Jul
11
By
Dick Nichols
July
7, 2013 – Links International Journal of
Socialist Renewal — The mainstream media were taken aback: why was the
first congress of the Galician left nationalist organisation Anova — the key component along with the United Left (EU in Galicia, IU nationally) in Galicia of
the hugely successful Galician Left Alternative (AGE) — so
heated and acrimonious, at times reaching the point of “shambles” (the term of
the chairperson)?
How
come the 16-month-old Anova — vital to AGE winning 14% of the vote in the
October 2012 Galician regional elections and now at the point of overtaking the
Galician affiliate of the social-democratic Spanish Socialist Workers Party
(PSOE) in the polls — was having a congress marked by dissent from the rulings
of the presiding committee, fierce lobbying of delegates and in-the-corridors
distribution of four how-to-vote cards for different tickets for the national
coordinating committee?
It
was left to Xosé Manuel Beiras, historic leader of Galician left nationalism
and Anova’s unanimously re-elected spokesperson, to help the media — and some
shell-shocked delegates — grasp what had happened in the Congress Centre of
Santiago de Compostela, capital of Galicia, on June 8-9, 2013.
“What
this congress in all its dialectical confrontations is showing is that here
there’s no apparatus running things, pre-cooking the results.” He added, “I
start from the basis that the mistakes made are collective, and that it is
practice that will show if they are mistakes or not. Our mistakes are not those
of notables, of people who try to fix things up from inside an apparatus.”
Beiras
also stressed the “heterogeneity” of Anova’s membership and the debate as “a
symptom of the process of convergence in which political cultures coming from
the previous system clash with those coming from outside the political
organisations”.
“Anova
is a school in which a new political culture is being rehearsed, a process of
collective apprenticeship. There is no process of training and education that
can be completed in a few months.”
In
a later interview in La Voz de Galicia Beiras
specified: “What you have is a clash of styles of activism between the old
forms forged in the underground struggle against Francoism and the new culture
of the social movements. And each side has its own tics, its own bad habits,
the new people too.”
For
the veteran nationalist leader the stormy style of Anova’s congress debate
would be the order of the day in any new organisation sincerely trying to
reconnect with a society sick to death of traditional parties and politicians.
In his closing address Beiras said: “If we really want to make citizens in
revolt the motor force of change, convulsive meetings are unavoidable.”
Martiño
Noriega, mayor of Teo and best known Anova figure after Beiras, described it as
“expressing dynamics that are out there in society. The assembly is tumultuous
because the people are demanding a lot of us and we too are demanding a lot of
each other.”
Wellsprings of Anova
Anova, whose full name is Anova — Irmandade
Nacionalista (Anova — Nationalist Brotherhood/Sisterhood), means “renew” and
“new” in the Galician language. The name Anova-Irmandade
Nacionalista thus contains a play on words and can be understood as “new
nationalist brother/sisterhood” or “renew nationalist brother/sisterhood”. The irmandades have a long tradition in
Galicia, being originally the cells for organising the peasant revolts of the
15th century: in the early 20th century the term was used for associations
defending the Galician language (Irmandades
da Fala).
The first paragraph of the draft political resolution stated how the
organisation had reached its first congress:
Anova is
the fruit of an intense process of creation from below of a political
organisation of a new type. The very process of setting up Nationalist
Assemblies last spring, which came together to celebrate a founding congress of
this assembly–based organisation — horizontal, open to the existing pluralism
in left nationalism and at the service of the social majority — is testimony to
the political will and activist energy of the hundreds of people who participated
in it.
The reasons why many different groupings
and individuals ended up together in an organisation committed to promoting
“organised citizen revolt” and “radical democracy external and internal” lie in
the combination of three intertwined developments specific to Galicia.
They
are the crisis of left nationalism, whose main expression from 1985 to 2012 was
the Galician
Nationalist Bloc (BNG); the success of AGE as an anti-austerity electoral
coalition based also on recognising a specific Galician right to
self-determination; and the form of creation of Anova itself, emerging from the
decisions of local assemblies without “any guiding precooked meal” (Beiras) — in
the style of the 15M (indignado)
movement.
Without
this assembly-based approach, which replaces traditional styles of building
left organisations and has much in common with the Catalan left-nationalist Popular
Unity Candidacies (CUP), many activists
of the indignado generation would not
have participated in Anova.
The
result was that very different political families are having to work out how to
live together in a “party-movement” that it is probably more varied than any
other radical force in the Spanish state.
They
include: “old” left nationalists (along with their own sub-groupings,
continuing debates over the nature and tasks of nationalism in Galicia, and
ties going back to the BNG); social and trade union movement activists drawn to
Anova’s intransigent defence of worker rights and the welfare state (such as trade
unionists active in the nationalist Galician Interunion Confederation, CIG);
environmentalists and feminists; indignados;
and many “ordinary” people, maybe not all that active, but staunch supporters
of Beiras, who is seen by many as the people’s champion in parliamentary wars
against the “putrescent” (Beiras) People’s Party (PP) government of Galicia.
Anova and AGE
The
form of development of Anova as an assembly-based organisation was already
attracting many people in the lead-up to its founding congress in July 2012.
With the ongoing success of AGE this trend only increased.
This
new layer of mainly young activists who were inspired to participate in the AGE
election campaign could not join AGE because it is an electoral coalition
between parties and (so far) has no individual membership or political life
outside its parliamentary caucus.
The
question for the activists inspired by AGE was therefore which affiliate to join.
Many would not have wanted to join the United Left, rightly or wrongly
identified with “old”, “Spanish” politics. As a result, provided that they
weren’t attracted to the other smaller AGE affiliates Equo and Galician
Ecosocialist Space (EEG), they had one alternative — Anova.
At
the congress one result of this continuing new influx was that some of the
decisions of the July 2012 founding congress were revisited. In Beiras’s words:
“We were having a normal congress but it turned into a second founding congress
because the founding texts were called into question.”
Particularly
galling for some delegates was the fact that the simple majorities they won on
a majority of constitutional questions were inadequate because of the
stipulation of the founding congress, repeated in the standing orders for this
congress, that two-thirds majorities were needed to change the constitution.
With
any financial member of Anova granted voice and vote at the congress, sharp
clashes — already a feature of the three-month local pre-congress discussion — were
unavoidable around three main issues: the precise “genetic code” of Anova;
alliance policy (electorally and more broadly); and how to elect Anova’s
national coordinating body.
At
the same time, the results of votes over these and other issues varied widely,
showing that, despite the interactions among the definite trends present, many
delegates were unaligned and deciding their vote issue by issue.
The underlying difference generating all debates was
over how exactly to conceive of Anova. Everyone could agree with Beiras’s
formula that Anova was “Galician left nationalism’s new strategic project in
this new political cycle” but within that concept discussion ranged between two
implicit poles:
1. Was Anova primarily to be the form of revival of
Galician left nationalism, with its energies directed mainly towards reuniting
that family by achieving hegemony over the weakened BNG and the centrist
Compromise for Galicia (CxG)? For those tending to this position the AGE
experience and the alliance with the United Left was to be seen as an
exception.
2. Or was Anova the driving organisation of the new
anti-austerity politics of AGE, definitely championing Galicia’s national
rights but most focussed on building majorities against the brutal
neoliberalism of the national PP government of Mariano Rajoy and the Galician
regional administration of premier Alberto
Núñez Feijóo?
This line of differentiation didn’t simply run
between the ex-BNGers and the younger generation of activists. The Brotherhood Assembly (EI), the main current within
Anova that started life in 2007 as a reform tendency within the BNG, had supporters
leaning in either direction.
For example, the Teo assembly of Anova, influenced by Martiño
Noriega, put forward an amendment to the entire draft political resolution that
sought to define the exact sense in which Anova was nationalist. It included
the following paragraphs around which the drafting commission had been unable
to reach consensus. As much as an amendment this text was a polemic against
those for whom reunification of nationalists was the primary goal.
“The
recognition of the Galician people as a political subject enjoying full rights,
including, obviously, the unrestricted right to decide its future, is the
principle distinguishing mark of our nationalism. That’s the only frontier we
are not prepared to cross. It would be absurd today to conceive of nationalism
as a closed-off reserve, as an ideology that provides an unvarying world-view,
as a faith to profess, as a church in which someone decides who can belong and
who deserves excommunication…“The work
that the Galician nationalism organised around Anova has ahead of it is as
complex as it is interesting: to spread the idea that the best option for
improving our conditions of life passes through becoming protagonists and
taking responsibility for our own affairs. In this sense sovereignty,
understood as the decision-making capacity of the Galician People operating as
a political actor, is a means, not an end in itself.”“In order
for sovereignty to be something more than a fetish-word it is necessary to win
hegemony, and that can only be done by a collective political subject that
represents the abused social majority. Achieving that goal can’t require that
all individuals belong to the political culture of the nationalist tradition.”
The Anova Teo position concluded by stressing:
“the need
for Anova and AGE to assume the leadership required of them at every step in
the necessary processes of accumulation of forces, unity and expansion of
alliances. Let neither Anova nor AGE fall into the error of accepting or taking
on the (interested) agenda outlined by other organisations.“The
times in which we have to live, dark like few others, demand that our preferred
alliances seek out space on the left. The unity of nationalism, which after the
elections became a catch-cry aimed at breaking the unity of AGE, should only be
a step forward in this process of accumulating forces on the left. It can never
be an end in itself.”
Some background
Behind this debate stood realities of the condition
of Galician nationalism that contrast with those of nationalism in the Basque
Country (Euskadi) and Catalonia.
Galicia never produced its own specifically Galician
bourgeoisie. Its industries and finance system were funded (and plundered) from
elsewhere in the Spanish state, as analysed by Beiras in his 1972 work The Economic Backwardness of Galicia.
While today some Galician super rich are prominent in business and finance,
they operate as Spanish capitalists.
As a result, a Galician equivalent of the
conservative nationalism of the Basque Nationalist Party (PNV) or Catalan
Convergence and Union (CiU), never developed. Conservative nationalist forces
were either small and/or absorbed into the Galician branch of the People’s
Party, run for years by ex-Franco minister Manuel Fraga, who was careful to
cultivate “Gallicianist” rhetoric and cultural imagery.
Since the end of the Franco dictatorship right-wing,
post-Francoist forces have dominated the Galician parliament and government,
with the exception of the years 2005-2009, when the government was a coalition
between the Party of Socialists of Galicia (PSG, the Galician affiliate of the
Spanish Socialist Workers Party) and the BNG.
Galician national sentiment has therefore always
been weaker — but also more plebeian and progressive — than in Euskadi and
Catalonia, where total support for right- and left-nationalist parties has at
times passed 50%. In Galicia the highest vote ever achieved by the BNG — from
1985 to 2009 the near-monopoly voice of nationalism — was 25.1% (in 1997). This
reflected the highest score of “Gallicianism” registered over the past 30
years: in 1997 39% described themselves to opinion polls as “Galician” or “more
Galician than Spanish”.
However, the most marked contrast between Galician
nationalism and its Basque and Catalan counterparts has emerged in the last 10
years, especially in the last five years of economic crisis. The impact in
Catalonia has been to help send independence sentiment over 50%, and to
strengthen it in Euskadi.
In Galicia, the effect has
been the opposite, as if nationalist sentiment were a luxury item, affordable only in the
good times. National sentiment has declined to the point that only 19% of the
population describe themselves as “Galician” or “more Galician than Spanish”.
Over the years of the crisis, the percentage of Galicians believing that the
region needs more autonomy from the Spanish state has fallen (from 46% in 2007
to 21% today) while those supporting less powers for Galicia has risen (from 3%
in 2005 to 26% today). Support for the right to independence, never higher than
8% (1994), has fallen to 3%.
The end result is that the balance of forces between
nationalism and Spanish centralism is weakest in Galicia. This creates a
permanent pressure that puts Galician nationalism on the defensive and makes
“Hispanicism” the worst crime of which political rivals in the nationalist camp
can be accused.
Opening debate
Before confronting the discussion of its basic
political character the Anova congress had first to work out how to elect its
75-strong national coordinating committee from the 171 nominations received.
Differences over method produced an acrimonious first session.
The proposal in the draft standing orders was for
the coordinating committee to be elected on the basis of the relative support
received by competing lists (slates), a system that would have helped ensure
representation to the most organised currents within the new organisation.
While supported by Brotherhood Assembly (EI) leaders the proposal sparked
strong rejection from the non-aligned delegates, from some sections of EI and
from members of organisations like the Galician Popular Front (FPG) and the Rank-and-File Movement (MPB).
(While members of these and other currents
participate in Anova on an individual basis — a rejection of the BNG’s front
structure — “old” patriotisms were still alive and on show at the congress.)
The delegates voted to reject the proposed list
system of election in favour of voting for individual members of the
coordinating committee.
But how? Four options next emerged: to vote for up
to the full 75 positions; to vote for up to 36 positions (48% of the total,
regarded as a guarantee against one group gaining a majority); to vote for up
to 36 positions but with the final result adjusted to ensure gender equality
and no absolute majority for any single group; and for the coordinating
committee to be elected not by congress but through local Anova assemblies.
A sign of the high degree of difference present was
that in the initial count these options respectively won the following votes:
185, 166, 202 and 146. The position finally adopted, in favour of a vote of up
to 36 positions with the result corrected for gender equality and to avoid
group domination, was carried 201 to 146, with 24 abstentions.
The most heated moment came next, when the presiding
committee, after a 10-minute huddle, decided that the decision represented a
constitutional change and would hence require a two-thirds majority. However,
when their ruling was put to the incensed congress it was voted down.
The congress also voted that the position of
national spokesperson would be, this time only, elected directly by congress,
and not from the coordinating committee. In a later speech, Beiras, the one
candidate, made clear his disagreement with this decision (“the spokesperson
should be part of the collective elected leadership.”)
Which party-movement?
This opening session, which the local conservative
media reported under headlines like “Anova launches congress with bitter
internal clash”, exposed the fact that many differing expectations lay beneath
the shared concept of “new, horizontal, party-movement”.
In the discussion of the 49 amendments to the organisational resolution
and statutes that had
been passed on from earlier workshop sessions to the plenary, and indicative
moment was the vote on an amendment that would have made local assemblies
responsible for candidate pre-selections for all levels of government. It
carried by simple majority, but failed to get the two-thirds majority needed to
change the statutes, provoking boos and catcalling. A lot of other amendments
had the same fate.
Nonetheless, where enough unaffiliated delegates
could be persuaded of their sense, a number of constitutional amendments were
carried. For example, local assemblies will now be able to amalgamate at the
regional level, and also establish their own working groups at levels below
that of local council areas.
Anova will now also aim to implant itself in all
Galician-speaking regions (as well as in the Galician diaspora), meaning that
it may develop a presence in Castilla-Leon and Asturias, the autonomous
communities (states) bordering on Galicia.
On the sensitive issue of double membership — strongly
opposed by some younger delegates as against the need to build up
identification with Anova — the congress voted to allow it to continue, on the
understanding that single membership will only become feasible as the
organisation matures and acquires “a common language and practice”.
The sign of what had been a difficult debate was
that the organisational document as amended was adopted by 56.1% to 36.8%, with
7.2% abstaining and the remainder not voting.
Which alliance
policy?
The discussion on the political resolution, where 55
amendments had been forwarded from the workshops, focussed on alliance policy.
It was tense to the point that Beiras, who had said nothing in the congress to
date, felt he had to intervene in support of a compromise proposal.
The original draft political resolution explained
the broad front that Anova proposes like this:
“Anova
considers that the broad front proposal must be maintained for other areas of
political action [besides the Galician parliament] with the same character as
set down [in the founding congress] last July: a call to unity in action around
programmatic proposals, aimed at nationalism and the left, with a
non-exclusionary character. It is desirable that the concrete form of unity in
action in various spheres expand the range of collaborators, but it may also be
the case that alliances with different actors are worked out for different
spheres.”
In the pre-congress discussion in the local Anova
assemblies the “alliances with different actors” proposed included building a
broad left and left-nationalist front on the basis of the AGE experience (in
Galicia but for some also at the level of the Spanish State), creating a
coalition of Galician left nationalist forces, and creating a broad coalition
of left nationalist forces with others (Catalan , Basques and possibly
Valencians, and Balearic and Canary Islanders), at the level of the Spanish
state.
Anova Teo, supported by many of the younger
delegates, envisaged building on the alliance with the United Left that had
produced AGE, with any future agreement with other forces like the Galician Nationalist Bloc (BNG) to be an addition, and not
alternative, to that.
Within Brotherhood Assembly (EI), the most numerous
force in Anova, the majority favoured alliances among nationalist forces, but
some favoured the perspective of a coalition with the Republican Left of
Catalunya (ERC), Amaiur (the Basque left-nationalist formation in the Spanish
parliament) and the BNG, while others leant towards a Galicia-only coalition of
Anova, BNG and CxG.
In his closing speech as newly elected spokeperson,
Beiras took care to praise the harmony and process of “osmosis” taking place in
the AGE parliamentary fraction (composed of four Anova and five United Left
deputies), “We work as a single parliamentary caucus, instead of two who are
cohabiting.” At the same time, “I would dare to say, without making Yolanda
Díaz [United Left leader, present as observer at the congress] a little
uncomfortable, that the process of working together is leading EU Galicia to
adopt with increasing clarity the Galician nation and the Galician people as a
political framework.”
Beiras also remarked that Anova had “maximum
responsibility” towards the 200,000 Galicians who had voted for AGE, and that
“Anova stands above the separate projects of its component parts”.
However, he stressed that any electoral alliance was
secondary to the basic broad front envisaged by Anova — that with “the
citizenry in revolt” and the social movements expressing it. Strengthening
their rebellion would require social and electoral alliances with all forces
that are for breaking with the status quo and who see themselves as
“Galicianist and left”, an indication that the Anova spokesperson could still
envisage alliance with the BNG and other nationalist currents.
The compromise amendment made a “full and total”
commitment to reproducing the AGE model in future instances, but where this was
not possible, did not rule out Anova exercising its right to construct other
alliances. This stance of not closing off options is particularly relevant for
the 2014 European elections, where an alliance of left-nationalist forces from
Galicia, Euskadi and Catalonia would stand a good chance of winning increased
representation in the European parliament.
After Beiras’s intervention, the compromise motion
passed with only two delegates against. Noriega afterwards commented, “In the
end a synthesis was reached in which the role of AGE is recognised, and, in
fact, the paragraph is all Teo in that it recognises [AGE] positively, says it
must be deepened and tried to be expanded”, even while “Anova will maintain its
sovereignty in defending its position in the electoral process”.
The other main area where there were significant
amendments was in the area of language policy. The draft political resolution’s
perspective of moving towards monolinguism in the Galician tongue and “paying
attention to our being part of the Portuguese-Galician language system” was
concretised. Anova is now committed to move to Galician as the language of
instruction in the education system (as with Catalan in the Catalan education
system), in parallel with the promotion of Portuguese language and culture in
the education system and in Galician society.
The discussion over whether Anova should explicitly
identify as socialist ended in broad agreement with the term of identification
“republican socialist”.
The final vote on the political resolution saw a
much broader majority in favour than had been the case for the organisational
document.
Election for
coordinating committee
Despite all the shenanigans over method of election
and despite the defeat of the Anova Teo amendment to the political resolution,
Martiño Noriega emerged as easily the most voted member of the incoming
coordinating committee. All organised forces with the exception of the New Galician Left (NEG) achieved representation on
it. The NEG, a split from the most Galicianist part of the Party of Socialists
of Galicia, missed out because it refused to negotiate for representation on
any of the four unofficial how-to-votes circulating at the time of the vote.
The gender balance of 38 men and 37 women was
achieved by dropping the last six male candidates with a winning vote in favour
of the six next female candidates.
According to the web site Galicia
Confidential, 36 positions on the
coordinating committee were won by the EI majority, 10 to 15 by Anova Teo and
its sympathisers, 25 according to the how-to-vote proposed by the Galician
Popular Front, and the rest by the smaller groups and independents.
That balance was maintained for the coordinating
committee executive proposed by Beiras at the first coordinating committee
meeting on June 28, and subject to approval by local assemblies.
Conclusion
The tensions on show at the Anova congress arise
from deep within the progressive pole of Spanish and Galician politics and were
a partial microcosm of those operating across the left in the Spanish state.
One the one hand, given the success of AGE and with the United Left and AGE
continuing to rise in the polls, the pressures for unity between the all-Spanish
left and left nationalist forces, and between the “old” left and social
movements, just keeps growing.
Such unity is the sine qua non for creating a “Spanish Syriza” — a credible
alternative to the decaying but still kicking PP-PSOE duopoly.
One the other, unity cannot be achieved without
compromise and the question for all sides involved is how much and on what
positions to compromise to achieve it. That reality is creating debate within
all forces, of which the Anova congress was the latest reflection.
For example, here is how United Left national MP and
indignado Alberto Garzón put the
issue as it affects the United Left (in the May 26 edition of the web
site Nuevo Mundo): “I believe that [the
United Left] should reproduce and improve on the phenomenon of Galicia. Many of
us are for that line, but not everyone, that’s true. It is a slow, difficult
process, but running in our favour is the drive from society. Right now the
organisation [United Left, IU] is slow compared to how the most spontaneous
parts of society react socially, like the Platform of Mortgage Victims (PAH),
15M and other movements that are two steps ahead of IU’s official position.”
In a diagnosis similar to that which gave rise to
Anova, Garzón added: “People need an instrument: either IU turns itself into
that instrument, or, if not, people will look for another one. For this IU
needs to show that it is attractive, show that it can bring people together
through a process of refounding …the important things is to draw people around
a project and not the banner we carry.”
Yolanda Díaz, United Left coordinator in Galicia has
a similar approach, commenting that that United Left remained committed to
expanding AGE as a broad front of the “plural left” and “the alternative to
Feijóo”, even if Anova “legitimately, decided to run in another form in the
European elections”.
Within Anova, the pressure to keep distance from the
United Left remains strong. According to Beiras in his interview with La Voz de Galicia:, “AGE’s electoral
success ended up being a problem for Anova, because it monopolised our
attention and part of the membership turned the relationship upside down,
giving more importance to AGE when it is just a coalition in the parliament.
Then what do you do? A baby, Anova, has just been born and we let it die of
hunger? EU-IU has a strategic project that is not ours. If we starve Anova,
they would drag us to the point the BNG used to tendentiously accuse us of
reaching — of going over to an Hispanicist outlook.”
(Concern about being seen as appendage of the United
Left was on show in the week before the Anova congress, when Beiras chose not to
show for a Madrid meeting with United Left leader Cayo Lara and Syriza national
spokeperson Alex Tsipras. The poster advertising the event listed Beiras from
AGE, not Anova.)
Where is all this heading? Galicia Confidential´s report
had a rather gloomy reading — of a congress divided in two — and commented:
“The wound opened at this gathering will be take time to close. The only
medicine capable of healing it is called Xosé Manuel Beiras.”
Four factors could possibly weigh against this
conclusion. While the 77-year old Beiras is presently indispensable, his
message that “Anova as a project exists over and above the interests of its
segmented components” is reinforced by four realities:
* The fact that the great majority of Anova activists,
whatever their affiliation, call themselves “Beiristas”;
* The pressure to defend and extend the gains represented
by AGE;
* The extremely democratic nature of the Anova
decision-making process, which involved over 50 local meetings and gave the
final decisions of the congress total authority;
* The reality that, for the first time in the Spanish
state, different component parts of the revolt against neoliberalism and
austerity actually find themselves in the
same organisation and having to deal with, and not just dismiss, each
other’s positions.
In this context, one encouraging feature of the
congress was the presence of delegates who were not uncritically aligned to any
of the various groupings and whose weight was sufficient to achieve sensible
results on a range of issues.
In his closing speech, made after the delegates
had heard from Galician social movement representatives, Beiras made a point of
stressing the value of all components of Anova, and of asking each and every
one to appreciate the contribution of all.
In particular, he took pains to explain to the
younger delegates, “who often criticise the old culture”, the value of the
older militants who had battled on within left-nationalism for up to 50 years
and had never “crossed the border to the PP or the PSOE” or to soft jobs in
Galician government.
Against the visceral anti-partyism so common in
Spain he explained that the process of building Anova had shown the difference
between parties as apparatuses and parties as collective and organised
expression of the aspirations of the people in struggle.
The congress ended with powerful singing of Grandola, Vila Morena, the hymn to
people’s power associated with the 1974 Portuguese revolution, and of the
Galician national anthem.
Galicia is often dismissed in Spanish political life
as rather irrelevant and provincial compared to Madrid, Barcelona, the Basque
Country and Andalusia. With the rise of Anova and AGE — the highest expressions
to date of left and left-nationalist unity here — Spain’s most Celtic region
may well put that prejudice to rest for once and for all.
[Dick Nichols is the European correspondent of Green Left Weekly and Links International Journal of Socialist
Renewal. He attended the Anova congress as representative of the Australian
Socialist Alliance.]
Comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.