from El Presidente to Franco,

[The Hitch]

That is a very thin rope you are walking. Mainly because everything you know about political structure and certain events in some foreign country is presented to you by your country's media. And that is usually with an agenda.

Excuse me I can decide for myself what media I decide to watch and read.

Maybe you dont look past your local media for your information.

I personally very rarely even watch the evening news, so would rather you did not tell me where I get my information from.

As the inspiration behind my username once quipped - I only read the newspaper to see what other people think the story is.

 

[icefire]

My, the fascist apologists are out in force today. It's almost a phalanx.

I think you are oversimplifying your arguments seeing things in either black or white. Check yourself how fragmented was politics in Spain in the 30's. Then you may try to understand how after the political confrontation exploded into the war not everyone in the Nationalist side was a fascist, and not everyone in the Republican side was a democrat.

Samaranch was first and foremost an astute businessman who tried to secure his family business. As an official he held positions as sports administrator at local and national level, promoting a sport for the elites such as sailing instead of promoting sports for the common people. As a President of the Diputación de Barcelona his duties were coordinating civil works among the municipalities. There is very little if anything to praise in his deeds from that era, but claiming he had the blood of many people in his hands is an excessive metaphor.

To get back to the issue - there should have been lustration in Spain and a purging of officials. If say the Czech Lustration law had been applied in Spain he would have been out of a job. As it was Samaranch was protected and promoted, which was wrong imo. Now, I do think (as do others) that the culture of amnesty and amnesia that permeates Spanish political and institutional culture that stems from the transition and in particular the amnesty law. Aguilar-Fernandez points out that no one at the time noticed the two offending paragraphs in the Amnesty Law referring to Franco era officials. She also has an excellent analysis of the consequences:

Aguilar-Fernández does not equate amnesty to amnesia. She does rather the opposite and explains amnesty because people had memory and rated peace and order over anything else. That's why they trusted the process of transition to democracy led by the goverment officials of the Franco era.

What's the link between this and present day institutional culture with regards to corruption? IMHO corruption and the way Spaniards deal with it have not changed much in the last 500 years if we trust historical and literary sources from that epoch. That's long before the 20th century and has nothing to do with fear of consequences. It's rather what the President of Uruguay once said about the politicians of Argentina: they're all a bunch of thieves. And their jealousy leads them to try further, longer and higher than their opponents instead of stopping the game.

 

[zastomito]

Please don't get agitated. I meant no offense.
One in a thousand people who doesn't follow mainstream media doesn't make any difference. For example just look at the LA story. People involved in cycling knew all along but it took federal investigation for majority to take notice.
My point is that singling out Franco's regime without seriously studding circumstances which led to his rise is very superficial. There were monstrous regimes which went on largely unnoticed just because they served interests of some of western countries.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Icefire - I think you are misreading me, or I may not have explained it clearly. I know that Aguilar-Fernandez emphasises the role of memory in the transition process and the dominance of 'never again' as a reference point to the civil war. But she also emphasises the failures of the transition to come to grips with the past at the time, and leaving much of the authoritarian past untouched. Those are the negative consequences for post-Franco Spain.

For example Aguilar-Fernandez argues that the reason why less than 50% of Basques (compared to 80% for the rest of the country) are proud of the transition can be attributed to the continuity of Franco era personnel in the repressive institutions. Rodriquez Ibanez and Torcal, also highlight the negative institutional and cultural legacies of the authoritarian past of the transition. This continuity was only possible because of the absence of lustration.

Aguilar-Fernandez's says:

One of the unwanted consequences of the negotiated transition in Spain is that the institutional frameworks designed for periods of change consolidate a way of engaging in politics and avoid discussion of the most delicate matters that can cause profound cleavages within society. An excessive risk aversion, like that witnessed during the transition can impose serious limits on accountability. [Aguilar 2001]

IMO that lack of accountability and unwillingness to confront problems extends to the doping problem and corruption.

I certainly don't see the situation as black and white, I am well aware of the everyday choices people have to make living under an authoritarian or totalitarian regime. But none the less, Samaranch was an active member of the regime and should not have been allowed to be involved in post-Franco public life.

Regarding longer term explanations - that to me is a bit of a cop out. I heard Iliescu give exactly the same explanation when challenged about corruption in Romania and in his party. He blamed the Ottomans. Blaming longer term factors, legacies is too teleological and locks a state or society into a pattern. It seems to me to be a way for corrupt politicians to abrogate any responsibility for corruption. 'It's not my fault, it is just the way X society is.'

 

[Martin318is]

Lets keep the conversation friendly shall we? Please discuss the topic without labelling each other or directly insulting other posters.