Debates of the European Parliament The political party on the Abertzale left has been set up, and a third meeting has been held. It has announced the Congress of Deputies. The surprise occurred at the time of the presentation of the report to Congress: The current direction has presented the Herrigaia project, with the aim of channelling the whole debate from this official report. But another report has appeared for the debate, linked to the Earth, produced by a large group of militants, very critical of the path taken by the leadership over the last five years, and which proposes an alternative path. This situation is interesting in itself, because it directly appeals to party democracy, because it criticises the decision-making capacity of the militancy and direction in force, and even the real possibility of change. When the direction is wrong, is there any possibility of correcting errors and taking another path?

The Abertzale left has entered the debate phase of Congress with these serious questions on the left table. The advocates of the Lurrari Lotuz report have had enough work with the other report to achieve equal treatment between people and people and from meeting to meeting, but the debate has already begun and proposals and criticisms of militancy have been put forward by both sides. This is also very interesting in itself, because it makes it possible to analyse in full the political practice of the Basque Left in recent years, to judge it and to carry out amendments. The first debate took place in the balance sheet: Is the Abertzale left currently undergoing a successful transition, especially from the construction and strengthening of EH Bildu and EH Bai, as Herrigaia says? Or, on the contrary, in the last decade the strategy of the Abertzale left has blurred, the independence process itself has been plunged into a situation of impasse and the Spanish State has been given the opportunity to resolve the institutional and territorial crisis as a result of a misguided policy of alliances? That is the view of the Lurrari Lotuz report. It does not see what Herrigaia's positive assessment is based on, even when Herrigaia himself writes in the same report the following: “However, Euskal Herria as a people has come to this moment under great hotbeds of threat and weakness.” Contradictions of an excessively positive balance sheet.

The second substantive debate on how to proceed from now on is that the official report puts the work of the current institutions and the election results at the centre of the build-up of forces: “The sovereign process needs a social majority that is expressed at the electoral and institutional levels.” But since the Earth Subjection report, they clearly answer: “With institutional hegemony, power will not be achieved.” Organising popular power is, therefore, an alternative proposal, creating a new institutionalization.

When these kinds of issues are raised, it cannot be denied that the debate is very interesting what is developing these days on the Abertzale left. But we must not forget that we are still in the field of debates for a Congress. What guarantees do we have to think that the arguments that dominate the militants in these debates will then be translated into political practice? It is also a heavy question, no doubt. The militants of the Abertzale left must be empowered and play tied to the earth. But for that they say it's congresses.