He spent his adolescence having breakfast in the dining hall of Balliol College in Oxford, the grand hall later immortalized by Harry Potter. There he studied Political Science, Philosophy, and Economics, intellectual baggage essential to understand a region far removed from British classicism: Latin America. His journalistic career began 43 years ago writing as a freelancer in Lima. From there, to 'The Guardian' and the 'BBC' covering the Andean region.
Q. Michael, you have been studying Spain and the Spanish people for many years and have even written books about our country. How would you describe this time? Are we facing the most socially tense moment you can remember?
M.R. Well, it's not a good moment due to the tension, due to the constant confrontation in the political world. I would say that, and this is somewhat worrying, that most Spaniards have disconnected from that political world, which implies a disconnection from democracy. The first time I came to this country was in 1971, when Franco was still alive. Obviously, I was a student, I talked a lot with young people my age, Spaniards, and I felt very fortunate because I didn't have to take the risks they took in fighting for democracy. Much has been achieved, but the last 15 years have been difficult. I think that Spain still has the capacity to, hopefully, regain a bit more cordiality and understanding in the political world.
Q. Xavier, this process of deterioration, as Michael calls it, which we have also seen in other countries. Have you also felt the same upon your return to Spain after living 12 years in Russia?
X.C. Yes. Unfortunately, yes. Sometimes, I even see some parallels between the early years of Putinism and the years we are living now. Because the early years of Putinism were also years in which the regime tried to convey to the people that the forms were not so important, that the letter of the law was not fundamental, and that there was nothing to fear about it, that is, that nothing would happen. In those years, the population faced a situation where they were told: "What do you want? Do you want the rules to be strictly followed or do you want what you want to happen?" After all, there is a majority. And since there is a majority, the letter of the law does not matter because the majority embodies the spirit of the law in any case. And as seen in Russia, these are paths that are difficult to reverse. Because power, by nature, whether left-wing, right-wing, United Russia, the Communist Party, the PP, or the PSOE, power is always vicious.
M.R. I compare it to Latin America because much of my professional work has been there, and Latin America can boast of having invented modern urban populism in the figures of Juan and Eva Perón. The leader asserts a direct essential link with the people, in quotes, the people, not the citizens. And there is an important difference because it is the leader who defines who the people are and who the enemies are. And he begins to take over independent institutions, checks and balances, civil society, especially the judiciary, the electoral authority, and the media. Fortunately, institutionalism in Spain, as a result of that national effort to become a European, modern, democratic country, is stronger than in some Latin American countries.
X.C. The problem is that populism is always seen as a disease that manifests from power to the people, but then it also manifests from the people to power and to the rest of the people. That is why it is so important to insist on the idea that power is never better than its checks and balances. The checks and balances are never worse than power. Even the judiciary, the press, or non-governmental organizations, with all their flaws, are always better than those in power. And I am not so concerned about the colonization of institutions. What concerns me is the normalization that people make of each of the steps that are taken. And that is what has happened in Russia. In Russia, sometimes I am asked: "Is it the war of the Russians or Putin's war?" I am always quite lenient with Russia and the Russians, and I say, "No, it is Putin's war, it is a war that came out of his head, that he did not consult with anyone, and it is a war that the Russians did not expect and did not want and now they want it to end as soon as possible." But instead, we do say that it is Putin's regime and it is also the Russians' regime. Putin's regime, and here the Russians are involved, they have co-constructed it. And it has been built with the approval of the people, with the self-justification of the people. There are a lot of traps that we as citizens set for ourselves, and it is on these traps that a populist, authoritarian system is built, which we then say has no turning back.
"We don't have to kill cockroaches, but turn on the light so people see where they hide"
Q. With all the years you have been in the profession, Michael, do you think it is now more difficult than before to do our job?
M.R. Doing journalism has become more difficult than before but is more necessary than ever. There are places in the world where journalists pay with their lives for practicing their profession. Those of us who are fortunate not to work in that environment should never forget that. But above all, it is more difficult because of the impact of the technological revolution on our profession. I heard a Catalan communication expert say this a few months ago: "It's not that there is a disintermediation of the media, there is a reintermediation in which traditional media are replaced by algorithms." And that makes it much more difficult for us, but I trust, we have to adapt to the changes in the way in which young people, especially, absorb information and receive information and consume information. But I still believe in the basic disciplines of journalism: trying to establish the facts, analyze them, and distinguish between truth and lies. That remains fundamental, and I believe there is still a demand from the citizens.
Q. Xavier, you had to leave Moscow within 24 hours after 12 years of practicing your profession there due to a call from an official. I ask you the same question: Is it more difficult to do journalism today?
X.C. Yes, a few days ago in Berlin, I was discussing with a Canadian journalist who was very unhappy that there were still Western journalists in Moscow. I understood some of his reasons because it is true that the presence of Western journalists, European journalists, North Americans, foreigners in Moscow, in a way validates the regime because the regime says: "You have foreign journalists in Washington, we have foreign journalists in Moscow," as if it were exactly the same, as if we were under the same pressures. And that is true, in a way, the regime plays with us. But it is also true that to understand the war in Ukraine, it is very important to understand Putin's Russia. We have to talk about Russia. We should not cancel Russian information; on the contrary, we should talk more. It is as if we were beating oncologists because we are unhappy with cancer. People will understand the need for democracy when they are convinced that dictatorship does not work. Our function is not to kill cockroaches but to turn on the light so that people see where they run to hide. We cannot do anything, just illuminate. The work of journalists who write about Russia is to explain the true face of the dictatorship, a dictatorship that insists with its propaganda media on posing as effective when it is not, as efficient when it is not efficient. They try to present themselves to African countries or Latin American countries as anti-colonial when in reality, they are the last colonial power with an ongoing colonial war. Moscow tries to present itself as anti-fascist to young Europeans when in reality, the biggest fascist power right now is Russia.
Q. Michael, is that world you saw being built when you dreamed of being a journalist in the 70s crumbling?
M. R. Yes, undoubtedly. And it is a world that has returned to a competition among several powers. Some people say we are in a second Cold War. I disagree with that because today the battle is not ideological as it was back then. It resembles more the situation at the beginning of the 20th century, a competition among several powers. Why does the war arise in Syria? Because Russia is weakened by its losses in Ukraine. And wars arise in other places, in part because the United States is weakened compared to 25 years ago. So, we have a much more fluid world, with much less certainty.
X. C. Putin, in a way, claims that world that emerged from World War II. He wants to return to Yalta, where big countries decide for the small ones. Yalta was a post-war solution, a solution to an invasion. But in Putin's mind, we had to live in a constant Yalta. That is, the U.S. and Russia now have to be continuously deciding for everyone. Everything that happened after Yalta is seen as a tradition of Yalta. And that can even include the European Union.
P. Both return to live in Spain after having lived abroad. Do they like that perspective?
M. R. I really like Madrid, I really like Spain. And my wife, who is Peruvian, loves living in her language. I am also happy in London, but we will be a little bit between the two. I have a lot of affection for this country, and I think you can live well here. At my age, that matters.
X. C. For me, Madrid is perhaps the best city to cope with having lost Moscow because it has some common points. In Russia, the equivalent of Barcelona would be St. Petersburg, and Moscow would be Madrid. So, I return here to that pair.