Political Parties and Terrorism: Why ban Batasuna? By Angela K. Bourne Politics, School of Humanities, University of Dundee, Dundee DD1 4HN
[email protected], phone: +44(0)1382 388628 Paper presented at Elections, Public Opinion and Parties Annual Conference University of Exeter, 9-11 September 2010 Abstract This article examines the 2003 ban of radical Basque nationalist parties Herri Batasuna, Euskal Herritarrok and Batasuna for their integration in the terrorist group Euskadi Ta Askatasuna. It does so by examining the political context in which proscription took place and testing two hypotheses developed from the broader literature on party bans addressing the question: Why do democracies ban political parties? Case study analysis on Spain supports the two hypotheses - that democracies ban anti-system parties when alternative forms of marginalization are not effective and that ‘intolerant democracies’ are more likely to ban political parties than ‘tolerant democracies’. 1 Introduction In 2003, the Spanish Supreme Court banned Herri Batasuna (HB), Euskal Herritarrok (EH) and Batasuna, three Basque separatist parties linked to the terrorist group Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (ETA). Since then, the return of Batasuna - effectively successor to both HB and EH - to electoral politics under a different guise has been repeatedly blocked by the courts. The effects of proscription are far-reaching. A banned party may no longer contest elections, loses all entitlements such as access to state funding, and its assets are to be confiscated and sold off by the state (Vírgala, 2003-4: 622). Prior to proscription, ETA’s political wing (henceforth Batasuna) contested elections over some twenty years.