Europe’s Next Great Mistake

是 否 +2 论坛币

k人 参与回答

经管之家送您一份

应届毕业生专属福利!

求职就业群

赵安豆老师微信：zhaoandou666

经管之家联合CDA

送您一个全额奖学金名额~ !

立即领取

感谢您参与论坛问题回答

经管之家送您两个论坛币！

+2 论坛币

In constructing Europe’s monetary union, political leadersdid not think through all of the implications, which led to major design flaws.Worse, they do not appear to have learned from that experience, for they areabout to take the same approach to the monetary union’s political analogue.
The logic of the financial crisis is driving Europeanstoward greater integration, which implies new mechanisms for politicalexpression.Well before the crisis, the EuropeanUnion was widely perceived to be suffering from a “democraticdeficit.” Now, with many Europeans blaming the EU for painful austeritymeasures, that complaint has grown more powerful – and Europe’s politicalleaders believe that they must act now to address it.
Unfortunately, Europe confronts another deficit: a lack ofpolitical leadership. The charismatic figures ofthe mid-twentieth century – Churchill, Adenauer, and de Gaulle – have no contemporarycounterparts. Citizens associate the EU with, above all, bureaucratic grayness and technocraticrationality.
European officialdom is now responding to these deficitswith an initiative to reform and democratize theEuropean Commission. Current Commission President José Manuel Barroso suggeststhat ideologically like-minded political partiesrunning in the next European Parliament elections should intensify theircooperation in political “families” that would then jointly nominate candidatesfor the Commission presidency. Voters would thus play a more direct role inchoosing a new European chief executive. They would feel as if they wereappointing a government. And politicians would need to beefup their charisma in order to be elected.
This approach has been supported by luminaries such as former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.Because it apparently does not imply any real loss of power for nationalgovernments, it has achieved a certain acceptance and seems close to beingimplemented. But that does not make it a good idea. In particular, theperceived need to channel Europe’s existing political families into a two-partysystem, with social democrats on one side and “people’s parties” on the other,is deeply problematic.
The two-party parliamentary model emerged innineteenth-century Great Britain. Electors chose only a representative for theHouse of Commons, and the majority party then appointed the prime minister. Thecontemporary British comic opera Iolanthe celebrated the fact that “every boy and every galthat’s born into the world alive is either a little Liberal or else a little Conservative.” But what if not every little boyand girl is born that way?
In the stable British model, if a political party is tooradical, it will lose the political center in the next election. The parties’rivalry is healthy, though there is a built-in tendency to seek solutions thatcommand a broad social consensus. But such an institutional outcome is notinevitable (and it probably no longer endures even in contemporary Britain).
British lawyers liked to recommend this model to othercountries. They were especially persuasive in Britain’s former colonies,notably in newly independent African states. The results were disastrous.Citizens could not understand why they should be expected to align theirpolitical preferences along a simple left-right spectrum. Instead, politics wasusually recast in terms of old inter-group orinter-ethnic tensions.
The contemporary United States also is not a compellingdemonstration that competition between two parties leads to increasingmoderation and political centrism. On thecontrary, the partisan struggle can play to the parties’ extremes.
The two-party moderation thesis makes sense only if themain differences concern redistributive preferences in a simple model driven byan almost Marxist kind of economic determinism. The left-wing party wants toredistribute wealth and incomes more, and the right-wing party less; but bothneed to restrain themselves, and in appealing to the median voter, they becomenear-identical alternatives.
In a globally inter-connected world, however, a new politicshas developed, in which both the left and right fringesfear that outside competition or influences will limit their ability to shapepolitical choices. Their main political preference then becomes resistance tothose external threats. The old left-right polarityno longer works.
Artificially creating a new European polity split between left and right would create newstruggles – and intensify old ones – about redistribution. The only thing thatwould hold the left together would be the claim that there should be moreredistribution: but to whom, and according to what mechanism?
Nor is it clear that Spanish socialists have more in commonwith German social democrats than with their fellow nationals. Each ideologicalgrouping would most likely become factionalized along complex national lines –divisions likely to be reflected in the ensuing competition to be charismatic.Instead of encouraging new Churchills and Adenauers, the result might be newimitators of Hitler or Stalin.
There is a better model, one developed in a linguistically,culturally, and religiously diverse test-tube in the geographic heart ofEurope: the Swiss model of Konkordanzdemokratie. In the Swiss system, several partiescompete, but they do not aim to control the government exclusively. Instead,all the major parties are represented in the government, and are consequentlyobliged to hammer out compromises. Members ofthe federal government are driven by regional loyalties at some times, and byideological commitments at other times; they all need to be negotiated whenmaking decisions.
The Swiss solution of electing an all-embracingand balanced government tends to produce boring and uninspiringpolitics. Famously, few people know who even holds Switzerland’s annuallyrotating presidency.
Charismatic politicians act by polarizing, galvanizing, and mobilizing supporters; routinepolitics, by contrast, requires maintaining a low profile and being willing tostrike compromises. Europe today does not need inspirational leaders who can whip up a populist frenzy.Instead, it needs locally respected leaders who are capable of working in acomplex and multi-dimensional political world.

扫码加我 拉你入群

请注明：姓名-公司-职位

以便审核进群资格，未注明则拒绝

分享0 收藏0 回帖

关键词：mistake Europe stake Great euro experience political driving through design

The logic of the financial crisis is driving Europeanstoward greater integration, which implies new mechanisms for politicalexpression.Well before the crisis, the EuropeanUnion was widely perceived to be suffering from a “democraticdeficit.” Unfortunately, Europe confronts another deficit: alack of political leadership.European officialdom is now responding to thesedeficits with an initiative to reform and democratizethe European Commission.Current Commission President José Manuel Barrososuggests that ideologically like-mindedpolitical parties running in the next European Parliament elections shouldintensify their cooperation in political “families” that would then jointlynominate candidates for the Commission presidency.

it apparently does not imply any real loss of powerfor national governments, it has achieved a certain acceptance and seems closeto being implemented. But that does not make it a good idea. In particular, theperceived need to channel Europe’s existing political families into a two-partysystem, with social democrats on one side and “people’s parties” on the other,is deeply problematic.

The two-party moderation thesis makes sense only ifthe main differences concern redistributive preferences in a simple modeldriven by an almost Marxist kind of economic determinism. The left-wing partywants to redistribute wealth and incomes more, and the right-wing party less;but both need to restrain themselves, and in appealing to the median voter,they become near-identical alternatives.


There is a better model, one developed in a linguistically,culturally, and religiously diverse test-tube in the geographic heart ofEurope: the Swiss model of Konkordanzdemokratie. In the Swiss system, several partiescompete, but they do not aim to control the government exclusively. Instead,all the major parties are represented in the government, and are consequentlyobliged to hammer out compromises. Members ofthe federal government are driven by regional loyalties at some times, and byideological commitments at other times; they all need to be negotiated whenmaking decisions.