« "Feeling the Hate"... looking on the bright side | David Seaton's Blog | Taking the settler's "hate" seriously »
The European elections
How should we read the European Parliament elections?
To begin with, elections to the European parliament are usually fought country by country as local referendums entirely on national issues and despite the growing power of the European parliament in the daily life of all EU citizens, its role is hardly mentioned in these campaigns, which therefore are extremely boring and so abstention is normally very high.
In Spain's European parliament elections, for example, it usually happens that the party in power is roundly defeated by the mobilized base of the opposition party who come out en masse because they see an easy win, this happens because the party in power's voter base, seeing nothing much at stake, leaves them hanging in the wind. This is what has happened this time too.
This particular victory of the Partido Popular has had the perverse effect of consolidating Spain's conservative leader, Mariano Rajoy, who is considered so unattractive that even most of his own party think he has no chance against president Zapatero in the general elections three years from now.
If Partido Popular had lost the elections, this would have probably led them to change their candidate for the general elections, and since they have several candidates that are more charismatic than Rajoy, this victory may cost them dearly. So as you can see that in a European-wide election it is hard to see the forest for the trees.
The disaster in waiting
Probably the most dangerous result of this election has been the literal collapse of Britain's Labour Party under the leadership of Gordon Brown, which came in third behind the ultra-right UK Independence party (UKIP). If this leads to an early election before the the Lisbon Treaty is ratified it might lead to the British either leaving the EU or actually being expelled from it. Here is how the Financial Times columnist, Phillip Stephens lays it out:
To begin with, elections to the European parliament are usually fought country by country as local referendums entirely on national issues and despite the growing power of the European parliament in the daily life of all EU citizens, its role is hardly mentioned in these campaigns, which therefore are extremely boring and so abstention is normally very high.
In Spain's European parliament elections, for example, it usually happens that the party in power is roundly defeated by the mobilized base of the opposition party who come out en masse because they see an easy win, this happens because the party in power's voter base, seeing nothing much at stake, leaves them hanging in the wind. This is what has happened this time too.
This particular victory of the Partido Popular has had the perverse effect of consolidating Spain's conservative leader, Mariano Rajoy, who is considered so unattractive that even most of his own party think he has no chance against president Zapatero in the general elections three years from now.
If Partido Popular had lost the elections, this would have probably led them to change their candidate for the general elections, and since they have several candidates that are more charismatic than Rajoy, this victory may cost them dearly. So as you can see that in a European-wide election it is hard to see the forest for the trees.
The disaster in waiting
Probably the most dangerous result of this election has been the literal collapse of Britain's Labour Party under the leadership of Gordon Brown, which came in third behind the ultra-right UK Independence party (UKIP). If this leads to an early election before the the Lisbon Treaty is ratified it might lead to the British either leaving the EU or actually being expelled from it. Here is how the Financial Times columnist, Phillip Stephens lays it out:
Hang on in there, Mr Brown. Europe needs you for a while yet. The alternative could be a Conservative prime minister leading Britain towards the European exit. Such are the whispered anxieties in continental capitals, and among pro-Europeans in Britain, as Gordon Brown's troubles stir speculation about an early general election.(...) the leaders in Berlin, Paris and elsewhere have selfish reasons for hoping that the present British government can stagger on until next year. They have spent the best part of a decade designing, redesigning and patching up an agreement to remake the European Union's institutions. Once it was called the European constitution; now it goes by the name of the Lisbon treaty. But, horror of horrors, with the end at last in sight, David Cameron's Conservatives are threatening to wreck the project.(...) The timing of the government's demise could mark the difference between a serious argument about Britain's relationship with Brussels and a rupture that would set in train its eventual departure.(...) It is clear to all that Mr Cameron wants to derail the process of European integration. His decision to withdraw from the European People's party, the European parliament's mainstream centre-right group, is a step in that direction. By aligning with a hotchpotch of small far-right parties, Mr Cameron has downgraded his party's relationship with its French and German cousins. To move Britain to the sidelines of influence is one thing. To threaten to blow up the Lisbon accord is another. This is what Mr Cameron proposes by pledging to campaign for its rejection in a British referendum. And this is where the timing of the general election really matters.(...) Mr Cameron might argue that earlier versions of the treaty were rejected in referendums in France, the Netherlands and Ireland. But these were not conscious acts of government. Withdrawal from the EPP is a Tory shot across the bows of European integrationists. Wrecking the Lisbon treaty would be a declaration of war.(...) One thing is certain: neither Britain nor Europe needs an autumn general election. Nor, unless he wants to sleepwalk towards Europe's exit, does Mr Cameron.So the British results are the only ones that might have direct and historic consequences.
What happened to the European Social Democrats?
Most of the left's classic battles have already been won in Europe, from strong labor unions, a sturdy social net and free health care, right down to even "free love": all of these have been adopted by the center right. What have the social democrats got left to sell?
Here is how columnist Henryk M. Broder described in in Der Spiegel
Germany, and a large part of Europe, has in recent decades incorporated vast swaths of social democratic values into their societies. The Social Democrats have lost their unique selling point. With the exception of the business-friendly Free Democrats, Germany's parliament is full of politicians who are, in some shade or another, adherents of the social democratic worldview. The Christian Social Union (the Bavarian sister party to Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union) is to the left of the SPD on some issues. Merkel's CDU is sometimes greener than the Greens and the far-left Left Party continues to cozy up to Germany's mainstream parties. When almost all the parties on offer are center-left, there is no longer a compelling reason to vote SPD. On the contrary, there is nothing wrong with taking a look at those who offer something a bit different -- not unlike the way loyal Aldi shoppers take an occasional look at what rival supermarket chain Lidl is offering.In general the problem right now with the European left is that they have not shown that they have a coherent critique of the system, which is what the voter of the left really wants from them. Until they produce that critique or the ultra-right makes more significant gains that frighten them sufficiently many left wing voters will simply abstain. It is interesting to note that the one figure of the left who did well in the elections was the French "Green", Daniel ("Danny the Red") Cohn-Bendit, who campaigned solely on European issues with a strong progressive message that would be far to the left of any mainstream American discourse.
An American reading (take care)
Americans may be tempted to see the European social democratic parties representing the same things as the Democratic Party of Barack Obama and the European center right taking the same positions as the Republican Party in the USA: this reading would be erroneous. For one thing, the Republican Party would be very far to the right of any mainstream party in Europe on economic and social issues and also foreign policy.
It is also important to clarify that the USA's Democrats are not really a party of the "left" in European terms. The reforms that the Democrats timidly put forward, like universal(?) health care and reasonably tight financial regulations are defended by European conservatives. The Democratic party is well to the right of the European center on most issues, most of the time.
You could say that the years of Thatcher-Reagan-Friedman have intellectually castrated the left. This is a problem in Europe, whereas the progressive voter in the USA is quite happy with neutered tom cats.
Advertisement
Nice roundup. Britain's Labour was in trouble before the elections, but they didn't help, clearly.
Good to point out that what is considered right-wing in Europe is left-center here, so this may be just lining up nicely with Obama. (If I get you.) Angela Merkel is not from Germany's left, but is still much closer to our Democratic policies than anything GOP.
Do you find sense in Krugman's take that weak economics is punishing the group in power? If so, it's a bit unfair if we caused most of the world's problems. Teach them to depend on us.
June 9, 2009 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Krugman's point was very perceptive, if Gore had won (taken office?) in 2000 and been reelected in 2004, than the crash would have happened on his watch and the Republicans would be in power now. In many ways Bush was only taking Clinton to his (il) logical conclusion.
June 10, 2009 1:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
David, talk about lipstick on a pig. If this same vote had just happened in the USA, you would have gone NUTS. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I'm not sure the word race or racism even shows up in your post. You really want to tell me that when the BNP (British Nazis) win seats, and people well to the right of Berlusconi and co. win big, and the left is thrashed everywhere, this is simply a case of ho-hum, we can't be bothered?
The Brits are shits about Europe, yes. But your gloss is pretty weak - it's comfy Progressive European. Let's face it. Europe does NOT have its act together on the economy, with or without Britain. Plus, Europe OUTSIDE Britain is presently dominated by the Right, and though you want to dance past characters like Berlusconi, I'm less inclined to. And third, here Europe has a big election, during a horrendous economic downturn, and all those fabulously progressive voters can't be bothered to pull their thumb out to go vote. While the racist right racks up the seats.
Too comfy by half. Rewrite.
June 9, 2009 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said, and I agree with most of what you said. Matter of fact, the first thing I thought of, too, was the "Lipstick on a Pig" title that David used on another recent post.
I would add that I also sense ye olde bete noire of European history waxing--xenophobia, i.e., "Spain is for Spaniards." I suspect the low turnout because of not caring for some it is because they just aren't comfortable with the idea of a federation, especially when times get tough, many in various European countries want to retreat into their nationalist shell. The "others" are ok as tourists, but they shouldn't get too comfortable.
Don't get me wrong, I think chances are very very slim that it's ever going to wax as high as it did in the past, I think lessons were learned and are ingrained. But I think when times get tough, it waxes. It's like some kind of lingering psychological complex, you know? Like more than a few denizens of various European lands just can't totally let go of the genetic nationality thing, it's like the ultimate safety net. It's funny, sometimes I think even though European capitals have the old reputation of being most cosmopolitan, while in actuality, when times get tough, it seems that us "new world" folks (Canada, Australia, Latin America, and the U.S.A.) go for the solidarity and strength in numbers by setting aside differences with "the others," and the "old world" folks go back to tribal?
June 10, 2009 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. On second thought, I should add two points:
1) To be clear, it is partly the lack of willingness to vote about this is where I see the problem. Easier to stay home when you feel uneasy about the federation but don't want to really confront the fact that you really do. And yeah, it's just my unsubstantiated thoughts from anecdotals, both personal and reported in various media.
2) I don't see as much of the waxing xenophobia in the UK as elsewhere. I get inklings here and there that they truly are on their way to becoming true cosmpolitans and no longer a tribe with a rigorous caste system. It's odd that it would happen to a place after they give up their empire, and to continue after such a bad financial crash. It's like most of it was purged in past angry incarnations, maybe the Punk rockers back in the day helped exorcize it all or something....one fun side effect is that in recent reading I've seen the trend of Pakistan Pakistanis no longer trusting Pakistani-Brits, because: they're considered co-opted, assimilated, melting-potted Brits!
June 10, 2009 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
European elections, which are fought on national themes don't attract voter interest, this leaves the door for very small parties to make a showing if they have a very militant base. Most of the fascistic sentiment on display in these EU splinter parties fins a comfortable American home in the Republican party. What has happened is that the classic agenda of the moderate left has been assimilated by the EU conservatives, who are way more progressive than American Republicans.
As to Spain, there is very little xenophobic feeling here. Many working class Spanish families were immigrants themselves not that long ago and there is quite a lot of empathy with the plight of the immigrants here.
Berlusconi is a chapter apart. Nobody really understands what has happened to Italy, why the Italians put up with this (choose your own combination of verbs and noun).
June 10, 2009 1:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Additional notes:
Actually the European right is just doing what Clinton and Blair did to their opponents... triangulate them .
It happens that Christian Democrats are less market fanatic than the American right. The American right is made up of radical, libertarian fundamentalists and sons of the wild jackass, creationists, anti-immigrant and racists in general. In Europe these odds and sods form splinter parties.
Unlike the American variety, many European conservatives are sincerely worried about the effect that unfettered capitalism has on family life and often support things like early closing hours for shops so that parents get home in time to be with their kids, etc.
I think the problem the USA has is with its terminology, the meaning of words like "liberal" and "conservative" have been so bent out of shape as to be meaningless. I think this is deliberate like changing the meaning of "red" as in "red state" to mean right wing, when "red" has always meant the left everywhere in the world.
June 10, 2009 8:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Umberto Eco has lots to say on how Berlusconi stays in power---basically fascism at work, since B owns so much media.
June 10, 2009 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
"the progressive voter in the USA is quite happy with neutered tom cats"
Huh? Maybe you've been overseas too long, David. Progressives don't have a voice in American politics, and haven't for almost a century. All 15% of us would enthusiastically vote for a progressive is presented with one as a viable option. In a two-party system like ours, a vote for a third party is a vote for the worst of two options.
And, with your "neutered tom cat" remark, you again betray your rather, shall we say, complicated feelings about the racial background of our current president.
June 10, 2009 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
My remark about "neutered tom cats" extends to the majority of all Democrats regardless of creed, color or previous condition of servitude.
June 10, 2009 1:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
"nuetered tom cats" isn't a very workable given the ...er...associations with the collateral damage common to the uncut kind.
Just call them voluntary eunuchs.
Haaretz has a good (AP) rundown of the political parties here that includes this perspective:
"The European Jewish Congress, which represents Jewish communities across Europe, said winning seats in the European Parliament based on "racist, anti-Semitic and xenophobic platforms" pointed to an erosion of tolerance.
Results of voting for a new European Union assembly showed that far-right parties in the Netherlands, Britain, Austria, Hungary, Denmark and Romania posted significant victories."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1091588.html
David, on a discussion of the Lebanese election results, I came across this description of how Spain allocates seats according to sectarian interests and wanted your take on it's accuracy:
"Resorting to numbers to confront legitimacy with popularity is an easy argument that overlooks political realities on the ground. When you have identity marked different populations under a single state, you reach a compromise of central representation “corrected” by a federal, confederal or other quota like representations. To take an example far from Lebanon, in Spain, if the basque (the smallest autonomus entity in Spain’s quasi-federal system) parties where to be represented in Madrid in a one man, one vote system, there will never be any elected representation in central power from that community. But “Spain” knows that a big part of the population there is rebellious to central rule, so it accepts to give it a bigger representation in order to maintain it inside the state."
June 10, 2009 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink