From European crisis to European democracy

Following the eurozone crisis on twitter is depressing. Journalists and market analysts take you on their rollercoaster ride, which has few peaks and many plunges. Any news is an opportunity to predict the worst case scenario: from #grexit (Greece’s exit from the euro) to #eurogeddon (you can guess that one). Journalists report the story making sure the full flavour of catastrophe gets to your stomach. They write compelling stories, but too often they mistake likelihood for inevitability. Nothing is inevitable because there are many players and quickly changing conditions. Inevitability speaks of ‘destiny’, not of people, but it is people who act. The solution is within reach, but requires action.

The solution to the crisis is more Europe, not less. Even David Cameron acknowledged this. No doubt this creates a dilemma for British eurosceptics: if Europe fails, the UK will suffer an enormous economic depression; if Europe succeeds, the UK will need to make a decision whether to be in or out of the euro. If the UK chooses to stay outside, it will lose influence and will be affected by decisions taken elsewhere. However, the main political parties have been carefully avoiding any debate on Europe. After all, politicians struggle to see beyond their constituency’s borders, never mind seeing beyond national borders. It is comforting to treat Europe as ‘foreign’ and blame the euro for the eurozone crisis. However, the crisis, set in motion by the banking meltdown in the US, has merely uncovered the weaknesses of the banking sector, the lack of dynamic work environment and the abyss of government deficits across Europe.

The recession, or depression, brought unemployment and cuts to services opening the door to a resurgence of petty nationalism. “Why should we pay for the Greeks?” thunder newspapers. They fiddled the figures, mismanaged European funds, and spent way beyond their means. Are they deserving of a bailout? The technicalities of how the system of cheap credit worked and how ‘strong economies’ effectively exploited ‘weak economies’ by acting as a closed economy within a common currency don’t impress anyone. ‘Simple’ truths of ‘strong’ and ‘weak’, ‘sinful profligacy’ and ‘fiscal probity’, or of ‘culturally/technologically advanced’ and ‘cultural/economic backwardness’ are easier to understand.

A recent BBC documentary ^↑ by Michael Portillo, former Conservative Minister and diehard eurosceptic, framed the eurozone crisis in such terms. He focused on Germany and Greece and argued that a common currency could not work with partners so diverse economically and culturally. Time and time again, he asked people whether they wanted to keep the euro or return to their old currency. All interviewees chose the euro. Portillo failed to hear what people were saying. One German interviewee spoke against further bailouts to Greece, but he expressly said that he was against unless Greece made changes. German interviewees were not opposed to bailout as long as Greece implemented reforms; the Greeks were not blaming Germany, but their own politicians.

Politicians across Europe have so far failed to communicate a vision for Europe. They have sought to follow the moods of the public rather than to shape them. Europeans do not want Europe to fail, but Europe cannot rest solely on the actions of the German Chancellor, the French President, or the President of the European Central Bank. The eurozone alone counts 17 governments. It is for European citizens to take responsibility of European democracy. When the UN Agenda 21 for sustainable development was launched, many groups were organized at the local as well as international level to find practical ways to live with respect for our natural environment. It is in those groups, those relationships, that we can practice democracy.

Democracy is more than a constitution, more than a carefully designed parliamentary system, more than elections. Democracy is the day to day work of living in communities, through family, friends, colleagues and acquaintances, of discussing but also of taking responsibility for our communities. Living democratically requires from us commitment and the openness to learn that things are more complex than what they seem, that we need to compromise between different interests and ideas, and that decisions affect people differently. It calls us to create a common future. It is incumbent on us all to work towards a Europe that reflects our visions. The time has come for a European Agenda to build the Europe of the future.

Copyright 2012 openDemocracy

http://www.opendemocracy.net/francesca-es-montemaggi/from-european-crisis-to-european-democracy

The Politics We Need

I’m not ecstatic about Hollande’s victory, but it might mean a more decisive move towards growth, which started back in March (partly as a result of Mario Monti’s push). Growth, however, is not given by spending per se. There is a difference between spending on all the things that western European states have been providing generously to people, and investment spending. We need to spend on people, by offering proper training and learning (see post on education). This need not come from the purse of government alone. It is in the interest of industry too, so partnerships are needed. We also need investment in ‘infrastructure’, be it broadband, high speed rail or other. We also need reform across Europe, not simply of the welfare state, but of professions. We need to tackle rent-seeking, which limit access to people and stifle economic productivity.

I’m not hearing anything sensible from Labour apart from moaning against ‘cuts’ and a general appeal to growth, because they’ve heard it from somebody else. They brand themselves as ‘With you in tough times’. That’s speaks of lack of vision and leadership. If they had a better grasp of economics, they would start talking Europe and immigration. Immigration is the best sign of growth and the best means to grow. I’m not denying the cultural and social problems that can stem from it. However, by being ‘tough’ on immigration, we only get illegal immigration (not less immigration) and condemn people to exploitation by ruthless criminals who demand money for the journey here and from the work they do.

The main parties don’t care because being sensible on immigration is not a vote winner whilst xenophobia is. The rhetoric against immigrants is engulfing the whole of Europe. In times of crisis, reactionary nationalism shows all its mediocrity and viciousness. (Nationalism is not patriotism, but that’s for another post!) That’s why Europe is treated as just another word for ‘foreigner’. ‘Europe’ is becoming toxic because it is blamed for the crisis. The crisis has unveiled the failures of member states: corrupt and inept political classes (Italy, Greece…), rent-seeking, an often burdensome and ineffective welfare state, and inadequate education systems, not to mention the lack of transparency of the banking system.

I have been in politics for ten years and I have never seen vision and courage. Politicians need to win elections to change things, so they often aim for the lowest common denominator. We’ve run out of excuses, action is needed now. As long as citizens don’t take responsibility, democracy will fail. By being responsible for the decision affecting a collective, we learn that things are more complex than what they seem, that you need to compromise between different interests and ideas.

Democracy is not about getting ‘services’ in exchange for money; it’s about relating to others. Politics has not made that step yet. It’s tribal, childish, cliquey and imprisoned in a mediatic bubble. Perhaps we need different types of politicians and leaders at different times. Right now, we need leaders with a vision and able to communicate that vision. We need people able to translate complexity into a message that is easy to understand. The art of politics is not winning elections, but lifting the spirits of people and turning them into citizens. Politics is a moral endeavour.

Not Against Gay-Marriage, Just Marriage

It’s not that I’m against gay marriage, I’m against marriage. I have nothing against people (of whatever sexual orientation) getting married religiously or wanting their relationship to be recognised publicly. What I don’t get is why the law should grant rights and privileges on the basis of a sexual relationship. I much prefer the now forgotten Italian proposals, whereby the rights and privileges enjoyed by married couples were to be extended to couples regardless of whether they had a sexual relationship or not. Friends, relatives, maybe carers, could have a piece of paper granting them certain rights and privileges.

Why can’t we have off-the-shelf contracts for this? Why should sex give you a privileged position? The protection and upbringing of children is an important and difficult area. Their interest should be paramount. I can hear the screams of those who would be horrified by the thought of two friends or relatives, or (God forbid!) three people bringing up children … cos that never happens right? I’m not outlining a legal framework, but it would be nice to have a discussion on what rights, duties and privileges should arise from relationships. Take carers: they form an important relationship where both the carer and the person receiving care can be in a vulnerable position. Carer and cared-for might live together, or not, what arrangements could be made available? Yes, one can always get an expensive contract, but the choice is limited.

I’m arguing for cheaper and easier contracts for all. 

Marriage is the only contract for which you don’t know the ‘terms & conditions’ until it ends. Unbeknown to couples, those terms change throughout the years and depending on country of residence (not where you got married!). By all means, keep the ‘marriage contract’, but people should be able to pick the terms (whilst avoiding harm to the partner/s or third parties) and should be able to modify the terms during their life together. Why not?

Elections are so last century!

Last winter I was doing surveys around the ward to meet residents and find out what problems affected them. People were friendly and responsive. Then, the campaign started and everything changed. I had a first-hand experience of ‘anti-politics’. I picked up a significant dislike of the Lib Dems, which had nothing to do with specific policies, but a sense of betrayal. People wanted to protest.

I share the frustration although not the sense of 'betrayal' (see post Coalitions Are Not Marriages). I oppose a lot of what the current UK government is doing, especially its economic policies and its non-relationship with Europe. I also feel powerless, especially before the spectacular incompetence and small-minded mediocrity shown by Merkel, Cameron & Sarkozy. No wonder people across Europe are going for ‘less political’ politicians, such as the Piratenpartei in Germany, Grillo in Italy, Le Pen in France etc. The issue, however, is not distrust, but participation.

For far too long the political establishment (=central government) has accepted that referenda, local, regional, European elections are an opinion ‘poll’ about national government. This has made a mockery of local, regional and European democracy. The national government should indeed be held into account, but mostly for failing to make democracy work. A cross on a ballot paper every 4-5 years is not enough. Representative democracy should be about the strategic and long term vision for the city, region, country, European Union. But it needs to be supplemented by deliberative democracy, or  'direct democracy'.

Deliberative democracy should be about the every day issues, problems and opportunities. People appreciate the work done to improve their local area (alley-gating, street-lighting, refuse collection, street maintenance), but these are not seen as political. Indeed, they are not, so why on earth do we need elected councillors to deal with them? I asked for area committees back in 2004. There was some sort of plan but these things cost so it came to nothing. I don't think the stumbling block is money, but people who are willing to make work on local issues and work out solutions. It's about being proactive and form relationships to get things done.

Democracy is not about having 'a voice', but being empowered. All those street-watches, residents’ associations, churches and voluntary organisations are the places where people form relationships, take responsibility and act. Responsibility is the backbone of democracy. The ‘res publica’, the public sphere, is not just a responsibility of politicians, but of all of us. As I said in a speech in Council, we are all ‘political animals’, in the sense that we are all in relationships and responsible for collective life. We are all in communities, through family, friends, colleagues and acquaintances. We all have something we feel strongly about, no matter whether it's a 'local' or 'international' issue. Delegating it to others is very last century. Now that we've done with the voting, we need to start with the real action.

So, keep fighting because there's always something worth fighting for!

The Trouble with Democracy

I expected to lose the elections, so I'm not at all surprised I did. The turnout was down to 32% (in my ward, Grangetown), which means 68% are not interested in local politics. The predictable results across Cardiff were more an opinion poll on the national government than a choice of representatives on the Council. Indeed, on the doorstep I had many people saying they liked what we've done in Cardiff & Grangetown, but wouldn't vote for us because of the Westminster government.


This is a problem. Not for me because I'm happy I had the opportunity to serve and change things for the better for eight years. I have also received very sincere praise from my political 'opponents' over the years. So I'm satisfied. The problem is one to do with democracy.

If voting is used as a way to voice an opinion, rather than choosing representatives, representative democracy loses legitimacy. It highlights the following issues:

- People want to express their opinions and influence government, but the only chance they get is by putting a cross on a ballot paper every so often.

- People do not follow the local news or do not feel a particular attachment to the locality. This is partly to do with the economics of the media (little space for niche and independent media etc.). But also on how the media select, present stories, and reaches its audience. There will be people who do not think they're interested in the local picture, but they might want to know about issues that have a local aspect. They need to be targeted differently (perhaps through online communities).

- If voting is unrelated to actual performance (be it if national issues impinge on local elections or the other way round), then I fear political parties will fall prey of short-term visions that follow the national 'narrative' rather than what is needed locally.

The way democracy is today is most unsatisfactory. It's not the 'fault' of political parties, the media or the electorate (although they are all culpable in part!). We are at the height of a technological revolution, which will take a long time to unravel. The democracy of tomorrow will be very different. I hope we'll see a deepening of democracy rather than a descent into populism. The only way to do that is for every single one of us to take responsibility and work for all the communities which we inhabit.