ABSTRACT
This article examines the discursive and political response to immigrant-generated diversity by Partido Nacionalista Vasco (PNV) in the Basque Country of Spain. A much-ballyhooed fact about PNV is that its founder, Sabino Arana, articulated a racist nationalist doctrine in the late nineteenth century. Alarm bells were raised in the early 2000s when the Basque Country became a destination for foreign immigrants arriving in Spain from Latin America and North Africa: do foreign immigrants pose a threat to Basque national identity? The PNV's answer to this question has been a clear ‘no’. Rather than distance itself from its past, however, party elites legitimate the inclusive and compassionate attitude towards foreign immigrants through selective discovery of the Basque national narrative. While sceptics of ideational variables are quick to suggest that nationalist elites manipulate the past to serve current purposes, this article suggests that such an interpretation does not do justice to the subtle ways in which symbols, myths, and images of the past have shaped the worldviews of PNV elites in the realm of immigration.
Acknowledgement
The author thanks Esteve Mirella-Sanchez for transcribing the interviews.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes
1. Respondents were identified as ‘voices’ of the party in the immigration ambit by their presence in related parliamentary debates and media sources. I made the decision to preserve the anonymity of the interviewees.
2. Carlism was a broader struggle between liberalism and traditionalism in the whole of Spain, but support for Carlism was strongest in the Basque provinces because of a strong attachment to provincial autonomy.
3. The most significant source countries are Morocco, Romania, Bolivia, and Colombia.
4. To be counted in official estimates, immigrants must register with their municipality.
5. The same tripartite government made up of PNV, EA, and EB constructed a second Basque Immigration Plan in 2007, which retained the same principles and ideas as the first. In both instances, it was a representative of EB that controlled the relevant ministry.