Thursday 9 September 2010

"National" Day

Tomorrow that auspicious annual celebration comes round again, "National" Day. What exactly has "National" Day become? It is certainly not in consonance with how and why it began. It was a highly politically motivated and charged event, started by the SDGG and adopted by the GSLP Government, to campaign in favour of self determination.

Now, the GSD Government consider that self determination has been gained by virtue of the 2006 Constitution and its adoption by referendum. The GSLP maintain that there is a road yet to be trodden before self determination is achieved, although I do not know how they define that concept. The PDP's position seems to adopt the belief that self determination has been achieved, which is in line with the GSD's position but that politics should still plays a part in the clebrations.

I am clear, the 2006 Constitution includes, as its final clause in its final schedule, a provision that permits direct rule to be imposed, which is inconsistent with self determination; in truth this shortcoming does not overly concern or bother me. I am bothered, however, by our constant references to "nationhood" in the context of self determination, which imports into that word the concept of statehood and our self delusion on this subject. We are not a state nor does it matter that we are not. We are what we are, a Self Governing Territory under British Nationality with a high degree of self government.

A degree of self government that, as the GSD Government says, is the greatest degree that we can aspire to, whilst we continue to wish to remain Bristish or, in the very remote chance that, at any time in the future, we should choose to become part of the Spanish State. There are those who believe that the end of the political journey is independance. I do not consider that this is an option, either politically or in practice, without the support and agreement of Spain.

The effect of the GSD's position is that they consider that the 10th September is not a political event for making speeches but a celebration to be enjoyed and one on which " ... we celebrate our country our society, our culture, our heritage and our prosperity as a people".

The GSLP consider that it is a politically charged day in which " ...as well as asserting our identity, our nationhood and our right to self determination, we have an opportunity to send a clear message to our neighbours ... ." I would have thought our neighbours have heard that message enough times, that this was unnecessarily provocative and not what "National" Day is all about.

The PDP say that " ...it is right that we reaffirm our political rights as a people. This would be relevant on any National Day as it is worldwide when other countries hold similar celebrations" Really, which countries might that be?

What then is "National" Day for most people? I really do not know. I am confused. A few are very certain. These are those individuals who continue the quest for independence. I do not agree with them but I admire their tenacity and principled stance. For all others, it seems to be a good excuse for a piss up, which I do not criticise one iota. It has become a day that has lost its political direction and which different political parties use for their own opportunistic electoral benefit.

Well you asked for controversey. Now I have had a go at all the political parties. I am off for my gin and tonic in order to start the clebrations. Have a good one tomorrow.

21 comments:

  1. Re: the conviction (held by some) that self-determination has been achieved:
    When did the referendum giving us the full slate of UN decolonisation options happen? Did I miss it?

    Re: "we are not a nation":
    That would depend on your definition of "nation".

    One of the accepted academic definitions is "a named population sharing an historic territory, common myths and historical memories, a mass public culture, a common economy and common legal rights and duties for its members". Within that definition, I see no reason why Gibraltar could not be construed as a nation. Perhaps you confuse "nation" with "state", which Gibraltar is plainly not. But you can, and do, have "stateless nations" and I (along with Keith Azopardi in his book) would argue that Gibraltar is one such "stateless nation".

    Food for thought.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Now that our Queen is Queen of Gibraltar, rather than of the United Kingdom (or so Caruana keeps telling us) doesn't that make us a separate and distinct nation or country within the Commonwealth?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Fred says:

    I keep it simple: it is the day I recognise that I am a Gibraltarian, among Gibraltarians. A day on which I try to overcome my cynicism and political antipathy.

    A day on which I re-affirm my right to criticise my fellow citizens as I see fit, but also my duty to defend them from any external threats. Yo puedo critica a mi gente como me de la gana (y ellos a mi), pero los demas que se vayan a critica a los suyos y nos dejen tranquilos.

    Have a great National Day Llanitos!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Seemed to be relatively few people around today, except for youths. Problem is if National Day falls on a Friday or Monday everyone takes a 'puente' and goes off to Spain for the long weekend.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Still a colony...still waiting for de-listing in the UN.....still harrased by Spain in every quarter.....taken for a ride with the Cordoba agreement....town mayors doing as they please......

    if you or others think that we are going to do as PC does (ie lower his pants) and not fight our corner on OUR DAY so we don't upset our neighbours....then you are all wrong!!!

    At the end of the day if they get annoyed with us it will only affect the minority who live over the border. But it's this minority who think they can dictate our future and how we defend our home-land.

    Let us not loose focus on what National Day is all about because if we do ...Gibraltar will Slowly Disappear (GSD)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ghost says:

    For some years prior to our new constitution there had been a general view that National day was too political and the view taken by many that I spoke to was that the 10th of Sept should be a day of celebration and unity where we all come together and declare ourselves Llanito and proud of it.

    Yes the roots of National Day were driven by a different purpose, one which required the attention and political edge which National Day carried and which clearly served its purpose. we move on and live in a very different Gibraltar today. You might question this and argue that the Mayor of La Linea is a threat or the the prospect of a PP govt is a threat, the reality is that the last PP Govt landed flat on its face with Gib and the current Mayor has clearly been shown the door by almost everyone bar Rajoy and Landluce. What has interested me in all of this, is that 10/ 15 / 20 years ago we would have felt far more threatened by Sanchez's antics; it is interesting to see that our reaction has been one of ridiculing Mr Sanchez, quite frankly taking the piss out of him and in the main taking the issue in our stride, this man is no threat to us, but for the first time that I can recall we (as Gibraltarians) have reacted incredibly maturely to the Mayors tantrums and handled this issue as a responsible and confident "Nation", "Self Governing Territory" or what ever you want to call it.

    We need to move on, personally I find danger in those who prefer to create political scaremongering in order to keep a dying flame alive.

    This may well be the reason why some (including you Robert) may be confused. I have to say I agree with RV's sentiments and thoughts on National Day.

    Good Wknd to you all.
    Ghost

    ReplyDelete
  7. In true pluralistic, or individualistic fashion, they can be seen as reflecting the parties different interests, convictions and are definitely in line with the propaganda we have come to know year in, year out! They are also right in their own ways:
    1) The GSD is right in what National Day should or could be (partly, a celebration of culture and heritage) rather than what it actually is (at times, a celebration of 'what we are not' (I.e. Spanish) rather than what we are). Less of ''Bote, bote, bote Espanol el que no bote''.
    2) The GSLP: Although we must be weary of being provocative, the message of self-determination should be reaffirmed. After all, it was not that long ago that Blair was 'in talks' with Spain before the Gibraltarian population went ''up in arms''. Boarders, resources and power (like language), are in constant flux therefore National Day should continue to reinforce this issue.
    3) The PDP must have referred to days like Independence Day on the 4th July, although I must concede that Gibraltar National Day has more similarities with St Patrick's day, which is practically a piss-up, and to which I have no objection to.

    As for the Nationhood comment, if you go with Anthony D Smith's definition that Calpetano used then Gib can be considered a nation without a state, laying the foundations for the construction of a nation (take the often used Catalan Parliament notion). However, legally or technically, we are not a nation and in this light one definition renders the other redundant. Patriotism made this realization hard.

    The blog highlighted what National Day is for the political parties but what of nationalism or national identity? I think the construction and elaboration of national identity in Gib has undertaken a modernist approach. The civic component has been dominant in bureaucratic and administrative arenas and I believe that this 'rationale' will continue to branch out into two distinct themes of 'self determination' (a key phrase often used in National Day) and self preservation. Local politics illustrates this. On an individual scale, self preservation, does not mean national self determination. This is a key issue to be raised as I believe there is and will be a more subtle form of national, or should I say economic 'osmosis' happening between the boarders and the next generation/s of Gibraltarian nationalists or citizens! In fact, (to go against Calpetano’s source), in Gibraltar's case, I often side with Anthony D. Smith's modernist counterpart, Ernest Gellner; an advocate of modernist/ civic nationalism.

    Interestingly, in 1704 Gibraltar's Spanish population were outcast into nearby parts of Spain but the idea that the Gibraltarian population could be sharing a similar fate could slowly become a reality. Spain seems to be increasingly appealing to the average Gibraltarian, whilst the previous housing situation (it must be noted that it has improved in recent years), has not always been favourable to future ends. As Hechtor states, "sometimes realism tempers desire". Furthermore, Renan states that nationalism is two-fold. On the one hand it is practical whilst on the other it depends on the "actual consent, the desire to live together, the will to continue to the heritage which all hold in common." One must therefore concede that loyalties are primarily instrumental and when loyalties become largely of an instrumental nature, we must concede that by no means does nationhood imply nationalism. The fact that the evolution of Gibratarian national identity has primarily adopted practical considerations gives some food for thought.

    As for what the 3 political parties have espoused I say that it should and could be all of the above, but lets not kid ourselves into thinking that it always is (just like Christmas isn't always about Christ!). I think it is more a celebration of our community.

    ReplyDelete
  8. In true pluralistic, or individualistic fashion, they can be seen as reflecting the parties different interests, convictions and are definitely in line with the propaganda we have come to know year in, year out! They are also right in their own ways:
    1) The GSD is right in what National Day should or could be (partly, a celebration of culture and heritage) rather than what it actually is (at times, a celebration of 'what we are not' (I.e. Spanish) rather than what we are). Less of ''Bote, bote, bote Espanol el que no bote''.
    2) The GSLP: Although we must be weary of being provocative, the message of self-determination should be reaffirmed. After all, it was not that long ago that Blair was 'in talks' with Spain before the Gibraltarian population went ''up in arms''. Boarders, resources and power (like language), are in constant flux therefore National Day should continue to reinforce this issue.
    3) The PDP must have referred to days like Independence Day on the 4th July, although I must concede that Gibraltar National Day has more similarities with St Patrick's day, which is practically a piss-up, and to which I have no objection to.

    As for the Nationhood comment, if you go with Anthony D Smith's definition that Calpetano used then Gib can be considered a nation without a state, laying the foundations for the construction of a nation (take the often used Catalan Parliament notion). However, legally or technically, we are not a nation and in this light one definition renders the other redundant. Patriotism made this realization hard.

    The blog highlighted what National Day is for the political parties but what of nationalism or national identity? I think the construction and elaboration of national identity in Gib has undertaken a modernist approach. The civic component has been dominant in bureaucratic and administrative arenas and I believe that this 'rationale' will continue to branch out into two distinct themes of 'self determination' (a key phrase often used in National Day) and self preservation. Local politics illustrates this. On an individual scale, self preservation, does not mean national self determination. This is a key issue to be raised as I believe there is and will be a more subtle form of national, or should I say economic 'osmosis' happening between the boarders and the next generation/s of Gibraltarian nationalists or citizens! In fact, (to go against Calpetano’s source), in Gibraltar's case, I often side with Anthony D. Smith's modernist counterpart, Ernest Gellner; an advocate of modernist/ civic nationalism.

    Interestingly, in 1704 Gibraltar's Spanish population were outcast into nearby parts of Spain but the idea that the Gibraltarian population could be sharing a similar fate could slowly become a reality. Spain seems to be increasingly appealing to the average Gibraltarian, whilst the previous housing situation (it must be noted that it has improved in recent years), has not always been favourable to future ends. As Hechtor states, "sometimes realism tempers desire".

    Furthermore, Renan states that nationalism is two-fold. On the one hand it is practical whilst on the other it depends on the "actual consent, the desire to live together, the will to continue to the heritage which all hold in common." One must therefore concede that loyalties are primarily instrumental and when loyalties become largely of an instrumental nature, we must concede that by no means does nationhood imply nationalism. The fact that the evolution of Gibratarian national identity has primarily adopted practical considerations gives some food for thought.

    As for what the 3 political parties have espoused I say that it should and could be all of the above, but lets not kid ourselves into thinking that it always is (just like Christmas isn't always about Christ!). I think it is more a celebration of our community.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dear Robert

    Gibraltar Day or National Day whatever title is given to the 10th September celebrations is becoming all together a joke. We have a non elected Mayor delivering a message which has no bearing on the political and nationalisic views of the majority.

    A Mayor who did not bother to visit Casemates Square and join in the Rally together with those politicians in the SDGG platform.

    Where was Peter Caruina on the 10 September?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Seb,

    An excellent piece, even if I did disagree with a number of points.

    For now, permit me to question why you state that "legally or technically, we are not a nation". Is there a legal or "technical" definition of "nation"? I think not, at least none which differs greatly from Anthony D. Smith's broad interpretation.

    Again, it seems to me we confuse the terms "nation" and "state". The state is a legal entity, the nation is not necessarily so.

    Incidentally, Smith and Gellner are not mutually exclusive sources.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Fred says:

    Seb,

    "Legally or technically" the powers that think they have a say on who and what we are as a people would rather we were nothing at all.

    Unfortunately for the lawyers and international jurisprudence theorists politics does not conform with what the powerful would have us believe is law.

    I do like your rigourous approach to the subject though.

    I would urge that folk they keep a close eye on Iraqi Kurdistan and Southern Sudan post- Kosovo ruling. We are lucky not to be in a position similar to these people.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Indeed we are nothing like Kurdistan and Southern Sudan, Fred. Most of all, because we are not an integral part of another state seeking to break away. Given that we do not form part of the UK or Spain, ours is not a case that can be equated with the above-mentioned territories or, indeed, with Kosovo.

    I am still no clearer why some folk appear to think there is a legal or technical definition of "nation" which would automatically exclude us from such category.

    ReplyDelete
  13. It would appear you do not think the Liberal Party of Gibraltar exists. Are you so unfair and biased in everything you say?

    ReplyDelete
  14. To Anonymous at 21:38

    To me the GSLP and the Liberal Party of Gibraltar are synonymous. They have stood for election as essentially one party too many times with the same manifesto to have any independent identity.

    As to bias, These are my opinions so that itself is a subjective bias that anyone having an opinion must have. I admit to having my own views os it that is biased I am biased and proud of it. Most people consider this to be the exercise of freedom of speech.

    ReplyDelete
  15. It's now more like 'National Daze' - politically speaking and also for our youth!

    ReplyDelete
  16. To me National Day is a reminder (if I needed one) that wherever I may be abroad, as it happened this year, I will always be conscious that this day is llanito's day. I will always toast to it.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Time to move on?

    ReplyDelete
  18. SOVEREIGNTY OF GIBRALTAR

    The legal title to the sovereignty of Gibraltar should be held by the Pope on trust in perpetuity for all the people of Gibraltar with the agreement of the Gibraltarians and at the request of Great Britain and Spain.

    The true political and spiritual dimensions of this option would be God's direct blessing upon our community, Great Britain and Spain.

    The uncomfortable and constant evilness that thrives and lives on from this constant political quandry for the three sides would be defeated once and for all.

    Let us pray that St. George slays this nasty and soul-eating political dragon.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Dear Calpetano, et al.

    Sorry for taking so long in getting back to you (soy malisimo). Being ill the last 2 days has allowed me sufficient time to muster a response! As the blog format can only take so many characters, please allow me to respond in 2 parts:

    ''To be or not to be... a nation''

    I retract my statement that Gibraltar is not a nation. It can be regarded as a Nation, and your right; legal or technical issues do not preclude it from being so. I made a mistake and wanted to write nation-'state' and although it is known that Gib has no state, the paragraph was in reference to Llanito World's comment re the 2006 Constitution which could (though we are in agreement that it won't), ultimately render us powerless to future ends, and it was patriotism that made this realisation hard to conceive (Imagine that, an article compromised by the exclusion of a word).

    However, I also maintain that Gibraltar can also be seen as a British Colony or as Llanito World put it; ''a Self Governing Territory under British Nationality with a high degree of self government''. (Although, Llanito World, I don't think you need to mention the 'Self Governing' bit twice. Perhaps, you could shorten it and call it ''A territory under British Nationality with a high degree of self government'', but alas I am being pedantic). On an interesting side-note, I don't think it matters that you cannot call Gibraltar a nation since its inception. Transformation happened after the fortress, with the development of its intelligencia, shared history and turmoil (Gellner and Smith's ''Navels'' and Nationalism debate is quite interesting here- though admitedly, not that relevant).

    I enjoy putting theory into practice, even if at times I am scraping the barrel. Calpetano, you are right to say that Gellner and Smith are not mutually exclusive sources, though you can put them in v. different boxes. Forgive me for pigeon holing but I tend to categorise when I notice stance. You seem to be advocating a more rounded approach to Gibraltar's ethnogenesis and nationalism and appear to have more in line with Anthony D. Smith's view of nationalism; a synthesis of modernist, ethnic and historical value (Yes, all this from a freakin paragraph but there are parallels and you did use his definition of a nation after all!- toy malo y me tengo q entretene de alguna manera!)
    I might also be forgiven for assuming that Llanito World is advocating a more modernist stance. Interestingly, a comparison can be drawn with Ernest Gellner; whom I mentioned in my last piece and whose main case for modernism states that on the whole, the ethnic and cultural community is less important than the civic participation of its members (and in Gibraltar's case I would agree). Sometimes the modernist approach can be seen as placing too much emphasis on 'rational-legal' prerequisites to nationhood, and this is perhaps mirrored by Llanito World's very 'matter of fact' categorisation, which, although true, fails to recognise other aspects that constitute a nation (i.e. shared history, myths, common ancestry, language, etc). It is also about the symbols that humans associate with and the psychological bond that joins and differentiates people.

    ReplyDelete
  20. ...

    Finally, I would like to highlight Llanito World's stance on ''our constant references to 'nationhood' in the CONTEXT of self determination'', which he states, imports into that word the concept of statehood and our self delusion on this subject. Although I do not think that it directly or necessarily imports the concept of ''statehood'' (albeit there is an element of power involved), I can see how his definition, coupled by the 2006 Constitution, which imports the provision of direct rule, leaves less room for the ''100% self determination'' slogan we have all come to hear on the 11th Sep (perhaps we could amend the slogan to ''99% Self Determination''?.. ''69% self determination?'' It would make for a cracking T-Shirt next year). On the other hand, as Calpetano reassured, the referendum did give us full slate of UN decolonisation options, which do not render us power-LESS. Technically, or literally, I do not think that Llanito World said that not having a state, disqualifies Gibraltar from being a nation, however, from his definition, one can interpret an aversion to referring to Gibraltar as a nation outside the context of self determination. If this aversion exists, I do not share it. Nor do I oppose it.

    In closing, I will not refute calling Gibraltar a Nation or a colony or all of the above! Aha! I agree with all of you... We will undoubtedly shift masks when it is required. I maintain that rational choice will continue to display behaviour as a function of the interactions of our structural constraints/opportunities and the sovereign preferences of individuals.

    ReplyDelete