Jordi Cuixart has ordered all notes that he collected in his diary for three years, eight months and seven days behind bars and has turned them into a political proposal to resume the independence pulse. A cocktail of experiences in prison, intertwined with political allegations, which converge under the title ‘Learning and a proposal’ (Ara Llibres) to inject enthusiasm and park the disorientation that reigns among sovereignty after the turbulent autumn of 2017 in order to ” empower citizens ”, training them in civil disobedience, to “Do it again and do it better”.
“Right now there is no possibility of holding an agreed referendum, a new unilateral referendum or an effective declaration of independence, regardless of the parliamentary majorities, if before we have not reached the maturity to accept that large massive acts will have to be carried out in the framework of non-violent struggle “, he slides. A bet that confesses that it starts from long conversations with the rest of the councilors and elected officials imprisoned during the preparation of the trial, in which Cuixart served as moderator, and whose notes reflect that the lowest common denominator is, precisely, a referendum without adjectives. That’s it, without ruling out one-sidedness and envisioning the possibility of a pact with the State close to the impossible.
Dialogue and confrontation
With his initiative, Cuixart aspires to overcome the clash between dialogue and confrontation. In his opinion, “the permanent defense of dialogue, of negotiation, is part of the democratic confrontation”, placing them as complementary props. Not without nuances: “Confrontation, if it is not anchored to an irrefutable coherence, is of little use in the long term “, he maintains before the most restless sectors. To the pragmatists, he warns that the dialogue table,” will be useful if it is within the framework of a shared strategy, listening to the voice of the citizenry and without being a weapon thrown between games ”.
He doubts, at this point, the will for a “real” dialogue on the part of the Government, so he asks for caution and to be “aware of how the State spends it and what its capacities are, not only in maneuvering, but also in foul play and lies”.
Criticism and self-criticism
Between the 238 pages there are confessions, criticism and self-criticism, but he tries to ensure that he “was not bluffing.” Regarding the referendum, he says that “perhaps we skipped stages and went from the explanatory and cohesive mobilization to proposing alternative institutions without having previously gone through any process of dismissal of the State” and that “the possibility of a backlash was not taken into account of the existing State. “As for the failed Unilateral Declaration of Independence (DUI):” Perhaps it lacked more determination on the part of all, “he says.
Cuixart exhibits the reasons for his change in strategy and criticizes the lack of unity between defense lawyers. “And if the State does not agree?”, “Well, there is no referendum,” he answered in his first statement before the Supreme Court. “I felt that I brought my ideals […] I don’t recognize myself in any way“, He confesses now, calling it a” serious mistake “to have said” what [jueces y fiscales] they wanted to listen so that they would release me ”. It did not work. Hence the 180-degree turn, in defense of the referendum and even the mythical ‘ho tornarem a fer’ as a synthesis of his stubbornness for not giving in.
But his conviction soon collided with the lack of institutional response to the ruling of the process, while the streets burned with long days of mobilizations and riots. There it disfigures “the formal indifference of the large unions” and “the lack of a shared strategy between parties and the constant obsession (and sterile, for country purposes) to prioritize the electoral struggle.”
However, he wants to remedy it with the conjunction of sensitivities in “a single voice”, not messianic leaders, and with “dynamics of real and concrete disconnection from the State”, strengthening civic and social structures, “and at the same time also the assumption of the consequences of this strategy of non-violent struggle and civil disobedience ”, that is,“ to act with awareness of pressure, not to stop acting because of you ”. “Neither repression nor exile can ever be a limit to the aspirations we have as a nation,” he concludes. The parties, for now, do not pick up the glove.
Eddie is an Australian news reporter with over 9 years in the industry and has published on Forbes and tech crunch.