There is a growing feeling that the forces and events which shape our lives are out of control – certainly beyond the reach of the controls exercised by democratic governments. That politicians – when in government, but increasingly in opposition as well – have become powerless. To hide this, they become marketeers whose task it is to sell to the voters the current version of TINA – There Is No Alternative. Instead of voting being a choice between different directions that can affect one’s own life and that of others, it is felt to be a sort of theatre, or entertainment, which will make little difference. It is coming to be seen as an exercise in fatalism. The result is falling participation rates in elections and growing extra-parliamentary activity, including violent demonstrations.
The EU – agent or master of globalisation?
The key to explaining this paradox is globalisation. The international character of economic and political interdependence is nothing new. But now it is being combined with the spectacular development of new technologies, information and communication technology in particular, to create a new phenomenon which people are now struggling to come to grips with around the world. But each major region is doing so in its own way. The institutional debate that many European Union officials are now calling for must be our response to globalisation.
Voter turnout in national elections in Europe, though falling, may still be much higher than in the United States. But, except in countries where voting is compulsory, participation across the Union in our European Parliament elections is often lower than American levels. The 34 per cent turnout in the Irish referendum which recently rejected the Nice Treaty on enlargement was a warning to us all. As Paul Gillespie pointed out in the second issue of openDemocracy, a process which has delivered peace and unprecedented economic growth shows little sign of arousing positive public support anywhere across the continent.
The main reason for this is the failure of the EU to measure up publicly to globalisation. Is the European Union an instrument for imposing it upon us, and making its impact all the more inescapable? Or is it a means of gaining some degree of control over it and defending Europe from its adverse aspects?
Voters may be wrong to turn away from traditional national politics. But they are surely right to insist, quietly but in huge numbers, that the EU must address the evident powers and importance of global change, from international corporations to the regulation of trade, finance and communications. This, after all, is in large part what it is about. By all means let us have a discussion on the nature of the European constitution, for example. But it will be a hollow debate unless it tells us how this constitution will help Europeans confront globalisation and make corporations, NGOs, and other international bodies more accountable.
Globalisation – potentially positive
I firmly believe that globalisation is not only inevitable, but, is on the whole potentially positive.
Positive, because it entails a powerful impetus for the increased creation of wealth and prosperity through a deepening division of labour and international cooperation.
Positive again, because the phenomenon has vastly increased the possibility for freedom of speech and expression to bloom. It has opened access to new communication technologies which repressive governments can no longer censor or control. It is now more difficult for perpetrators to cover-up violations of human rights, and for others to ignore such repression without reacting.
But only potentially so, because today the increase of wealth and prosperity is being distributed more unequally than before, between and inside countries and regions as well as globally. Furthermore, a growing number of people face complete marginalisation and risk ending up in abject poverty.
Potential again, because globalisation based on neo-liberal free-market values can intensify environmental damage. It can also be socially damaging, destroying sustainable communities and threatening established welfare systems, which can never be replaced by purely market-based solutions. It can threaten core labour standards and weaken trade unions, as well as national and minority cultures.
A new project is necessary
“All that is solid melts into air.” This description is frequently invoked to characterise our time. In fact it was originally used to describe the world as Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels saw it more than 150 years ago. But the threats and challenges identified in the Communist Manifesto were successfully thwarted and dealt with because new social movements for social justice and democracy – primarily, although not only, the labour movement – were able to harness capitalism through economic and social reforms that laid the foundations for the welfare societies of today’s developed world.
The internationalist credo of the labour movement notwithstanding, this was essentially a national project realized through the democratic institutions of independent and sovereign nation states. A similar project is no longer workable. We live in a world where global market forces (even more threatening because of their anonymity) undermine or dilute the instruments we have historically employed to steer our economies and redistribute wealth. Globalisation thus poses a demand to develop strong new democratic policies and institutions for international and global governance.
It would be nice to be able to say that we have already established the institutions for this. Unfortunately many people see organisations such as the European Union and the World Trade Organisation as being the problem, rather than the solution. If voters are to be persuaded otherwise, it is necessary for these institutions to take a new direction. Their decisions and actions must show that they are helping to take us towards better and more equitable government of the global forces now re-shaping our world.
Not ‘them and us’ but ‘we’
It is imperative that we work hard to bridge the increasing gap between the politics of representative democracy and international organisations on the one hand, and the perceptions of our electorates regarding our ability and will to deliver results on the other.
I do not, however, believe it is enough to arrange well-intentioned dialogues between the governing institutions (the European Commission or Parliament, the WTO, the World Bank) and ‘civil society’ (NGOs, trades unions, activist groups). This kind of dialogue is still based on a ‘Them and Us’ dichotomy.
Instead, we need to bring back the undivided ‘We’ into politics and decision-making. This has to be the shared responsibility of social movements and political parties, not just governments and institutions.
Obviously this does not exclude institutional reforms of the EU especially. On the contrary, it is more pressing than ever. But it should not be proceeded with as an idealistic exercise which is then presented as a gift from above. Rather, it needs to come from the common articulation of solutions that promote social, environmental and economic sustainability. This reform process cannot succeed if it is either ‘top down’ or ‘bottom up’. We now need to reform the government of Europe in the manner with which we intend to continue. A government of equals is the aim, and the reform of its government today must respect the equality of all.
This is not to say that we do not have different interests, perspectives and objectives. But if ecological arguments have achieved anything, they have persuaded people that Europeans share a single continent, which also has planetary responsibilities. The reforms of the EU must address this and be seen to do so. If the European Union does not engage in an open and positive way with globalisation, it will forfeit the right to ask voters for their loyalty and support.
