Where next for the #spanishrevolution?

(I am taking the liberty of using this space to publish a follow-up on my previous post, this time not talking specifically about the issues I usually deal with in this column. I hope readers will understand, forgive, and come back for more on security, trust, CCTV, etc. I am tagging this as off-topic)

 

On May 22nd, a week after thousands of people across Spain turned a series of demonstrations into massive sleep-ins that are still holding strong, the conservative PP won a historical victory in the municipal and regional elections. During the ensuing celebration of the results, the PP supporters shouted ‘This is democracy, and not what is happening in Sol’ [Sol is the name of the square where protesters have set camp in Madrid] and ‘Sol, dissolution’. The conservatives, therefore, see the #15m movement as an act of a defeated Left that is no longer relevant, now that Spain is openly right-wing.

 

The Socialists, in their turn, are in disarray. Zapatero has led the biggest, harshest attack on welfare and wages since the end of the Civil War in 1939. Appealing to the need to please ‘the markets’ and implement ‘responsible’ policies, the Socialists have seen their voters abandon them en masse, notwithstanding the continued use of the fear card by Zapatero: ‘the situation would be worse were the PP in government’.

 

Probably so (we’ll find out soon). But it is difficult to understand how the Socialists have come to forget that the combination of tax breaks for some and cuts for many is unlikely to go down well in their constituencies. Or how in desperate situations such as those faced by hundreds of thousands of families who currently have no kind of income, any political alternative is better than to keep on waiting for a promised recovery that feels like a collective suicide.

 

 

So the polls show a massive loss of support for the Socialists, and all-knowing political analysts frown upon a country that is not ‘centre-left’ anymore. The #15m movement is thus irrelevant, some say, having been unable to affect politics the proper way –their way, the vote way.

 

The calls for a ‘minority vote’ (#nolesvotes), however, seem to have had a bit of an impact at the polls, and there are now 39 political parties with some sort of representation in local councils, compared to 19 in 2007. United Left has increased their support in over 200,000 votes, for instance. But dismissing the #spanishrevolution because it did not manage to turn the tide against the conservative right misses the point: the sleep-ins did not change the outcome of the elections because if those who are sleeping in the squares and joining the mass assemblies thought there was a party that could represent them or channel their anger THEY WOULD HAVE VOTED INSTEAD OF CAMPING. The spontaneity of the #15m events show that the #spanishrevolution is an act of desperation and hopeful hopelessness. An instinctive ‘enough is enough’ that may or may not turn into an organized resistance or a political ‘thing’, that may or may not shake into relevance an institutional ‘left-wing left’ that was unable to predict or join the #15m in its early stages, or to recognize its voters in the faces of the ‘indignant’.

 

So far, the square occupations are, above all, a space to debate, learn and discuss. Universities of critical thinking, collaboration, solidarity and togetherness. A place where many people hear ideas and experience ways of organizing they had never seen before. The squares are transforming a whole generation, and this is relevant in itself. But the future is unclear -the sleep-ins will continue until next weekend, when the assemblies will decide on the next steps. A national day of action has been called on June 19th, but the newly elected local governments are already making it clear they will not let the occupations continue much longer. Moreover, time is taking its toll: people are getting tired, and factions are getting organized. This is not to say that the movement is deteriorating -the energy is still amazing. While the camps resemble a lively youth camp in a World Social Forum, with their thousand meetings happening at the same time, the assemblies are like nothing I’ve ever seen before: the patience, the commitment, the maturity is just indescribable. The plans to extend the sleep-ins to more places and, in major cities, to decentralize them, are managing to get hundreds of people in new campsites, assemblies and ‘cacerolazos’ (pot-banging) at the local and neighbourhood level. Moreover, the movement seems to have a life of its own, with individuals taking it with them wherever they go: in one day alone (24rd), protesters sneaked in the local television network in Murcia to read their manifesto, an individual demanded ‘real democracy now’ at a EU debate on the Spanish Coastal Law and it was made public that a person was arrested on the election day for wearing a t-shirt saying ‘I pay for my own suits’ (in relation to a corruption scandal in Valencia). The level of uncoordinated coordination, where people contribute to the movement wherever they are and however they can, making it theirs and feeding into a wider collective idea is something I have only seen rarely and for short periods of time.

 

 

However, on its own the #15m movement will probably stick to one of its slogans: ‘we’re going slow because we’re going far’. There is no blueprint, which makes it harder to predict the process, the goal or the outcome: how does one get ‘real democracy’? What would the goals of a constituent process be? Are the proposals to be directed at the ‘software’ or the ‘hardware’ of the system? Is it about different policies or different politics? In this sense, the #spanishrevolution is less like Tahrir and more of an exciting mix between 1968 and 1789.

 

In the immediate future, I feel that the sleep-ins are not sustainable unless the movement finds ways of gaining momentum. Militancy has its limits, and the right wing thrives on decaying almost-revolutions. There are, however, a couple of factors that could provide the momentum -a connection with workplace struggles (especially in Catalunya, where the public sector workers have shown amazing militancy in the last few weeks and the universities are beginning to move) and the spread of the Tahrir spirit to other countries in Europe (going beyond the expat-led support initiatives so far). The call for a day of action on June 19th could prove key in working with these two possibilities.

 

Whatever the process, and whatever the outcome, History is proving to be in its best shape.

22 Comments

Insecurity and the #spanishrevolution

First of all, apologies for neglecting this space for so long. I do my best to update it regularly, but life has a way of making time fly (if the wait becomes unbearable -haha- you can always follow me on the Spanish daily Público).

As some of you might know, thousands of people are today filling up squares throughout Spain. If you do a search for the hashtags #yeswecamp, #spanishrevolution, #acampadasol, #acampadabcn, etc. you’ll get a feel of what is happening.

With a movement like this unfolding, one would think politicians would for once stop talking to themselves to relate to what the streets are saying… well, think again.

The #15m movement, which took to the streets last Sunday in almost 60 cities in demonstrations that became spontaneous sleep-ins (yes, twitter helped) and are now permanent meeting points for citizens who demand to “stop being commodities at the hands of politicians and bankers”, is the immediate continuation of the May Day demonstrations that were organized independently of mainstream tradeunions and parties and largely ignored by the media just a few days ago. In a broader time span, the #15m movement comes from the campaign against the so-called ‘Sinde-law’, the anti-P2P bill that was passed after months of deliberation and protest, and the related #nolesvotes (‘don’t vote for them’) initiative, which started by asking voters not to vote for those who supported the bill and later became a broader campaign against mainstream parties (PP, PSOE, CiU). The call for the March 15 actions, however, came from the more recent, Facebook-based ‘Democracia Real Ya’ (real Democracy Now) initiative. With local elections coming up in a few days (March 22nd), the link between #nolesvotes and Democracia Real Ya became self-evident.

However, while this movement was gaining momentum, in a context of skyrocketing unemployment rates (45% registered youth unemployment), generalized cuts in health, education and wages, tax cuts for the rich and widespread political corruption, the political debate at the local level continued to revolve around crime, insecurity and migration, with some local candidates for the conservative PP throwing gems like blaming migrants for “reintroducing illnesses that had been eradicated” on the political debate and asking for the re-introduction of the long-forgotten ‘certificates of good behavior’ for uncivil migrants (as you might have guessed, crime and migration go hand in hand in the Spanish political debate on insecurity).

Contrary to what is happening in the US and the UK, where the crisis is forcing officials to re-think expensive and ineffective policies such as long prison sentences, surveillance, biometrics, etc., Zero Tolerance continues to thrive in Spain, and while there’s no money for doctors and teachers, politicians promise more police officers and private security, more publicly-funded CCTV cameras and less civil rights for ‘troublemakers’ (read demonstrators here).

As if anyone cared.

In 2006, migration and insecurity were the first and second worries of the population. Today, they are the last ones, and the levels of insecurity about the job situation and the crisis have gone up the roof.

Again, as if anyone cared.

Trapped in the tougher-than-you-on-crime race to the bottom, the gap between a population that hardly makes ends meet and sees banks and corporations get away with murder, and a political class that has built a wall of arrogance, incompetence, impunity and empty promises to keep the young, the unemployed and the evicted out has grown to reach seemingly unbridgeable proportions. This is what the Tahrir-like movement that is today spreading brings to the fore. The disillusion, the disconnect, the deep sense of betrayal (after winning the 2004 elections, Zapatero said ‘I won’t let you down’. ouch).

But, as the #nolesvotes initiative shows, demonstrators have not given up on institutional politics -while the slogan in 2001 in Argentina was ‘que se vayan todos’ (get rid of them all), the #15m movement is giving non-mainstream parties a chance, and while claiming independence and autonomy, seems to be interested in building bridges with some parties.

But is anyone listening?

 

11 Comments

You think you’re not a terrorist? Think again

I have written extensively about the growing confusion between Homeland Security and community safety, and outside and inside enemies, both in Englishand in Spanish. I feel that the current lack of interest in defining where the limits of government action are is dangerous and undermines some of the basic principles we say to be defending against outside threats.

‘Terrorism’ is becoming a token word used increasingly to deny fundamental rights and justify grey areas in our legal systems. But if the use of counter terrorism money to fund an extensive CCTV system in a Muslim neighborhood in Birmingham (UK) a few months ago left me speechless, confirming how treating innocent citizens as suspects is a spreading reality, the letter sent by the Counter Terrorism Command of New Scotland Yard to most universities in London confirms that lawful, peaceful protest is now seen as a threat to national security.

This was covered by The Guardian a couple of weeks ago, but here is the e-mail:

Hi all,

Happy New Year to you all.

As the student population is returning to “work”, we anticipate a renewed vigour in protests and demonstrations. The picture is currently building and we are monitoring the situation.

I know it’s early days and we are awaiting more information, but it may be worth considering contingency plans for possible occupation attempts on the 18th/19th January by the staff / student bodies at the University colleges across London.

It appears that the finance departments may be targeted in protests to the cuts in funding & closure of some University departments as well as the Student tuition fees.

There are further possible dates of protests planned for the 22nd , 26th, 29th January and of course this is a developing picture and we will advise you as and when we get more information.

I would be grateful if in your capacity at your various colleges that should you pick up any relevant information that would be helpful to all of us to anticipate possible demonstrations or occupations, please forward it onto me so that I can update everyone and equally feed this to our Public Order Branch should a policing requirement emerge.

Cheers
xxxxx

xxxx xxxxxxxx – Police Constable

SO15 – Counter Terrorism Command – Prevent

Now, if the CTC’s ‘overriding priority’ is ‘to keep the public safe and do all it can to ensure that London remains a hostile environment for terrorists‘, why are its members monitoring student protests against tuition fees? Who is *not* a terrorist these days? Does this expanding  ‘state of exception’ ever end?

17 Comments

The Nonsense Game (not funny)

When I was little, there was a game we would play quite often, called The Nonsense Game. We would sit in a small circle and the person to my left would whisper a simple question to my ear, and I would reply. I would then ask something else to the person on my right, and put together the answer I got from my right and the question on my left, coming up with… well, nonsense. Hence the name. The result would be things like: On my left I was asked ‘What is your favorite color?’ And my right replied ‘Fly’, or ‘What do you dream of doing? Yellow’. Hope you get the idea.

Lately, an increasing amount of news on issues related to security bring that game to mind. Here’s a few examples:

1)      In the summer of 2009, a major Spanish newspaper published pictures of tourists and sex workers having sex in the area around a central market in Barcelona, La Boqueria. Just a few days ago, the Town Hall implemented its solution to that problem: putting up a fence around the area, so that only neighbors can access it during the night.

On my left I was asked ‘What to do with prostitution in public places?’, and my right replied ‘fence-in a whole area of the city’.

2)      In recent years, many cities have installed CCTV in streets and squares around commercial areas, as a way to deter petty crime and reduce anti-social behavior. The fact that we have no clear evidence to conclude that videosurveillance is useful to prevent incivility or reduce petty crime seems irrelevant.

On my left I was asked ‘How to improve community safety in city centres’, and my right replied ‘turning everyone into a suspect and the object of permanent remote surveillance’.

3)      Just a year ago, a guy who had been reported by his father due to his links with Al-Qaeda tried to explode a bomb inside a plane Amsterdam-Detroit –luckily, he only managed to set his underwear on fire. A few days later, the media reported what the solution to that problem was: full-body scanners. The fact that it was unclear whether such devices would have identified what the man was carrying seemed irrelevant.

On my left I was asked ‘How to make sure people who have been reported for links with terrorist organizations never board a plane’, and my right replied ‘By making everyone go through full-body scanners’.

The gap between security and safety problems and solutions is frightening. Faced with problems of public health and human trafficking, the break-up of social ties and inequality, of police inefficiency or lack of resources for intelligence operations, etc. the solutions we adopt invariably respond more to a generalized technophilia and the need to make it look like political representatives are ‘doing something’ than to anything having to do with real efficiency and problem-solving. And while the massive expenditure of public money on devices and ‘things’ that have yet to prove they actually address any of the real problems is worrying, what unsettles and upsets me is that, in each and every case, the solutions to security problems include measures and policies that affect everyone: public spaces are fenced-in for everyone of us, regardless of whether we have taken part in any exchange of sexual services. CCTV monitors and controls us all, irrespective of our criminal record or intention to commit an illegal or anti-social act. Full-body scanners invade the privacy of all of us, even if we would never dream of causing damage to innocent people.

In this drive to feel safe, we are not only sacrificing liberty, but also fundamental rights and values such as the right to privacy, the presumption of innocence (the idea that one is innocent until proven guilty) and legal certainty.

At this rate, by the time any of the ‘enemy civilizations that threaten our way of life’ invade us, there will be little left of the rights and values we pretend to defend and care so much about. All we’ll have left will be nonsense.

, , ,

33 Comments

WikiLeaks: welcome to the sousveillance society

Nobody questions the fact that we live in a surveillance society -the development of surveillance-oriented security technology, improved intelligence-gathering and data-mining, identification and tracking techniques embedded in our everyday lives and cities… The list of devices that monitor our moves, interactions with public bodies, online activities, consumption patterns, etc. is never-ending. And, for all the talk about privacy, we have not managed to hold most of the surveillants accountable to the surveilled. Even though the affordability of devices with surveillance capabilities, such as mobile phones, have made it possible for the odd example of surveillance being used against those in power (such as the police’s role in the death of Ian Tomlison at the G20 protests in London in 2009), it is obvious that most surveillance is about those at the top (sur) being able to control and use data of those at the bottom (sous).

Until now.

Wikileaks is doing *exactly* what most corporations and governments do with our personal data on a regular basis: use it as they wish, even sell it, without our consent, while providing us with very few and very weak tools to protect what we care about or be able to monitor how our information is used and circulated.

Which, apparently, is fine when they do it. When the surveilled take control, however, all hell breaks loose.

Personally, I would prefer stronger regulation and better protection of personal information -even that of those in power. I would rather information only be recorded and stored when necessary and with permission. But in the world of CCTV, biometrics, full-body scanners and the like, it does not look like that is going to happen anytime soon. Therefore, if I am asked to put up with the use and abuse of my personal data in the surveillance society, I might as well be given the possibility to turn the gaze on the surveillants.

So since I was never given the choice to opt out of the surveillance society, I choose to join the sousveillance society, and the ranks of those who refuse to be held accountable by the unaccountable.

I choose to support WikiLeaks.

.

,

11 Comments

If you see something, say something

There are several catchphrases that have caught up in our surveillance culture. “If you see something, say something” is up there with “Nothing to hide, nothing to fear” and “There is no liberty without security”.

But I find the first one to be the most scary and dangerous. How have we all have come to understand what “something” means? What was in the mind of the policy-maker who approved the campaign? How do I read it? How do my friends read it? What do others make of it?

For one, I find the sentence cowardly: the policy-maker is not saying what he/she thinks, and it is so indeterminate that it invites us to let our lower instincts go wild. Whatever it leads us to think or be suspicious about, we all tend to feel part of the do-gooders of the community. We are the ok ones. The ones who look at what others do and judge its appropriateness. The ones who, when we see something, run to the cops. Of course, “say something” means tell a police officer. Who in their right mind could fail to get that? Duh!

But the worst thing is what the sentence is telling us not to see and not to talk about. And that is everything else. Nice things, for one. But also all those things we would find worrisome before we were engulfed by the security mantra. Like inequality. Like racism.

That is why reading this piece in the NYT, a harsh reminder of how racism still informs how many people behave to others, was like a breath of fresh air: there are still people out there who remember how to look, and whose gaze goes beyond the smoke screen of scapegoating.

If you see racism, shout racism.

,

3 Comments

The limits of my privacy

Working on surveillance, one of the issues that keeps coming up is that of privacy. Most arguments against the proliferation of surveillance technologies are based on their intrusive character and the need to guarantee people’s right to their privacy.

However, for many people, and specially the young, traditional definitions of privacy make little sense. How to fly the banner of privacy in a world where people volunteer their personal data in exchange for a discount voucher at the supermarket, or where some people crave for personal exposure as a road to riches?

Far from claiming that privacy is a thing of the past, however, I think that what we need to come to terms with is not the doom of privacy, but its redefinition. Privacy, today, does not mean what it used to -or not only.

For me, for instance, privacy is not about secrecy, seclusion or anonymity. It is about control. So yes, I do sometimes put things on my Facebook wall without thinking much, and give my address at the convenience store in exchange for a few discount coupons. When I do it, however, I expect to be informed of the terms of my contract with Facebook and the supermarket. But here is where the problem emerges: Facebook never tells me they’ll keep all my info even after I decide I no longer want to make use of their services, and the corner shop will not only give me coupons, but draw consumer profiles with my data, and even sell it to third-parties. Faced with that, the most I can do is file a complaint, but the chances of changing a very profitable corporate strategy are close to zero.

Surprisingly, in many cases the Information Society has made our data more vulnerable, but it has also made us a lot more aware of where the limits of our privacy are. To be honest, I don’t think I ever thought about privacy before social networks. I might have used the word a couple of times in my teenage years to defend my right to have a parent-free bedroom, but that’s about it. Today, however, I do read the privacy policy sheet before signing anything, and I think about how much privacy I am willing to give up on a daily basis -even if I am aware of the fact that, often times, corporate greed will tread on my rights.

So the problem is not privacy, which, if we take awareness into account, I would say is as healthy as ever. It is about how we make room for the new, emerging definitions of privacy, and how we establish (lobby for) rules and laws that put us, people, workers, consumers, at the deciding end of the stick, not the receiving one.

, ,

1 Comment

Things money can’t buy

If you have money, you can buy yourself a good education and a good medical care. You just have to pay enough money to access a good service, and your increased health and education will not depend on the heath and education of the rest of the population: you can be perfectly healthy while everyone around you has cancer, and read Proust while the rest of the world is illiterate. Not a happy picture, sure, but possible.

We have gotten so used to this idea that money can buy everything, that we believe that an individual exit is always possible -as long as you live in the right part of the world and can pay for it.

I am sorry to report, however, that money can’t buy you security. You can fortify your house, even your neighbourhood, but that will probably turn the place where you live in a visible target for those you wanted to get away from in the first place (in the case of health, being über-healthy does not make viruses come your way) and, in any case, will ultimately become your prison.

The thing about security is that it can’t be produced or bought individually -you need others to feel safe. And here is where our whole current logic crumbles. We look for individual (even national) solutions: fortifying our houses, cities and borders. And then we step into the world and find ourselves vulnerable and scared to death. We go on a shopping spree for security “things” (CCTV, walls, alarms, panic rooms, airport scanners…) only to come home and unwrap an increased vulnerabiliy, loneliness and insecurity.

So this particular emperor has been running around naked for a while now. About time we all stopped looking elsewhere.

, ,

5 Comments

From Foe to Friend

One of the things that strikes me about security is how the safer we are, the more scared we feel. So much so that I think there must be some truth in the hypothesis that there is something about fear and suspicion that just breeds fear and suspicion, and not the other way around.

It’s probably high time someone realized that security and safety concerns can’t be solved through security “objects” -if that was the case, the 90s would have been the era when we conquered security though more police,  more CCTV, more preventive urbanism and a long etcetera of “things” that were supposed to keep the consequences of inequality and the social break-down of our communities at bay.

Therefore, stories like this one, From Students, Less Kindness for Strangers? may put us in a better track to explore the causes of our current anxieties than focusing on crime.

If we are to look for loss of emphatic concern, however, I suggest we stop pointing the finger at our offspring and start reflecting on when was it that we decided that other people’s problems were none of our business. When did we become scared, mistrustful beings, and started seeing dangerous, threatening people instead of potential friends, lovers and allies?

, , ,

2 Comments

The burqa as a symptom

In the last few days, several towns and cities in Spain have banned the burqa in municipal buildings. The initial intention was to ban it altogether in public space, but luckily, and in line with the trend of local governments leading the drive to control public space and central governments and the judiciary playing a tone-down role, legal reports advised against it.

However, all our laws and legal guarantees could not stop those governments from passing regulations that affect a total of six people (that’s how many women are thought to wear the burqa in Catalunya).

What I find worrying though, and worth reflecting upon, is how the same three towns that have led the way with this ban (Lleida, El Vendrell, Barcelona) also happen to be pioneers in passing ordinances to regulate civility and public space and installing closed-circuit television systems in public space.

Barcelona was the first to pass a civility ordinance in the Catalan context, mixing in the same text and establishing fines for things as different as prostitution, street vending, begging, playing and peeing in the street. Lleida passed a similar text in 2007, and is the only city which has been forced to modify it by the Supreme Court. El Vendrell, on the other hand, has the greatest amount of square meters surveilled by CCTV in relation to the population. When it comes to surveillance, Lleida installed its public system in the 90′, even before it was legal to do so.

Therefore, the banning of the burqa is by no means an isolated event. All those towns show a continuum of policies to monitor and control public space, policies that have, in all cases, been proposed by the right and the extreme right but finally implemented by centre-left and centre-right local governments. This continuum when it comes to such policies is evident in the eyes of the explicitly racist, far-right party that has managed to get representation in local councils in the last few years (four councilors in El Vendrell). After the approval of the ban in that town, he told the press: “This doesn’t end here, this is only the beginning“.

Well, exactly: the Catalan case shows that making concessions to the far-right in seemingly little things only contributes to the normalization of populist solutions, and leads us all into a downward spiral of frightening consequences.

They have warned us.

, , ,

4 Comments