Figueres, Teatre-Museu Dali, Catalonia. Flickr/Ilya Bogin. Some rights reserved.Without claiming to
represent anyone but myself, I wish to focus my statement on what, under the present
circumstances, I represent here today, namely civil society, as a member of
civil society.
The expertise I can
contribute to the struggle against corruption and for democratic regeneration
has not been acquired through my academic or professional training –which is in
the arts – but my experience as a person who, together with other people
sharing similar concerns and affected by the results of corruption and bad government,
has decided to act now that it is clear that our institutions are neglecting
their functions.
As I hope to show, I
believe that one of the keys to ending the problems this committee is
confronting is precisely a joint effort between organised citizens working
outside the representative institutions on specific problems and needs, and
organised citizens working within these institutions, which is to say, you. All
too often I have seen how democracy regresses and is weakened when this circuit
of action is broken.
What I can
contribute today is what I have learned working with the citizen platforms I
have co-founded, Xnet and 15MpaRato [a wordplay meaning “indignados versus Rato” – that is, former head of the IMF, former Spanish
Minister of the Economy and head of Bankia – and also “indignados for the long march”].
I have mainly been
working on Spanish cases of state-level corruption. However, having shared our results
with other groups and people, for example those constituting the Citizens’
Anti-Corruption Working Group in Catalonia, I can now say that the patterns of
criminal behaviour we have identified, and the solutions we can glean from this
are very similar everywhere and, accordingly, useful for this Committee.
I started the
15MpaRato movement in 2012. Long before any party or institution took action,
this platform began the campaign which ended up in the Bankia case; which catalysed
citizen contributions; took the Bankia case to the National High Court as a
private prosecution; made available to the public the “Blesa Emails” and
information concerning the “Black Cards” [a tax-free, corporate credit
card for Caja Madrid-Bankia cronies]; and provided and publicised the evidence
by means of which preferred stockholders in general, and Bankia shareholders as
well, can now get their money back, as the Supreme Court has finally decreed, inter alia.
Now, if you will
permit me, I should like to ask a question, although I know that, strictly
speaking, you are the ones who ask the questions. I shall therefore leave it in
the air as a sincere rhetorical question: are you aware that all the achievements
I have listed are the work of coordinated ordinary citizens? Strictly speaking, you are the ones who ask the questions, [but] are you
aware that all the achievements I have listed are the work of coordinated
ordinary citizens?
I ask the question
because, in the event of your not knowing how such a relevant process began,
the function of civil society must be stressed, and will be a key point in what
I have to say next.
Another experience
which I can contribute to the Committee is the result of the first. In order to
obtain proof of what we needed to reveal, while also ensuring that the people
who provide this evidence were not subject to reprisals, in Xnet, another group
with which I work, we learned about, and created the technical and legal
conditions for managing a safe mailbox through which we could receive anonymous
information about cases of corruption.
In this regard, I
have been astounded to see the great number of relevant cases that have reached
us by this means. I refer to cases that had already been reported through the
official channels but without results or, worse still, leading to the persecution
of the person reporting the corruption, or the use of this information for
political ends, or for warning individuals and officeholders about whom
complaints had been made so that they could escape prosecution. I believe that
it is not necessary to give examples of what I am talking about since recent episodes
involving the previous management of the Catalan Anti-Fraud Office have occurred
during this legislature.
With this mailbox,
and aware of the vulnerability of people who have reported wrongdoing, we
ourselves have had to create the rules of conduct for exchanges of information
and training among equals in order to help others to be more successful when presenting
their accusations.
Finally, another
perspective from which I can make my contribution here concerns methodology in
the strategic use of ICT for improving democracy. Since 2006 when, as a theatre
director, I was the victim of a false accusation of copyright infringement, I
have been working to defend a free and open Internet, as a tool and as a
philosophy.
Having described the
standpoints from which I can make a contribution, I shall now share with you
some proposals, in every case backed up by previous experience.
* *
* *
While creating the
15MpaRato platform – which, as I said, is the operation and accusation which
led to the Bankia, Black Cards and Blesa Emails cases, et cetera – we learned a
great deal, and one thing that was totally unexpected: it is easier to hold
alleged offenders responsible for corruption – and, in fact, we have nearly
eighty on our list – than it is to convey that this was NOT achieved by their
peers but by ordinary people, by real everyday people. Neither the press, nor
the political parties, nor (with a few exceptions) judges and prosecutors, nor
(with a few exceptions) governments, are willing to publicly concede that
almost anyone can do this.
This is a serious
matter, not only concerning the respect that is due and historical truth, but also
its eminently practical implications. To date, right now as I am talking, almost
70% of the cases of corruption which have been brought to court have not been denounced
by institutions or parties but by ordinary citizens.
I have asserted that
the government, political parties and the mainstream media – and here I am not
referring to journalists but to the media in general – have made great efforts
to claim undue credit for these achievements, or to conceal from public opinion
the active and even necessary function of civil society.
A discouraging picture
is offered of a world in which civil society is passive and irrelevant, a world
in which everything begins and ends with the monopoly of this trinity: the
government and institutions, the parties, and the mass media. This does not
happen as a result of a well-planned political conspiracy – if only it did! –
but is just marketing, the monopoly’s product placement.
The fact that
citizen agency – which, for example, is such an essential factor in getting
other people to denounce corruption – is denied must be taken very seriously.
What I am saying may
seem to be a cliché, or a generic kind of moaning. But I ask you to understand
it in all its realism. I can assure you, this is a surgically precise
description of what really happens.
As ordinary
citizens, working on specific cases, we are discovering how much effort it
takes to achieve a report; to get evidence accepted in court; to ensure that
the prosecution, if it represents the establishment, is not just a defence of
the accused; to see that evidence from citizen sources is taken into consideration
by the press and, in particular, that it is not appropriated by any party. The
change in the struggle against corruption which has recently occurred – which is
to say since the 15M movement – is the result of the fact that there are more
and more citizens who are not going to let this go on, citizens who are
organising. It is clear to me, then, that this is not institutional change. In
fact, very little has changed in the institutions. This is social change. This is not institutional change. In fact, very little has changed in
the institutions. This is social change.
If we want to fight
corruption, this must not only be recognised but also encouraged, with new
rules and procedures regarding veracity, and free resources (such as reinforcing
legal aid) that will encourage responses to and replications of this model.
Finding myself in
the midst of all this, I am keeping this inertia in perspective. For some
centuries now, only two political spheres have been taken into account: the
public and the private. Government policies and party demands have oscillated between
“more public” and “more private”, which is still frequently the case.
But we are now in
the digital age and its chief characteristic is disintermediation, which is to
say that the monopolisation of intermediaries in their access to culture,
knowledge, information, production, economics and politics too, has been undermined
by a radical advance in democratisation.
As has also happened
with other intermediaries of the pre-digital age, the function of political
parties has changed. I think this function should not be about extracting the
resources of others but one of facilitating. Recognition of civil society does
not mean sucking it dry of its value, or forcing it into the associative
formats typical of the private sector but, rather, accepting its otherness and
the fact that it, too, has something to offer on the gaming tables of
governance.
Hence, the first
thing I desire and request, in order to put an end to corruption and achieve
real democracy, is that civil society should be recognised in equal place as a
third political actor: “public” in the form of government, institutions and
also parties; “private” in the form of businesses; and civil society in the
form of channels with resources which make possible simultaneously, collectively
and individually: (i) scrutiny or preventive monitoring of the institutions;
(ii) emendation, never starting from zero and in real time, in the process of
drafting and amending which takes place here in the Parliament; and (iii)
transfer of powers and responsibilities without loss of identity. For me, this is what the participation of civil society means in the
twenty-first century.
For me, this is what
the participation of civil society means in the twenty-first century.
I have spent years
championing citizen participation but have never been referring to the kind of
participation which is currently in vogue. This is something that is, let us
say, rather “occupational” or paternalistic, and I believe it amounts to a wilful,
sometimes oversimplifying and self-serving interpretation of the 15M movement.
I uphold
participation as co-responsibility in work, not as the proffering of ill-informed
opinions which are inconsequential for both the person opining and the person
on the receiving end. (The latter, often called freedom of expression, at times
means not being able to tell the difference between chalk and cheese – or so it
seems to me.)
To get back to the
nitty-gritty, it means participation as efficiency and excellence. In hacker
philosophy it is termed Doismo. This
is what we apply, and with very good results, in online communities of action,
and it is similarly used in the sphere of scientific development. We can also
find examples in legislative experience, for example Marco Civil do Internet and
also, at times, in the European Union.
To sum up, it seems
to me that the format of the democracy of the future should be as we have practised
it by deploying the scientific-experimental device of the Partit X (X Party).
* *
* *
To return to
twenty-first-century intermediaries, in all the cases of corruption on which I
have worked, the same pattern of criminal conduct is repeated. The origin of
the corruption must always be sought in the same place: the political parties.
The pattern of
criminal conduct is a conspiracy hatched in the very core of the parties. Use
is made of a “party” structure that already exists for its – many – honest
members, who are then set up as a cover, and selected trusty men (or women) are
sent out into the mafia-clientele network to occupy positions of authority in
the public sector, as department heads, in advisory positions or in ministries,
and in the private sphere. The government then ends up being the executive arm
of a criminal conspiracy, legislating in its favour it or just avoiding
jeopardising it.
In no way do I wish
to show any lack of respect in describing this situation to you. In my years as
an activist I have been in contact with many of you as members of parliament,
and with others who have gone before you and, in most cases, I have found
hard-working, honest and committed people. However, I think we must avoid the
trap of exculpatory clichés. This is not a matter of a few rotten apples,
corruptors or mere picaresque roguery.
I believe my
experience demonstrates that this is a problem of the very structure of
political parties as we have inherited them.
The solution
presently being held out is that parties should be more open. There is talk of
primaries and one of the more recent panaceas, open lists, and so on. I believe
that the problem with parties is not that they are not open. In fact, political
parties possibly have the most open structure in existence. There are very few
organisations one can join with so few requisites.
It is precisely this
kind of openness that encourages the creation of clientele structures. We have
seen that these networks of favours and fidelities are the spawning ground of corruption,
with or without open lists and primaries. In a nutshell, I believe that
political parties, as we now know them, are mechanisms with a clear dissonance
between their structure – an open community, the more members the better, which
any people who think (or say they think) likewise can join, in which
ideological fidelity and media ratings are valued above the ability to solve
problems – and the role they have been allocated in society, namely to govern,
with a very high degree of jurisdiction over the most sensitive questions in
the life of the whole community.
In methodological
terms, it is obvious that this cannot work.
Once again, I
believe and have positive proof that if civil society channels are allowed to
mature, we can lighten the burdens of party functioning, which means that the
parties can then work better. In this regard, I think thoroughgoing changes
need to be made in the law, for example in party and electoral legislation, but
it is not my intention to venture into areas of authority that are beyond our
scope today.
I am in favour of
the professionalisation of politics but in the sense of accepting this as a
task of management contractually bound with the voters, based on vocation and
skills and with the same rights and duties as other workers have.
A government that
represents us and not one that replaces us. A government that
represents us and not one that replaces us.
I cannot elaborate
further now but you will find this material brought together and systematised
in the Just Democracy blueprint.
* *
* *
To return to the question of
denunciation of corruption by civil society, I shall move on to one last point.
In a milieu in which,
as we have seen, a considerable proportion of anticorruption cases consists of
accusations made by ordinary citizens, there is no legislation in this domain,
either in Catalonia or in Spain. What the so-called whistle-blowers, informants
or accusers often receive in return are charges of defamation, slander and
libel, harassment, persecution, unemployment and, all in all, a huge burden of
expenses and aggression which deters most people from making an accusation.
Although the
national criminal code and other laws urge citizens to denounce corruption,
making an accusation is not feasible, as is the case in any situation of
unequal power relations. I use the English word “whistle-blower”
because, until two years ago, there was no equivalent term in the European
Romance languages.
This situation is so
extreme that I use the English word “whistle-blower” because, until two years
ago, there was no equivalent term in the European Romance languages. We had to
introduce our own words [in Catalan, alertadors
and denunciants]. The Anglo-Saxon
world has had laws protecting whistle-blowers since 1778 and the list of
references is very long. We need to have specific laws here too.
Working in an
ideologically transversal way, individual members and organisations of civil
society have now produced a legislative Decalogue in defence of whistle-blowers
and people wishing to make an accusation.
We are pleased to
see that this Decalogue, which is appended here with other documentation, is
being taken into consideration by several parties of a range of political hues.
I believe that in the coming two years we shall achieve both a European
directive and legislation at Spanish State level. Since a considerable part of
the work has been carried out by our organisations in Catalonia, I should be
well satisfied if Catalonia were in the avant-garde of drafting this type of
law.
Finally, to conclude
this matter of accusations of corruption made by citizens, I need to deal
briefly with anonymity and tools for guaranteeing it, a highly relevant
question after Edward Snowden’s revelations. We in Xnet are recognised experts
in the field but, unfortunately, I cannot talk about it in any depth now as I
am running out of time. Instead I shall append two documents which defend
anonymity and encryption, one published by the United Nations and the other by
the European Parliament.
Anonymisation or, in
other words, the use of (often demonised) tools like Tor makes it possible to
correct the asymmetries of power I have mentioned. We must protect the
anonymity of private individuals because they are vulnerable. The difference between anonymity and confidentiality is that anonymity
enables the source to control the use that is made of the information.
The difference
between anonymity and confidentiality is that anonymity enables the source to
control the use that is made of the information.
Trusting in the
“guaranteed” confidentiality of the institutions is nothing more than an act of
faith. Allowing all the power (information) to be concentrated in the hands of
just a few people (executive staff and managers) who become all-powerful and a
threat to everyone is not, and never has been desirable. Experiences like the Catalan
Anti-Fraud Office scandal, on the one hand, and successful actions following
anonymous anticorruption leaks around the world in recent years, on the other,
make this clear.
In brief, these
innovations contribute towards greater justice and democracy. We must integrate
them in a positive way but without being disingenuous – wherever there are humans
there can be abuse – instead of prohibiting them because we do not understand
their complexity.
We should all be
aware, for example, that sending unencrypted emails is like sending a postcard
without sealing it in an envelope. Anyone along the route taken by this message
can read it. We hope that, in a few years, encrypting emails will be as routine
as sealing envelopes.
To conclude
I shall just
reiterate a few key points and offer some suggestions.
The institutions
cannot be their own watchdogs.
Governance can be
delegated under strict contractual conditions but the watchdog work of citizens
cannot be delegated because, as soon as this happens, the appointee becomes an
institution and, accordingly, a cog in the machine that is supposed to be
monitored.
The solution, then,
is not to be found with a specific individual or thing but with what the
digital technologies have now made possible: any person. Please note the nuance
here. I have said “any person” not “everyone”.
I therefore propose
the following measures:
–
Preventive transparency (before things are
done) in institutions or businesses that affect more than 10% of the
population. The transparency of these entities is essential so that any person
can have the information necessary to form an opinion and to detect flaws in
the system.
–
Channels for citizen co-responsibility (with rights and
duties), which is to say channels for monitoring, remedy and transfers of power
and, by this, I do not mean starting from zero.
–
Remedying asymmetry with more privacy and anonymity for people confronting
the great public-private powers.
–
A law to protect whistle-blowers which, rather than offering state
assistance and protection recognises, in this context, the
work of citizens.
–
Reforming the structure of party and electoral laws – tending to combine party lists with candidates chosen by constituency
and jurisdictions.
Thank you very much.
(With thanks to
Lluïsa G.)
References
Decalogue for
the Protection of Whistle-Blowers
The UN identifies
data
encryption as a human right: “[…] encryption and anonymity provide
individuals and groups with a zone of privacy online to hold opinions and
exercise freedom of expression without arbitrary and unlawful interference or
attacks.”
European
Parliament Science and Technology Options Assessment (STOA) on Mass Surveillance