Talk politics.

Catalonia. Referendum. Independence. Violence. Battle scenes accompanying an illegal, unconstitutional referendum for secession. All of this has clouded the sober assessment of the whole process of Catalonia's drive for independence. Many, regardless of their alignment, whether they sympathize with the Catalan irredentists or the supporters of Spain's territorial integrity, have allowed their opinions to be affected by Madrid's firm actions.

The last couple of decades have seen a dominance of the liberal notion in Europe that the state (i.e. the police) shouldn't be beating up its own citizens, no matter what sort of madness they may descend into. If it starts beating them up, it means that state is neither democratic nor European, not to mention civilized. It seems Europe has a rather short memory, it has forgotten the way Margaret Thatcher used to bash IRA, or, while we're about Spain, how Luiz Carrero Blanco used to treat ETA.

In reality, the very idea of statehood is mostly associated with the territory that this statehood encompasses, and the borders denoting it. And if someone dares violate the territorial integrity of a state and tries to alter its borders, that state has the full moral right to use force to defend itself. The acceptable norms and limits of that force are stipulated in the Geneva Convention, not by the "consciousness of public opinion". Which, by the way, was confirmed by the Spanish king the other day. And by the European Commission, too.

So how about shedding all emotions here, and trying to think geopolitically about all this. I'm sure no country's national interest includes its fragmentation into pieces, and no EU member state's interests include the re-drawing of borders within the EU itself. If Catalonia splits away, that would be a precedent - and let me remind that North Cyprus was occupied by Turkey before Greece became a EU member; the processes of the USSR's dissolution, and also those in Yugoslavia and Czhechoslovakia preceded the EU membership of the respective countries. If the Catalan irredentist aspirations somehow earn recognition, this could motivate others with similar aspirations (some have already been mentioned around here, including in countries that are EU members).

On the other hand, if separatism mostly engulfs the leading EU countries, that could level the field and allow the smaller, mostly peripheral ones to catch up with the rest, and close some of the gaps that exist today between Old Europe and the New one. But that's not a good thing for the EU overall, because we wouldn't be talking so much of progress, rather than regression of the leading countries. Furthermore, the idea of a united Europe was to remove borders, not create new ones, right?

And here's the biggest threat to Europe. It's not the Russian hybrid war, or the migrant flood from Africa and the Middle East, not even the jihadist ulcer that is spreading across the ghettos of the big European cities. The biggest threat comes from within. As they say, whatever you can do to yourself, even your worst enemy can't do to you.

One side of this threat is the various manifestation of "cultural Marxism". The other is populism, which finds its use through the political tool called REFERENDUM.

In recent years, it was the referendum tool that helped undermine Europe's stability. Scotland almost managed to split away from Britain. Then Britain itself voted for leaving the EU. The Netherlands attempted to block Ukraine's European integration. Catalonia has become a boiling cauldron. Flanders is considering quitting Belgium... All of this through referendum. Not to mention the multiple minor referenda in various districts of various countries, some of which have pursued seemingly benevolent environmental agendas and managed to block the economic development of entire regions. Some referenda have been formulated and carried out in such a sloppy way that renders them practically useless.

What exactly the Catalan referendum will bring, and who'll gain or lose from that, is still difficult to predict. But one thing is certain: the referendum can be an extremely dangerous political tool. It makes all citizens take sides and make decisions on issues that most of them are incompetent and ignorant about. Which is why modern political thought has introduced representative (parliamentary) democracy. Essentially, a competent minority (in the ideal case, which, in our world of cronyism, partisanship and ideology, is hard to implement, granted), which makes decisions on behalf of the incompetent, non-expert majority, and then bears the responsibility for each decisions they make. Because if a government or a parliament make a bad decision, the people have the tools to punish them on the next election. But if the people itself, the people *in general* makes a bad decision, who'll be holding them accountable? Who controls the controllers here?

Yes, I guess I'm talking of a technocratic approach to politics here, as cynical and callous as that might sound to some. But there's a reason that representative democracy has been shaped up as a balance between the lack of liberties (in its extreme leftist version it's called totalitarianism, and in the rightist one, absolutism) and the excess thereof (anarchy in the leftist version, direct democracy in the pseudo-rightist one).

The referendum, although it's inherently an expression of more freedom, ultimately limits freedom because of the inability of the broad electoral masses to make rational and informed decisions on issues they do not understand - mostly because one cannot be expert in all areas. And if in some places like Switzerland and my country Iceland it may've shown tremendous results and usefulness, we shouldn't forget that it's not the Swiss or the Icelanders who vote on referenda in other places, where societies either lack the electoral culture, and/or are not as informed and rational. In other words, if past experience is any guide, the failure of referenda as a simple act to provide solutions to complex problems, has proven to be more like the norm rather than an exception.

And lastly, let's get back to Catalonia. A 42.3% turnout, and a 90% "Yes" vote in favor of secession. What does this mean? Nothing. One big NOTHING. Because the vast majority of those who were opposed to separatism, simply stayed home. They didn't want to legitimize what they believed was an illegal act by taking part in it. In the meantime, the energetic, enthusiastic, very vocal and thus disproportionately represented voice of the pro-separatist faction, took over the discourse and appeared to dominate the political scene. They appealed to emotion, and thus earned some beating up.