Esplanade is Can Europe make it? editor's blog, a space for reflection and debate about a better Europe.

The democratic game – when it gets serious
David Krivanek
02/16/2013 - 17:35

Protesters oppose a far right rally in Berlin. Demotix/Thorsten Strasas. All rights reserved.
Protesters oppose a far right rally in Berlin. Demotix/Thorsten Strasas. All rights reserved.

One of the most interesting articles we have published this week on Can Europe make it? was Benjamin Ward's piece on hatred and intolerance in Europe. The author is deputy director of Human Rights Watch's Europe and Central Asia division: his opinion is therefore an informed and thoughtful one.

The progressive adoption of ideas that were once those of the far right by mainstream right wing (and sometimes left wing) politicians is worrying, yes, but also one of the most intriguing examples of how ideas and elements of language travel around the political spectrum over time.

When previously ostracised factions such as Marine Le Pen's National Front and Jobbik become the third parties in France and Hungary, respectively (both backed by roughly 15% of voters in the last elections), it is no wonder mainstream politicians look with envy. Electoral lust is predictable - part of the democratic game. But the situation becomes a source of shame when the mainstream reneges on its own principles to fully embrace formerly radical narratives, inevitably leading to the adoption of extreme solutions and rhetoric. Events on the ground follow swiftly. Sarkozy (and now Hollande) have deported Roma, Viktor Orban's government has taken anti-intellectualism as a motto and the Greek police are suspected of torturing anti-austerity and anti-Golden Dawn...

Read on

A wimpish speech
David Krivanek
01/24/2013 - 18:39

So, which flag will you choose Dave? Demotix/Allesandro Serranò. All rights reserved.
So, which flag will you choose Prime Minister? Demotix/Allesandro Serranò. All rights reserved.

In France, there is a saying that roughly translates to ‘the mountain gave birth to a mouse’. Given the amount of anticipation and scope of the challenge it was supposed to address, the speech Mr Cameron delivered yesterday was a shrewmouse.

Now to give the Prime Minister some credit, his analysis of what plagues the EU today (the instability of the Eurozone, the problem of competing in a globalised world, and the democratic deficit) was honest and fairly accurate. His speech was most carefully balanced, at the price of lacking passion (but we are, of course, talking about David Cameron here). That's for the positive.

Now for a long, long list of what didn't work. The main problem with this speech, as is obvious now that the commentocracy has closed in, is that it ultimately doesn't satisfy anybody. The Prime Minister's intention was to address the question of withdrawal in a way that would silence discussion for a while, at least until the planned referendum's campaign kicks in, to buy time to renegotiate EU membership in a way more compatible with British demands. In that, it failed – and it might prove to be a deadly gamble for Cameron.

On the domestic scene, this is a huge victory for the UK Independence Party and the Eurosceptic wing of the Conservative Party. They forced the PM to seriously consider an option that he described as ‘mad’ only a few weeks ago. Cameron's move gave UKIP both credibility and the most shoo-in electoral platform in recent times for the 2015 elections.

Did the PM at least manage to shush dissent among his own troupes? Like many Eurosceptic Tories, Peter Bone almost couldn't believe his luck, telling The Spectator, "A year ago, if I had said to you the Prime Minister is going to renegotiate the terms of the EU towards a Common Market and then put it to the...

Read on

Lessons from the periphery
David Krivanek
12/11/2012 - 14:20

Flickr/Niccolò Caranti. Some rights reserved.
Flickr/Niccolò Caranti. Some rights reserved.

In 2008, after the crash that wrecked their country's economy, the people of Iceland took to the streets to voice their anger at a political system that had betrayed them by supporting an unsustainable bubble.

In 2012, members of Estonian civil society – academics, activists and artists – launched an initiative dubbed Charter 12 to protest an increasingly corrupt and out of touch political elite. "Harta 12" was met with tremendous success, with thousands of the small republic's citizens signing the online petition.

In both cases, what Estonians and Icelanders demanded was huge, and yet so simple: more democratic control of their country's economies and institutions, to be more closely associated to future decisions and prevent similar economic and political meltdowns from happening again. Due to massive popular adhesion, local politicians simply could not ignore these demands and had to – gasp! – listen to what their citizens were saying.

Icelanders got a new, crowdsourced constitution that has been drafted by regular citizens and subsequently approved by a landslide referendum this October, while Estonians will get to profoundly amend their own constitution in an open, transparent and similarly crowdsourced process.

This is a huge victory for democracy in Europe – and arguably a glimpse into the future of western political systems. But it seems that no one in Brussels got the memo. Even if hundred of thousands in Madrid, London or Paris call for basic, participatory rights in European decisions, European institutional reform remains a laughably opaque process. What can you do when the most radical proposition you will hear in...

Read on