Patrice Riemens on Sun, 3 Mar 2013 21:02:26 +0100 (CET) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
<nettime> Elections, Euro-Zone Style (WSJ) |
The Wall Street Journal's editorial take on the lessons of the Italian elections, for what it's worth - but I find it difficult to fault. Elections, Euro-Zone Style There are no angels available to govern, even in Brussels. The inconclusive result in Italy's election this week has sent bond yields higher and equity markets tumbling, as investors try to sort out the risk to the euro zone of Italian gridlock. The outcome?with Pier Luigi Bersani's center-left party slightly ahead, but lacking the votes to form a government?also has the EU doing what it does almost any time there's an election in the euro zone these days. European Council President Herman van Rompuy made the obligatory noises about respecting voter choice, just before making it clear that he would do no such thing. "It is up to leading politicians to negotiate to form a government with a stable situation so that reforms and consolidation of the budget can continue. There is no way back, there is no alternative," Mr. van Rompuy said. German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle echoed the sentiment, insisting that the next government continue the policies of the previous one, led by the unelected Prime Minister Mario Monti, who raked in all of 10% of the vote this weekend. In other words, Italy?or Greece, or Ireland?can have all the democracy it wants, as long as the winners take their orders not from voters, but from Brussels or Berlin. That might seem an inflammatory way of putting it, but it's hard to see what other interpretation is possible from these kinds of comments. Berlin and Brussels won't put it so baldly. But their view is essentially this: We have decided on a course to save the euro from disintegration. Any deviation from that course is irresponsible. And they are counting on the political elites in Italy, Spain, Greece and elsewhere to hew to that course, come what may. There are at least two problems with this view. The most obvious is that it makes a mockery of democracy. If policies can't be changed, regardless of the outcome of elections, then the elections themselves are a farce. They are the veneer of popular sovereignty without the substance. But even if you accept that this moment is too treacherous for democratic accountability?to accept that responsible leaders have no choice but to go along with the decisions made by the enlightened leadership of Europe?this course is already proving self-defeating. In Spain, a center-right government that won in a landslide in late 2011 was polling in the mid-teens even before a recent scandal over alleged illicit payments to top politicians broke out. In Greece, the single-minded focus on sticking with the policies dictated by the EU have helped destroy Pasok, the center-left party that until last year was a mainstay of Greek politics. Parties of the far left and far right have been rising in Greece as the conventional parties have been discredited. Italy's political problems run deeper than the current crisis. But the grand coalition that ruled for the past 15 months has fueled the perception that the mainstream parties are offering essentially the same unpalatable program, and that only radical action?such as voting for Beppe Grillo's Five Star Movement?has any hope of effecting change. Decades of consensus-driven EU politicking may have convinced Europe's mainstream pols that they have no choice but to play the good European. But the people of Europe don't seem to agree. As James Madison put it, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." Madison continues: "If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." But we have democracies because we know we're not governed by angels?leaders are fallible, and sometimes venal, and everything else that human beings are. Because we know elites are not always right, we reserve the right to cashier them when necessary. Voters don't always choose wisely or well, or even coherently. But no angels are available to lead us?not even in Brussels. So we have no choice but to persist in trying to choose as best we can. The EU, in trying to rob that choice of meaning by insisting that its policies be respected regardless of who wins, is playing a very dangerous game. In insisting that "there is no alternative," Mr. van Rompuy is inviting voters to prove him wrong. They nearly did in Italy this week. # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected]