THINKING OF EUROPE – WHAT EUROPE? – PART II

Europe in a world of shifting powers


This is the second part of an essay on the present and future outlook of Europe. For the first part, see:
Thinking of Europe - Part 1


Institution building and the sentiments of history

Throughout modern history the process of nation building and of establishing the fundamental principles and rituals of a people’s governance has been a profoundly historic one. Constitutions were wrought from the claws of one or the other agonizing struggle – from the suppression by tyranny, a foreign usurper or severe civil conflict.- and invariably the transition is recorded as a moment of renewal: the promise of a better future, often coinciding with new liberties and (increased) democracy. Without exception these momentous transitions in a people’s history continue to be celebrated; their remembrance is transferred to the next generations, mementos are erected.

In more recent history similar milestones have been reached at the international level, such as the conclusion of wide reaching treaties and the fall of the Berlin Wall, a defining moment with world wide implications. The establishment of the European Community and its subsequent enhancement both in scope and membership can be seen as similar major accomplishments after nearly two centuries of continental strife and destructive competition between its - then – major powers.


Europe in the present public’s mind

Today, this European pre-history seems all but forgotten. In the eyes of many Europe has become synonymous with a distant and burdensome reality. Public sentiments are firmly fixed at the national level, regardless the gradual erosion of the member states’ autonomy. This prevailing sentiment, even in countries which have been ardent supporters of a strong Europe, stands in sharp contrast with the ongoing unification process. New rules of European governance and member state compliance are being drawn up with major implications at the heart of national budgetary prerogatives. It happens not so much in the wake of one or the other great historic drama or long term European inspiration but rather more as an expediency for the short term fiscal and monetary survival of the members of the Euro zone. It may steer those member states towards greater unity, but it may equally stir new disparity between the European nations.

I believe the project of Europe is on a dangerous path if the governments of the member states merely treat this transition as a technical issue. They should pro-actively mobilize broad public support for the likely further enhancement of Europe’s political clout in national fiscal and budgetary policies. Failing this, it will only add new frustrations to what is already a widespread skepticism of the union’s faceless intrusion in domestic interests.





Yet, all of this can still be seen as concerns to overcome immediate challenges only, leaving the greater question of Europe’s future unaffected – or at least undecided. It remains a question with many faces. The issue of Turkey’s potential EU membership, on which Member States have in principle agreed, epitomizes the manifold dilemma’s – some would call it crises – that linger in the union’s undercurrents. As a country on the brink between the Christian and the Islamic – Arab – world the sentiments against Turkey’s membership have become more articulate, such as those of Germany and France. They most of all reflect the growing uneasiness in European countries with their internal demographic reality of a sizeable Islamic population. Thus, more than ever before, the question of extended EU membership hits the union – and the individual Member States – in the heart of their own sense of European identity.


Our history is moving towards new paths

It is a foregone conclusion, I would think, that the EU will not become the super power that once was considered its destiny, at least not in the foreseeable future. No single, shared interest nor any major issue would rally the current EU members to speak and act in one voice and with sufficiently credible muscle. In fact the whole idea of Europe as a super power rather stems from an era in which it served as a logic – to assert itself against two major super powers, the Soviet Union and the USA. Today these powers have not only lost their pre-eminent position in the emerging multi-polar world, the countervailing pressure towards devolution and regionalization seems stronger than ever at the same time.



Lastly, the history of nation states and their alliances may not yet be at an end but it faces increased competition with the rise of the modern day commercial super powers and the history of their impact in our modern world. It is just as easy, and perhaps more pertinent, to describe the past few decades in terms of Microsoft’s ascent in the lives of almost everyone on our globe (or that of Apple, Samsung, Google and the like) as it is to write about the cumbersome efforts of the various nations to maintain a reasonable level of peace and security. In this respect too, the future of our political conglomerates has many faces, more particularly so as and when we move away from the current oil-driven power equilibrium.




Conclusion

In summary, no single future path for Europe can at present be defined as credible or likely. It may as well become a matter of merely historic interest as it may still emerge as a priority on our agenda. Shifting powers in our world, between major regions as well as between public and private (commercial) interests make a plausible prediction about the position of Europe in the next forthcoming decades a hazardous undertaking. At the same time, EU Member States have arrived at a perilous cross road if they persist in strengthening the political role of the EU whilst simultaneously ignoring to mobilize broad public support in doing so.

THINKING OF EUROPE - WHAT EUROPE?

Signing the Treaty of Rome - 1957


Part I of an essay of the history and future of Europe from our present day perspective



Looking back: a century of pain and progress

In the decade before the First World War the European continent experienced great commonality across the national and imperial boarders, stretching from the North Sea well into the heart of Russia. Much of this was the result of manifold investments in the second half of the nineteenth century, most notably in rail transport but also new modes of communication such as the telegraph and the telephone. New markets were opened and the emerging new urban classes shouldered a gradual expansion of the economies of most European countries.


Railroads were the first to unite Europe (1900)

The increasing sense of European commonality was furthermore stimulated in the arts, in the world of science and invention, but also in the world of ideas. The emancipation of the working classes and efforts to improve the conditions of labor and their general living conditions became the first and foremost themes to create genuine internationalism among a broad segment of the European societies.

A rather more anachronistic and at the same time contradictory element were the close connections between the monarchs of the time and the shared culture of their entourage, which expressed itself both in the area of diplomacy and in the general habits of the European ruling elite. But it was contradictory indeed, because out of their very interaction arose the cataclysm that subsequently took many decades if not the entire twentieth century to overcome.

The outcome of the Second World War and the subsequent East-West division of Europe meant a prolonged social, cultural and political divergence among the people of Europe. But even in Western Europe the old sense of commonality did not return. The old mobile elite had vanished from the scene and the project of reconstruction and development was a national effort first of all for each country.

However, it was self-evident, after the Second World War, that the countries of (Western) Europe should strive to reach lasting settlements to safeguard the continent from any renewed armed Armageddon and that preferably they embark on a broader project of unity. From its start the European Community was embedded in the determination of the member states “…to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe”. Its main – primary – objective was to facilitate the development of their markets. Despite periodic setbacks this project has been hailed by many inside and outside Europe as an unequivocal success. It created a system of shared rules and instruments without precedent, which benefited all member countries in the broadest possible terms. It became a work in permanent progress, with successive new ambitions not limited to merely economic interests but increasingly covering the wide public domain of social, environmental and judicial affairs.

But perhaps the most significant development for - what became - the European Union has been the gradual enlargement of its membership, in particular when after the fall of the Berlin Wall the lost countries of Eastern Europe could finally rejoin the sphere of European commonality which had been held away from them for almost a century. The perspective of an enlarged common market of over 400 million consumers justified considerable effort – and monetary investment - to help these countries adjust and align with the prevailing regime of steep competitive regulations to which the western European countries had grown accustomed in the course of the preceding decades.

In parallel to the political processes new cultural commonalities emerged but they were not distinctly ‘European’ (continental) and rather more western, much of it being introduced out of the English speaking world, America in particular. A new universe of popular culture supported by rapidly proliferating mass media opened up and this in turn – at least to some extent – helped create a sense of shared interests, especially among the younger generations, throughout the western world.


Governments and their constituents: diverging perspectives

All of the above is the correct historic tale, one could say, but it is not necessarily the story of the European people themselves. For it is equally valid to say that the project of Europe has been – and has remained to this day – a project of the national governments - obviously supported by the business communities – and not a grass roots process. European citizenship is a concept only, however much our national passports allow us to freely move across the continent. For most Europeans, the unity of their countries is a bureaucracy, a powerless and distant parliament and a faceless center of regulations and directives which are rather more perceived as a disastrous overkill than as a genuine benefit.



Yet, in the face of today’s financial and economic adversity it is difficult to determine, however we ‘feel’ about the European Union, whether in fact this adversity has part been caused by a European project that has gone too far (for instance, by pushing the euro as a common currency before every participating country was truly ready) or, on the contrary, whether indeed the project has to be completed (it has not gone far enough) at even greater speed in order to safeguard its benefits for the member countries.

We have to remind ourselves of the fact that throughout the decades, no single destination for the European Union has been formulated – with people on many sides along the way arguing for a strong federal union or, alternatively, for a confederate union which leaves the center of political gravity in the national parliaments. Today, we may ask whether history hasn’t in fact overtaken these various arguments. On the one hand, the course towards stronger central influence seems almost irreversible or inevitable. On the other hand, despite greater unity, the member countries, including those who participate in the common currency, still show great divergence in terms of their political and societal priorities and preferences. The conditions set to save the solidity of our economies (and of the euro in particular) have ignited fierce protest in a number of European countries, reflecting a broader sense of estrangement among a significant segment of the population.



But perhaps the real estrangement is not so much with the institution or governance of the European Union (its new constitution being considered by some as “squalid”) but rather more with each other, between the people of the member countries. It seems as though more than half a century has done little if anything to bolster the broader sense of commonality between the citizens of Europe. We may enjoy a holiday in Italy or Spain but how much closer have we come to appreciate each other’s culture, aspirations and dreams of the future? Across Europe, people have retreated to a verbal trench war to keep everything as it is and they have thrown away the idea of Europe as a shining beacon.

Secondly, many European countries are grappling with the situation at hand, in all dimensions: economically, socially and politically. Across the continent we have become more inward looking, less cosmopolitan and less inclined to fulfill our great historic projects.

Trying to grasp the full picture

Then, there are those who argue that Europe’s crisis is even more profound, reaching to the heart of our civilization and its very continuity. They see our present crisis as symptomatic for a series of structural issues about which people have good reason to be concerned. Their anxieties, they contend, even including outright xenophobia, are only too understandable, however much people might be misguided both by the nature of the issues and the realistic solutions.




It is slightly disconcerting that such comments in particular stem from outside analysts, for instance out of America. Few European commentators come to the same inventory of problems, perhaps in part because they verge on treading the boundaries of political correctness and might be seen as too pessimistic.

Nevertheless, it is difficult to ignore these assessments, in particular where they concern the prevailing demographic trends. Examples are Bruce Thornton’s book “Decline and Fall – Europe’s slow motion suicide” (2008) and Mark Steyn’s “Ämerica Alone – The end of the world as we know it” (2006). Both books were published before the world wide financial crisis hit us and when in Europe the general consensus still was highly upbeat. They nonetheless paint a grim picture that today – more than at any time before – rings many bells of truth.



Apart from demographics (and their longer term economic, social and financial consequences), they see most Europeans as being politically too complacent, too much addicted to a high cost welfare system, inapt in dealing with immigration and integration issues and, perhaps most important, rapidly losing steam in terms of spiritual vitality. In particular they express their severe concern over Europe’s religious indifference, a point of view that may perhaps be most debatable but pertinent nevertheless.

For indeed, without shared underlying values that embrace the entire population, including immigrants and their descendants, Europe’s heritage and its historic potential are bound to obliterate. It is a choice to make, however we define religion or any other source of spiritual inspiration in this context.

Formulating new perspectives

These and similar analyses are reflected too throughout this blog. My main objective has thus far been not merely to underscore the nature and extent of our present day challenges. Most certainly it includes, however modestly, the attempt to formulate new perspectives and ideas which may inspire our younger generations in particular when defining their own themes and ambitions for the world as it will gradually be transferred to them. Still, gaining a good understanding of the past (“how did we get here?”) remains a critical point for any young person who wishes to make a contribution to his or her future world.

We live in a transition period. The old world is coming to an end, the new world is already in the making. Our focus should be on the latter, not on the former. We shouldn’t ignore history and its arguments, but more persuasive are the arguments derived from our perception of the world ahead. And this may well require a new concept for a lasting union among the peoples of Europe and stronger efforts to retrieve and safeguard our commonalities across national borders, wherever we live on this diverse and fascinating continent.



Further links on this topic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4n5VvWX6D-s
Bruce Thornton (Europe’s slow motion suicide)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQELHJx8Vf0&feature=related
Mark Steyn (America Alone)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAQTvRXZy-4
Neal Ascherson (British journalist)
http://www.freeworldacademy.com/globalleader/agendacont.htm
Europe civilization is committing suicide
http://www.economist.com/node/16539326
Can anything perk up Europe? (Economist 2010)

THE GUIDING MINDS OF HUMAN KIND

Consciously and subconsciously all of us harbor the notion that between heaven and earth powers are at work which guide our lives on a predetermined path. We do not necessarily believe that this is true, and most of us will dismiss such notions as outright imaginary or primitive. But however rational we may be, it is very difficult to entirely disregard the feeling that eyes and minds beyond our reach somehow influence the opportunities that we have or the direction that we take.

Beyond our individual fate we also harbor certain notions about the time and circumstances in which we live. We may think that certain events are inevitable, for instance, as some people strongly “pre-sensed” the end of the world near the turn of the Millennium. Such convictions can also be more realistic and to some extent they may constitute a self-fulfilling prophecy. One example in history is the overriding belief among many people in Europe at the turn of the nineteenth century that war was a certainty in their time. It almost seemed as if the collective minds of the continent were driven into it by an invisible hand. Even today one might ask what caused the war that broke out in the late summer of 1914. A house of cards came tumbling down. Nobody in his or her right mind would have wanted the Great War as it actually unfolded, yet masses of people hailed its advent as if to celebrate their satisfaction that the prophecy had come true.




By the same token, in times of prosperity and general progress, we can think that it will last forever. Economic recessions invariably take us by surprise. Time and again the “boom and bust” of our economies are accompanied by unreasonable optimism and unreasonable pessimism respectively. In a longer term perspective, i.e. the perspective of an entire generation, the broad conditions of our youth frame the sense of the probable and the improbable in our own minds. The social and cultural context in which we grow up (including the absence or presence of religion) furthermore shape our view of the immediate and longer term future, including our subconscious sense of fate – of what may happen or of what is “bound to happen”. As illustrated above the general mood of a generation can have a direct or indirect impact on events that actually occur (even though thy may not be truly inevitable or necessary).

I am alluding to this interplay between the rational and the irrational as in our current time as many certainties of the past decades have increasingly come into question: our continued progress, the shared values and general coherence of our societies and indeed the very foundations of peace and security which have been self-evident in our world for an unprecedented long period. In a way, this outlook – at least superficially – very much resembles the situation described above, some hundred years ago. Many elements differ, for sure. Classic imperial conflicts have been replaced by manifold global tensions. The struggle to maintain - or achieve – social and economic equilibrium for an ever increasing world population is one in which nations and political regions face substantive stumbling blocks such as scarcity of resources and ecological deterioration. At the same time historical adversities and violent animosities especially directed at the western world constitute serious impediments for our traditional mechanisms of international consultation to reach long term consensus on major issues.

We most certainly have not reached a boiling point of global proportions to merit popular fatalism or another collective urge towards an armed resolution of prevailing conflicts. If anything, the past century has demonstrated the devastating outcome of such resolution – on would say – in highly convincing terms. However, as indicated above, it is not merely our rational deliberation or our memory of history which will determine the fate of our world in the foreseeable future, nor, for that matter, our personal fate. If anything, in our current time we witness another surge of popular sentiments which only two or three decades ago the great majority of the people in the western world would have considered perfectly unjustified if not insidious. This, unfortunately, includes racial, ethnic and cultural sentiments that most of us would have thought were left behind decisively some five decades ago.




Nothing in our world is predetermined. Yet our anxieties, our sense of the inevitable and the certainties we harbor have their own role to play, even if this would imply a course of action against all better wisdom. From our present point in time it is perhaps even more difficult than ever (at least considering the past three to four decades) to make a reasonable assessment of key factors of our world in ten, let alone twenty years time. Most of the postings in this blog address these factors. Indeed, they are manifold, complex and far reaching, affecting every dimension of our livelihood.

Our world has grown much beyond the mass hysteria – guided by monopolized mass propaganda – that led the people in the western world to the gates of hell just half a century ago. Most of us living today can not imagine the horror and devastation to which previous generations have been subjected. We should nonetheless realize that even in our own time people live in desperate circumstances. The shifting global power balance creates new influences and antagonisms which in turn can ignite irrational sentiments and new fatalism.




I, for one, do not believe that there is a guiding hand beyond our own – and those of our leaders - to steer clear from disaster. However, in countering populist anxieties rational policies or resolutions will prove sufficient only if they respond to the people’s inner convictions and beliefs at the same time. Nothing in the future is predetermined, but without satisfying at least some sense of destiny, human kind will progress – or otherwise – in a spiritual desert.

TRUTH AND THE PURSUIT OF MEANING

A new Bible should start with the origin of life and the evolution of species


The Bible has been a one-off historic accomplishment without precedent and most likely without any legendary literature of similar magnitude ever to follow. One could argue that only the Koran comes close but then, the Koran was largely drawn from Biblical resources.

Of course we could think of new religions in the distant future which feed on legends of their own making. They would however have to compete with the kind of factual records of history that Biblical writers lacked from the time of Abraham well unto the early years of Christianity. The absence of a mature historic tradition established the Bible’s immediate credibility as a historic document and as a source of religious inspiration.

In the mean time history and archeology have either corroborated Biblical claims of truth, sometimes only contextual, or they have added substantive question marks to them.



Especially the Roman Catholic tradition has been very keen, throughout the centuries, to defend both the factual truth of the Biblical accounts and its own authority in their interpretation. Even in hindsight we can still ask why. What interest did Rome have in its vehement assertion that Earth stood at the center of the Universe rather than being a mere planet circling an accidental sun in a vast galaxy? The answer has been obvious, for acknowledging this would principally undermine God’s unique position in the process of Creation. The same is true for accepting the facts of Earth’s geological history and the origin of life.

However, even though this position may seem evident, we might also argue that knowledge about the position and the origins of the Earth, including the origin of life, could have been around at the time that the Bible was written and still, God could be placed at the center of it. But this is only true if, at least in its contemporary use, the Bible is most of all seen as a metaphorical source of truth rather than a source of real facts. Even so, many Christian believers remain keen to know the ‘reliability’ of the Bible as if only factual accuracy can persuade them to appreciate the Bible’s underlying messages. The ongoing debate in certain circles, especially in the United States, between “creationists” and “evolutionists” reflects an extreme example of an unnecessary antagonism.

At the same time, and perhaps only to underscore the last observation, our geological and biological knowledge has been vastly extended over the centuries, but this hasn’t as yet solved every mystery. The spectacle of our Universe and the detailed view we have of its evolution still leave many questions unanswered. Moreover, the processes which led to the advent to complex living organisms have been unraveled only to a point. There remains an instant of ‘creation’ of which science might never fully uncover its actual nature.

Given above, I see no basic contradiction between accepting the fruits of discovery and science on the one hand and nourishing a belief system that embraces the concept of divine creation on the other – of one so wishes. It follows too that – in my view - ongoing efforts to disprove one with arguments of the other are futile if not outright ridiculous.



Should everything therefore remain where it is? First of all, there is no reason for any religion to adopt history or science as its foundation. Truth is a very broad concept if only it isn‘t used in absolutist terms. But, secondly, I believe that any religion could draw many salient points at the heart of human morality from them and add a broader sense of purpose or meaning to them. Neither can be provided by science or by any ‘knowledge’, not even at a distance.

People have a choice to embrace (or not) a religious impulse in their lives to provide these underlying answers. The ‘reliability’ of biblical stories or similar books nor the debate about the factual history of our planet will ever satisfy them in this respect. I am tempted to say, on the contrary. Facts are arbitrary and never absolute. It is what we make of them that counts.

But even this may not suffice to broaden our perspective in addressing prevailing conflicting claims of religious versus secular antagonists. They may well never be resolved as long as their arguments fly cross-purpose from one side to the other. There may well be as many good arguments to re-design the concept of religion as those relating to the scope and implications of science.

One can not expect that such a process would readily arise out of the established traditions on either side, even less so given the present-day persistence by which certain religious leaders and scientists profess their certainties.



But we could also say that it is a people’s choice. We could make it a collective project, to write a new book of human inspiration, the assembled wisdom of all humanity. I, for one, would take the logic and the beauty of evolution – such as the fundamental urge to live that we share with all other living things, plants and animals – as its basic premise.

The more I think of it, the more I believe this is a good idea.

A FUTURE THAT CAN ENERGIZE

Let’s make good use of the world wide talents

In November 2010 New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman commented on a recent poll among Americans by Rasmussen Reports, showing that 47% of the respondents think that “the best days are in the past”.(*) Friedman noted that just before President Obama was inaugurated, 48 percent said our best days were still ahead and 35 percent said they had come and gone. “This is a disturbing trend”, he observed. I can only concur. It is most likely that this trend is not limited to American citizens only.

Tomorrow is humanity’s unborn child that most of us today would rather abort than nourish to its healthy arrival. We fear the future, collectively. We see all the challenges that we seem incapable to overcome. Our main reflex is to defend what we have and to give way to reactionary impulses whenever change threatens us. US President Obama’s campaign yell “Yes we can!” has been smothered not merely by the vocal forces of domestic Republican conservatism. He faces a much more profound and widespread spiritual paralysis. Across the globe, progress-as-once-we-knew-it has come to a grinding halt amidst an ever rising pile of unpaid bills and unresolved conflicts. We have amassed manifold agendas that (largely because of this) have become overburdened with demands to which we can not effectively respond: the need for clean and sustainable energy, the need to address major climate issues (I dare not speak of “climate change”), world population, international peace and security – just to give a shortlist. (*)

Along the way we drain the resources required to groom and inspire the next generation – our schools and universities – beyond repair. We allow the distribution of wealth and power to grow more and more distorted. At the same time we – willingly – submit ourselves to mass serfdom in the hands of ever larger corporate interests with ever diminishing accountability. We do it willingly, because we do not want to control the very source of their power, our own insatiable material greed. If I were a God fearing Christian, I would say that we can now see what God desperately wanted to help avoid when he warned Adam and Eve against eating from the tree of knowledge.


Utilizing every source of knowledge

But we can not wish to go back to paradise. There is no future there. Only knowledge will help us forward. More knowledge, applied in greater – collective - wisdom. If we wish to fight the ignorance that allegedly threatens us from outside, cloaked – as we see it – in vicious terrorism, then indeed wisdom our best weapon, not bullets. We should recognize that today’s terrorism is an expression of a widespread outrage, even among reasonable people, against the ongoing usurpation by ‘western civilization’ of almost every corner of the Earth, its resources, its culture, its mindset – and its sense of deprivation. If we look at the balance of happiness in our present world, western civilization has done as much to enhance it as to destroy it.

Indeed it is a sobering and irrevocable reality: ever since European ships set out to explore the globe, more paradises have perished than have ever been regained afterwards. In the process the regions – nations, people – of our world have grown too interdependent to simply let go- we have no choice but to redefine our sense of a sustainable future together and eradicate existing antagonisms by offering real perspective.


Making life sustainable for all

Most of all there is the need for a perspective, not merely “solutions” or “change”. To overcome present challenges we will need to look beyond them, in substantive terms. If anything, history has proven that policies merely aiming at problem solving are insufficient to mobilize the critical mass of the electorate to support them. Facing the challenges is a condition but not an inspiring, energizing motive under any circumstance. We should have confidence in our ability to utilize every inventiveness, indeed: every possibility which the tree of knowledge offers us, to help our world become a better place for many – not merely for the happy few.

Lastly, however much we have already burdened the lives of our descendants to unprecedented scale, the future still is free. If we withdraw from it, out of fear or out of sheer reluctance to reset our priorities, we will indeed have made it powerless. US President Obama, not any other world leader can effectively rise to that challenge unless the opportunities are offered, ready at hand, with competent people to make it work. I only need to recall the conditions under which President Kennedy was confident enough to announce his “Man on Moon”, a project that inspired many people for more than a decade. It had countless spin-offs in a wide range of industries.

We do not require a “Man on Mars” to match this far reaching ambition. We better focus on our own planet, even though at this point I would hesitate to pin point its nature and scope. Moreover, it seems to me that the process of getting to such project – a wide ranging global ambition in substantive terms – is at least of similar importance as its actual parameters.


Developing clean, unlimited energy

The world has the means – the technology and the talent, indeed: our collective wisdom – to make this a viable proposition We can connect every mind and every inspiration to it. If designing a inspirational future is what the world wide web has been made for, then we truly have proven that our information age makes sense for many generations to come.

----
(*) See:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/28/opinion/28friedman.html?src=me&ref=homepage

REDEFINING PROGRESS

What is the next stage of human advancement?


The political trend across Europe is strong push toward a predominance of the center-right. Although their majorities are generally marginal, the left is invariably weak and divided. In the public debate left-wing policies and preferences have become subject of widespread scorn. It mirrors a similar trend in the United States where right wing conservatives are far more articulate and vehement than those who belong to the moderate left or democratic electorate.


America's right-wing assertion of the nature of the present administration

The underling development however seems more complex than a mere shift to the right. We experience an evolution in many different dimensions – and in many directions. It challenges our opinions and values about the elements that constitute right vs. left-wing or conservatism versus progressiveness as these qualifications have guided our view of our political society over the past decades. At the same time our own values shift. What was considered right-wing thirty years ago can now be a perfectly legitimate opinion of ‘the left’, but the reverse is equally true.

First of all, to describe the political spectrum along one – left-right – axis has always been a gross simplification of the actual dividing lines among the electorate and the political parties, especially in Europe. They can have different views about social and moral issues and economic freedom, about governance (more or less autocratic), about religious issues, personal freedoms etc. in many different compositions. There are dividing lines too along specific issues, such as environment and security, or, especially at this point, minority issues and the attitude towards the Arab-Muslim population. In addition the sentiments of the electorate depend on their current economic and social situation. This may have been the case throughout recent history, but in times of economic adversity it is one of the defining factors that has new pertinence.


In search of new horizons

Uncertainty, economic stagnation and – as I have indicated many times in this blog – an apparent exhaustion of inspirational ideas and concepts stir the electorate on an as yet ill defined path. The conservative or right-wing populace is fighting in defense of its vested interests, or so it seems, whilst the people who traditionally belong to the progressive (leftist) part of the electorate are grappling for an answer with an equally conservative attitude.

The implication of his stand-off situation is that nothing moves at all. Belt-tightening and more stringent legal provisions in respect of civilians and (financial) markets dominate the political agenda. Every idea of social or economic reform, let alone of seriously addressing more wide ranging issues such as energy and environment have been effectively pushed out of view.

The clashes are not any longer about ideas but about the priority of interests to be served. This is a far cry from the notion that there is a future to be conquered in which we enhance the conditions of our societies beyond the horizon of vested positions and obsolete ideologies. Lamentations about this – largely among a dwindling class of intellectuals – are more outspoken in the US than in Europe, where societal issues are most prominent in headlines and columns. But this may be just a marginal difference. On both sides of the Atlantic the public debate has vulgarized and the exercise of progressive idealism has become a highly suspect pastime of an increasingly unhappy few.

This is not because no one cares to listen or their ideas are overruled by the noisy conservative populace, it is rather that at this point it appears to be extremely difficult to effectively formulate substantive, countervailing progressive concepts. In fact, what constitutes “progress” is fundamentally in question. Although in Europe this seems to be a concern for the left most of all, this is a shared issue for left and right, as “progress” is not necessarily a monopoly of the left only. For most of the 20th Century the engine of progress was firmly in the hands of enlightened industrialists, and this included a fair amount of social improvements. Post-war social welfare programs as they proliferated in (then: Western) Europe would have been unthinkable without the solid foundation that was laid in this period.

Perhaps this is what we should remind ourselves of in our own time. The societal fabric is weakening because our economies are halting in their very roots. The engine of welfare generation requires all our attention. The other side of the coin is that our present-day industrialists have a major social responsibility next to their commercial responsibilities. I have touched upon this in an earlier posting (See August 2010: Power and responsibility in our future world). Secondly, as I have indicated in this blog at many occasions, we should reassess the traditional distinctions between our own roles as consumers and as responsible citizens. To a large extent this must come naturally, as in our own private lives we do not readily distinguish between the commercial and the political where it concerns the progress we make ourselves. For instance, the benefits of the Internet are as much a result of private initiative as of public infrastructure.

Nonetheless, however we look at it, some major – and very pressing – public issues remain which do demand a concerted effort of both commercial and public institutions. Left nor right can escape them, and resolving these issues in my view will largely determine true progress in the future decades.

There are many choices to be made of which some – but not all – indeed will depend on our priorities in political terms. “Progress” nor progressiveness point at one single defined track. We better clarify the various options – and their divergence – next to the narrow options, the choices – we might say – that we do not have. Decisions that we simply have to take in order for our world not to disintegrate in a longer term stagnation. Effective leadership seems to be more crucial at this stage than political denomination.


The UK's new young leadership at the left

In Europe, examples of such forward looking leadership are not absent, but they are a minority, for instance in the UK where young and buoyant individuals, all in their forties, have taken the center stage from left to right. But elsewhere in Europe, the situation seems more hesitant, for instance in my own country, The Netherlands, where many people mistake noisy (and largely resentful) populism with truthful guidance. We will get beyond this, I have no doubt. In the mean time there is ample room, and ample need, for parties in at all ends of the spectrum to readdress their own sense of the future and of the partnerships they require to get there, whether in the political arena or in the private – and most likely: in both.