that many are questioning more and more. If politicians of the major parties appear [because it is all a question of popular appearance not expert analysis] to be ignoring their concern, then people may turn to those who are discussing it. It happened in the 1920s and 1930s and it can happen again has it did in Venezuela, when people became discontent with their politicians they supported a Populist [and skilled] leader.

So far that Swiss Ban has been a warning, most likely the Ban will be over ruled by the Swiss Courts, and European politicians have to think this heavily. Although some Europeans have begun questioning how successful is integration, they have not become extremists. Despite many radical parties focus on anti-immigration policies, most Europeans will not agree with their undemocratic, racist and xenophobic principles; all is not lost for tolerance and freedoms in Europe. European leaders need to come together and discuss this issue with a successful result for the Liberal Principles and Democratic Values.

Alliance of Needs-Improvement

Shortly after the Spanish President, Zapatero, called for an Alliance of Civilizations, which is an idea that different communities can contribute to coexist beyond the barriers of cultures, religions and languages. Mr. Erdogan, the Turkish Prime Minister, jumped to the opportunity of cosponsoring that programme. However it seems the people who want that project to succeed forgot an important issue that Turkey needs to resolve, an issue that Turkey needs to understand due to its importance: improving minority rights. So far the Turkish government claims there are only three minorities those stated in the Lausanne Treaty, despite the treaty only describing them as non-Moslems rather than narrowing down to individual nationalities: Armenians, Greeks and Jews. Yet Turkey is a land full of ethnicities and cultures: Kurds, Alevis, Zaza, Laz, Assyrians, Balkans, Romani, Circassians, Arabs, etc.etc.

The two main problems are that there is no recognition or protection. Although ethnic Armenians may set up schools, they have numerous restrictions. At schools, Armenians are described as murderers and traitors during World War I and not allow the right to recognize the Turkish brutality on Armenians during that period. As with ethnic Armenians, ethnic Greeks may also set up schools but also with restrictions, and the Greek language is mocked in text books. The Assyrian community has no recognition of their language or culture which hinders their further education since the Turkish Ministry of Education not recognizing Syriac schools, a similar situation with the Laz community. Alevis pay the religious taxes that go to build Sunni mosques and pay for Sunni imams but have no public funds to build their cemevis. Although non-Moslems are not required to take Islam as their religion class, the only Moslem religion taught in public schools is Sunni Islam. The government has still not considered the Alevi Community’s request to turn the Madimak Hotel in Sivas as a Remembrance Museum. The Jewish community has been offended when government authorises demonstrations against Israel that demonise Jews or a demonstration of school teachers admiring Adolf Hitler. Text books, generalizations have been made to ridicule Romani, Armenians and Greeks, as well as highlighting that the Turkish nationality and Islam are better than any other nationality or religion. The Kurdish community still sees rights as a priority. According to Hurriyet Newspaper, ethnic Kurds want more rights rather than more money. Intimidation from Turkification policies and social discrimination affect all minorities in Turkey. Despite that Turkish laws guarantee that all citizens will be treated equally, there are no laws protecting minorities. These examples are just a small fraction of the situation today.

Only now has the current government been bringing this issue to light, for example the support of the Kurdish Initiative or the recognition of the Istanbul Pogrom against ethnic Armenians and Greeks as a fascist act, opening a Kurdish TV channel and Kurdish language being taught in schools in some provinces. However these improvements do not reach the obligations of what the cosponsor of the Alliance of Civilizations must address to other nations. How can the Cosponsor of the Alliance of Civilizations set an example to other nations of how different cultures may coexist when it is carrying out policies that only give guarantees to one ethnicity and one religion? What Turkey must do is provide safety to its minorities and guarantee that they may also take part in society, politics, education and any other part of the state. By carrying out such programme would prove that a peaceful coexistence is possible.

Zp 1, Spain 0

Lately in the Spanish media one would see the Spanish President, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, shaking hands with the new hope, President Barack Obama. For many this is great for Spain, a sign of great strength between two sovereign democracies, a bright new future between Spain and the United States, after all this is the first time Zapatero goes to Washington. Yet I wonder if this was a success. If after five years Zapatero finally meets the US president at the White House is called a success, his predecessors must have performed miracles. In eight years the former President, Mr. Aznar, visited the White House nine times. To be realistic, this event is a success for Zapatero’s image but not for Spain’s.

Former President Bush was no popular figure, adding that he made mistakes that affected the US negatively. However, blaming Mr. Bush for mistakes other countries commit is pathetic. Mr. Zapatero not only crippled Spain domestically, he especially destroyed Spain’s international image. We shall never understand Mr. Zapatero’s foreign policies, if he has any, for they have all been tragedies. Not only have they been catastrophes but the PSOE have the shamelessness of stating that Spain is a more important country than five, six or seven years ago, of course they would prefer to say before March 14, 2004.

What importance does it have now? Five misspent years without strong ties with the US, a change in European policies that destroyed Spain’s subsidies, becoming close to Chavez and Morales only to have a damaging effect on Spanish business in Latin America, sponsoring an international programme that has, so far, been useless and fruitless, allowing Gibraltar to interfere in Anglo-Spanish ties. If there has been a successful foreign policy that was convincing European countries to soften its demands on Cuba and ignore its pro-democratic dissidents.

In conclusion, if Mr. Zapatero has only created chaos for Spain's foreign policy, the only reason why he managed to meet Obama at the White House its simply: Obama allowed it. It was not Zapatero's hard work, it was not Zapatero's charm, it was Obama's will.

What is Left in Spain?

Numerous times we have been told that Social Democrats stand for social policies, defending the poor from the rich, improving healthcare and housing, integration, solidarity, dialogue and understanding. This as been repeated as if to point out that anything that is not Leftist would be the opposite: laissez-faire policies, defending the wealthy at the expense of the disadvantaged, destroying public services, exclusionary, discriminatory, ignorance and despotic. However when one looks at the PSOE, the Spanish Socialist Worker’s Party, member of the Socialist International and supposed advocate of social democracy, we see that this party is far from achieving Social Democratic goals.

We have seen that the PSOE has followed an anti-social democratic regime. Firstly it has weakened the state by removing its authority and giving it to regional governments. Secondly, it has weakened the nation by joining with separatist nationalists [such as BNG and ERC] in order to obtain power, endangering the common language and discriminating citizens from other states. Thirdly it has neglected the citizens in this recession, creating unemployment and increasing taxes, providing no aid, not presenting solutions to the crisis and eliminating promised assistance.

From these examples, there being many, one cannot comprehend why does the PSOE brag about Social Democracy and Leftist goals when this party carries out practices despised by Social Democrats. Could it be that Social Democracy in Spain has been neglected by its guardians or is it that those policies of social policies, defending the poor from the rich, improving healthcare and housing, integration, solidarity, dialogue and understanding are currently defended by splinter parties or even more astonishing, the People’s Party.