Aznar, investigation commissions and democracy
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err" (Mahatma Gandhi)
Spain's ex-president managed to turn yesterday's 11-hour long testimony before the parliamentary commission investigating 11-March bombings into a personal victory as he brushed off all criticism, denied that he had ever tried to mislead public opinion into believing that the terrorist group ETA was behind the Madrid bombing for electoral reasons, and accused the opposition and a "sector" of the Spanish media of having used the terrorist attacks to gain an electoral advantage themselves and to "intoxicate" public opinion against him. He even insinuated that he still did not believe that the intellectual leaders behind the attacks to be Islamic terrorists and he said that the bombing was intended to affect the outcome of the elections. In particular he made direct references to the Cadena Ser - the first radio channel to question the government's insistence that ETA had planted the bombs - accusing its reporters of lying to the Spanish public in an attempt to discredit the Popular Party (today the Cadena Ser publishes a detailed answer to Aznar's accusations here (in Spanish).
It was always doubtful that Aznar's appearance before the parliamentary commission would throw any new light onto the lead-up to or aftermath of the terrorist attacks. And it was always likely that Aznar would be totally unrepentant of any decisions he made while in office. The former Spanish president has never been known for his ability to admit mistakes or to give any credit at all to arguments which disagree with his ideology and his theories of power and government.
It was precisely this attitude of superiority, dogmatism and arrogance which isolated such a large percentage of Spanish public opinion during the Prestige crisis, the Yak plane crash and the participation of Spanish troops in the invasion of Iraq. All three major events were handled badly by the PP government, but neither president nor ministers ever accepted any criticism. Nor did they explain, and much less apologise for, serious mistakes made during their management of all three crises. Their complete disregard for opinions which challenged their policies, and their failure to acknowledge difficulties and try to reconcile their decisions with the opposition through parliamentary debates was bound to make them vulnerable sooner or later to the wave of mistrust which swept across Spain after the March terrorist attacks. In the same way as their contempt for the demands of regional parties for greater autonomy powers ultimately strengthened the position and the electoral performance of the main Basque and Catalan separatist parties in both regional and national elections.
A democratic state is not designed in the long term for leaders whose loss of respect for the people they serve drives them to dictate policies under the complete conviction that they are totally right and that all who disagree are completely wrong, either to the point of being ridiculous (and unfit to govern) or a traitor to their country. Leaders of established democracies like the US and the UK understand this, as the appearances of Bush and Blair before their respective parliaments illustrated. However unpopular the invasion of Iraq was with some sections of public opinion (and his own party in the case of Blair), nobody could accuse them of not listening to their critics, taking them seriously enough to argue their case, explain their reasons and put their decision to go to war to long parliamentary debates and parliamentary approval.
Leaders of new democracies tend not to grasp the importance of debate and reason. Felipe Gonzalez didn't understand it when the GAL and corruption within his government was uncovered. Aznar has never understood it either. When Rodriguez Zapatero became president it looked like at last Spain had a leader who understood the need to dialogue and to seek consensus before pushing through policies. Unfortunately his government has made so many blunders lately at home and abroad that he is rapidly losing the credibility required to lead meaningful debates on important issues. If his government does manage to find its feet at all, a new style of presidency would certainly be welcomed by many Spaniards.
No country can be completely protected against the evil of modern terrorism, but in the event of a strike such as the one which hit Madrid last March, government, security forces and society are obliged to launch a thorough investigation afterwards, if only to find out what - if anything - went wrong and what measures should be taken to prevent a similar tragedy from ever happening again. For an investigation to draw useful conclusions, members who participate must tell the truth and yes, even question their own actions. Humility is not a sign of weakness. Just as arrogance is not a sign of strength or wisdom. If witnesses called before the commission see their testimony as a chance to justify their actions, or use their appearance as a platform from which to attack their political opponents, then the investigation loses all sense of being. This commission has been used as a political football by Spain's main political parties ever since it was created.
After Aznar's extraordinary performance yesterday, and with José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero scheduled to declare later this month, one wonders if the final conclusions reached by this investigation commission will have any credibility at all.
Spain's ex-president managed to turn yesterday's 11-hour long testimony before the parliamentary commission investigating 11-March bombings into a personal victory as he brushed off all criticism, denied that he had ever tried to mislead public opinion into believing that the terrorist group ETA was behind the Madrid bombing for electoral reasons, and accused the opposition and a "sector" of the Spanish media of having used the terrorist attacks to gain an electoral advantage themselves and to "intoxicate" public opinion against him. He even insinuated that he still did not believe that the intellectual leaders behind the attacks to be Islamic terrorists and he said that the bombing was intended to affect the outcome of the elections. In particular he made direct references to the Cadena Ser - the first radio channel to question the government's insistence that ETA had planted the bombs - accusing its reporters of lying to the Spanish public in an attempt to discredit the Popular Party (today the Cadena Ser publishes a detailed answer to Aznar's accusations here (in Spanish).
It was always doubtful that Aznar's appearance before the parliamentary commission would throw any new light onto the lead-up to or aftermath of the terrorist attacks. And it was always likely that Aznar would be totally unrepentant of any decisions he made while in office. The former Spanish president has never been known for his ability to admit mistakes or to give any credit at all to arguments which disagree with his ideology and his theories of power and government.
It was precisely this attitude of superiority, dogmatism and arrogance which isolated such a large percentage of Spanish public opinion during the Prestige crisis, the Yak plane crash and the participation of Spanish troops in the invasion of Iraq. All three major events were handled badly by the PP government, but neither president nor ministers ever accepted any criticism. Nor did they explain, and much less apologise for, serious mistakes made during their management of all three crises. Their complete disregard for opinions which challenged their policies, and their failure to acknowledge difficulties and try to reconcile their decisions with the opposition through parliamentary debates was bound to make them vulnerable sooner or later to the wave of mistrust which swept across Spain after the March terrorist attacks. In the same way as their contempt for the demands of regional parties for greater autonomy powers ultimately strengthened the position and the electoral performance of the main Basque and Catalan separatist parties in both regional and national elections.
A democratic state is not designed in the long term for leaders whose loss of respect for the people they serve drives them to dictate policies under the complete conviction that they are totally right and that all who disagree are completely wrong, either to the point of being ridiculous (and unfit to govern) or a traitor to their country. Leaders of established democracies like the US and the UK understand this, as the appearances of Bush and Blair before their respective parliaments illustrated. However unpopular the invasion of Iraq was with some sections of public opinion (and his own party in the case of Blair), nobody could accuse them of not listening to their critics, taking them seriously enough to argue their case, explain their reasons and put their decision to go to war to long parliamentary debates and parliamentary approval.
Leaders of new democracies tend not to grasp the importance of debate and reason. Felipe Gonzalez didn't understand it when the GAL and corruption within his government was uncovered. Aznar has never understood it either. When Rodriguez Zapatero became president it looked like at last Spain had a leader who understood the need to dialogue and to seek consensus before pushing through policies. Unfortunately his government has made so many blunders lately at home and abroad that he is rapidly losing the credibility required to lead meaningful debates on important issues. If his government does manage to find its feet at all, a new style of presidency would certainly be welcomed by many Spaniards.
No country can be completely protected against the evil of modern terrorism, but in the event of a strike such as the one which hit Madrid last March, government, security forces and society are obliged to launch a thorough investigation afterwards, if only to find out what - if anything - went wrong and what measures should be taken to prevent a similar tragedy from ever happening again. For an investigation to draw useful conclusions, members who participate must tell the truth and yes, even question their own actions. Humility is not a sign of weakness. Just as arrogance is not a sign of strength or wisdom. If witnesses called before the commission see their testimony as a chance to justify their actions, or use their appearance as a platform from which to attack their political opponents, then the investigation loses all sense of being. This commission has been used as a political football by Spain's main political parties ever since it was created.
After Aznar's extraordinary performance yesterday, and with José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero scheduled to declare later this month, one wonders if the final conclusions reached by this investigation commission will have any credibility at all.
6 Comments:
Surely the families of the victims of the Madrid bombing must be furious at the arrogance of Aznar. How can he avoid the issue and turn it into his favour? He wasn't only criticised by Spanish opposition and media for the way his government handled the investigation and information after the attack. He was criticised by a large share of the international community, EU governments and international media.
The extraordinary part of his submission as reported here in the UK was his new theory that all terrorists are in some way related - as a matter of indisputable fact! Surely most terroirsts owe alegiance to a particular cause not a general cause!!
All terrorists are indeed the same. I can say this with some insight and experience, and all acts of terrorism are to be attributed ONLY to the terrorists involved.
Those who blame political leaders for such acts are mentally deficient. We know for certain that it was Spaniards from the North of Spain who discussed how to make cell phones and explosives the success it became on March 11. They originally discussed this prospect back in 2001.. LONG BEFORE the Action against Sadam Hussein. Therefore, we can prove that the March 11 bombing was not due to Spain's HUMANITARIAN involvement in Iraq! Furthermore, the "death caravans" jointly transported by both ETA and Islamic terrorists proves the link also. The failed attempt by Islamic terrorists to blow up the Audencia Nacional AFTER Zappo, the presidential puppet, pulled out the troops from Iraq, proves also that Aznar's testimony before the moronically corrupt March 11 Committee was SOUND and TRUE.
Two days after his appearance before the Committed (or should be!), the PSOE joke government, who were voted in by terrorists, declared their desire to close the investigation by Christmas... Small wonder our Great President G W Bush has still not invited Zappo, the moron, to the White House.. I wonder if he ever will.
God Bless America, Johnny D Symon at www.amsiriano.com
Yes indeed, God Bless America. God bless Spain too. God bless peace. And God bless the World, the weak and the good. No evidence has ever been produced to prove that Spaniards from the north of Spain first had the idea to use cell phones as bombs. If anyone has any evidence, they should put it to the Spanish authorities. Zapatero is not a joke president. He was elected democratically in the aftermath of a disaster which should not be belittled. Spain has been attacked by terrorism for decades and Spaniards have been murdered by terrorists for just as long. People should not question the result of a democratic vote, just as we should not question the result obtained by Bush 4 years ago. An election, if fought democratically, belongs to its people. Aznar's government failed on many issues, not just the Irak war. If his government hadn't lost so much credibility, because of other domestic issues, the Spanish people would not have disbelieved him to the extent which we did when we voted for an alternative government. We would like to be friends with the US. Respect our government please, and our democratic decisions, just as we respect yours.
Juan
Tsk, tsk..Juan. Now who's stretching the bounds of sanity and good sense?
The PP were set to win the election according to ALL opinion polls. The Aznar government produced sound, solid and honest governance.
The phone conversation involving Trashoras, back in 2001, proved Spaniards to be the instigators of March 11. The tragic events of March 11 cancelled out the electoral "victory" of Zappo, and the PSOE... they will never be regarded as anything more than a poor default substitute government, in place of the real thing.. to the majority of American voters!
By the majority I mean the RECORD number of voters who supported G W Bush... the minority, of course, are the idiots who lost the election and believe Zapatero to be a rational, thinking human being. Even ex-President, Felipe Gonzalez, recently declared the PSOE were unprepared for government, and the PP were unprepared to leave government! I take this man for what he is.. a man of sense and courage. The good sense to send Spanish troops on a war footing to Iraq, first time round.. and the courage to see the thing through to the end! Zappo, the yellow-backed coward, is something else!!
Face up to facts Juan, Zappo was voted in by Osama bin Laden. Osama tried the same trick 4 days before the US election, by appearing on TV... and it back-fired. What you have now, in Spain, is more terrorist attacks, and a feeble-minded president, without the guts to deal with it... Unlike our President, G W Bush.
But it's a funny old thing to note that although Spain still has terrorist's bombs going off, despite Zappo's kind support for them, America looks back all the way to 9/11. That proves we're doing something right, and you're doing it all wrong.
Johnny D Symon
ZP Zapetero is like a prehistoric monster, salivating, full of arrogance amd spitting fire out of his stinking mouth full of hatred to the free people of Spain.
Post a Comment
<< Home