Tuesday, 22 September 2015

EUROPE: The Decline of Social Democracy

With the rise of parties on the far-right and radical left of European party systems, social democratic parties now face a challenge to retain their support base in several European countries. The primary problem facing social democrats is that they have shifted their appeal away from their core constituencies and the social organisations that previously entrenched their place in communities, such as unions and cooperatives. And that only be re-engaging with their traditional priorities can social democrats hope to arrest this decline.

Europe is in trouble. This is evident at the purely political level, where the EU project elicits indifference or hostility from an increasing number of European citizens, and membership of mainstream parties has declined precipitously since 1980. It is evident at the economic level, where wealth is being concentrated in a small number of hands, hands that seem unbound by ties to any particular nation or locale. And it is evident at the level of civil society, where the social fabric is being disfigured by fears of political Islam, fears unallayed by those who reduce them, patronisingly, to a form of mental disorder or ‘phobia’.

In face of these developments, what should be the response of social democrats? Commentators like Timothy Garton-Ash put their hope in a renewed EU-loyalism, telling UK citizens, for instance, that they are far more European than they think. Recourse to European identity and values will supposedly preserve us from widespread political disaffection, radical economic inequality and bitter cultural dissension. But this advice sounds more hollow than ever. Genuine EU-loyalism was never widely or deeply spread, even outside the UK, and worse, in the current climate it smacks of a Merkelite version of Am deutschen Wesen soll die Welt genesen – ‘the German spirit will rescue the world’.

Indeed, EU structures have moved ever closer to the neo-liberal consensus, thereby ensuring both political disaffection and economic inequality, while doing nothing to address incipient cultural conflict. What can the left offer that is not only practicable, but also embodies real hope for the future?

Here we face a problem of great historical moment: namely, the European left’s abandonment of its core constituency. Since the 1980s, the working classes have been progressively deprived of a political voice, a situation exacerbated by the increasing ‘immiseration’ of those still clinging to the label ‘middle class’. In the face of such downward mobility, those who might have stood up to the emerging status quo have engaged, instead, in a full-scale retreat. And this has taken place on two main fronts.

First, the social front, where the left – previously alive to the reality and significance of social classes – has become increasingly enamoured of social justice construed in ‘lifestyle’ or so-called ‘identity’ terms. Here the left’s agenda has shifted to embrace all those priorities prophetically announced in Theodor Adorno’s The Authoritarian Personality: ridding the public sphere of ‘prejudice’, ‘discrimination’, ‘intolerance’, ‘bigotry’ and ‘ethnocentrism’. What this new lexicon has enabled, however, is the privileging of policies which appeal primarily to the metropolitan upper middle class, whose concerns are of little consequence to the majority of citizens.

Such policies are relatively easy to enact, involving no cost to the wealthy, while steadily occluding the real territory of social justice – namely, the socio-economic well-being of ordinary families. At the same time, the left sees no problem with the main corollary of identitarian or lifestyle politics: strongly increased powers for the State. For years now, the State has been called on to act as a universal parent (so that when children are harmed by their ‘carers’, outrage is directed not at their family or wider community, but at the ‘social services’). But identity politics has made organs of the State all the more ubiquitous and ready to interfere. By contrast, organisations previously dear to the left – such as trade unions, church schools, mutual societies, and cooperatives – have been either emasculated or rendered defunct.

On the economic front, the left’s retreat has been even more ignominious. In a thoroughly globalized economy, there is an acute threat of nations (and even supra-national organisations like the EU) being at the mercy of multinational corporations’ importunate demands. But the European left has been unconscionably slow in addressing this threat. Half-hearted requests are made to close tax-loopholes, and under pressure from citizen groups like UK Uncut, the UK Labour party has paid lip service to curtailing the activities of tax havens (many of which are ex- or surviving British overseas possessions).

But this is too little, too late: it being highly embarrassing that the campaign for a living wage in the UK, for instance, emanated not from any left-leaning political party, but from the independent group, Citizens UK. Governments’ reluctance to act against tax havens or in favour of a living wage goes along, of course, with a keenness to deprive the truly vulnerable of any remaining benefits provided by the welfare state. But once again, the left finds itself cowed into submission by those who employ the rhetoric of ‘shirkers’ and welfare ‘cheats’. Such rhetoric could, if deployed intelligently and with conviction, be turned against precisely those corporations which have secreted their wealth outside the countries in which they operate. But the left systematically refuses to rise to this challenge, and instead confines itself to suggesting qualifications and minor adjustments to the neo-liberal programme.

To begin with, social democrats need to curtail or abandon their lurch to the lifestyle left. They need to recover a sense of social mission on behalf of hard-working, ordinary families, whose stability and integrity is ill-served by the relentless emphasis on ‘diversity’ (which is alienating not least to those from many immigrant communities). A sense of responsibility within and for the family is perfectly consistent with traditional left values, and furthermore stands against an agenda that effectively hands over such responsibility to the State.

True, the State must be encouraged to stand up for the interests of the truly vulnerable, such as the disabled and children in care. But social democracy should not come at the expense of community organisations that have the resources and expertise to do such work. (That such organisations are perfectly consistent with traditional left politics was obscured by David Cameron’s short-lived ‘Big Society’ idea, until it turned out to be a mere cover for further privatisation.) One of the most dispiriting aspects of current European life is the way in which both State and market have crowded out autonomous civic institutions, and the left should be at the forefront of restoring such civic social space.

On the economic front, the good of family and community depends largely on shielding them from the depredations of global capital fluctuations. To prevent further economic impoverishment of the middle class, there must be a concerted effort among social democrats to prevent nations being at the beck and call of multinational corporations. Resistance to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership between the EU and the US should therefore be a social democratic priority. More widely, real pressure must be brought to bear on the abuses perpetrated by tax havens, and on those businesses which refuse to pay their workers a living wage (not to speak of those that make widespread use of unpaid internships and zero-hours contracts).

If Europe becomes thus socially minded once again, the fortunes of political Islam may even be likely to wane, since by all accounts it offers itself as a solution to those who feel socially and economically most disenfranchised. But equally, a return to traditional left priorities is likely to allay the anti-immigrant fears of the white indigenous population, whose social and economic prospects have been so drastically undermined since the financial crisis. Let us hope that in discerning its future path, the European left will finally stop shirking its pressing responsibilities.

By Guylain Gustave Moke
Investigative Journalist

SYRIA: The Russia's Factor

If there is any solution for Syria, it would have be similar to the tentative plans suggested in 2013, which called for exiling Assad, his family and his clan. But also extensive amnesties for fighters on both sides, power to be handed to local authorities and more importantly a common fight against IS. But this type of solution would have required military pressure on Assad. 

But now the Russians have arrived in Syria. Russia has deployed 28 combat planes in Syria, US officials said on Monday, confirming the latest move in Moscow's increasing military presence in the war-torn nation. There is growing concern in Washington, even though President Obama gingerly accepted Putin's initiative of joint-military efforts against IS in Syria, that Moscow's move risks hampering any peaceful, diplomatic solution. The kind of aircraft, 12 SU-24 attack aircraft, 12 SU-25 ground attack, 4 Flanker fighter jets and drones, suggest Moscow's intentions to exert offensive role. 

On the one hand, the goal of the new Russian-American talks,which kicked off with a phone call of the two countries' defense ministers last Friday, is to minimize the risks of a direct clash between theirs forces. It is nonetheless worth asking if the new Moscow-Washington channel on military affairs can be tweaked to increase the chances of peace. It is arguable that military to military talks could be more productive than diplomatic sparring at this time. 

In 2013, an unlikely mix, US,Russia,China and Europe planners succceeded  n setting up an effective mission to extract Syria;s chemical weapons from the country.The Current Russia-American talks could expand beyond the initial narrow task of avoiding unintended clashes.This could involve quiet intelligence-sharing on IS targets. But it could also embrace broader contacts on local security conditions, humanitarian access and protecting civilians from the worst effects of the conflict. 

On the other hand, this could make the war even more dangerous. It can be arguable that Russia's presence in Syria is as an act of war, because Russia has very different notion of what constitutes IS targets than America or Europe. Russia subscribes to Assad's definition, which ranges from rebel groups supported by the US and the West to IS fighters. Based on the involvement of Russia troops in fighting in the east of the Latakia province, it is clear who Russia sees as the prime target: Syrian rebels. The IS is not to be found in anywhere near that particular theater battle. 

Meanwhile, the US only wants to fight IS and implements a multi-million program to train the so called ''Syrian moderate fighters''. Most of the 54 men in the first of these US-trained units were abducted by radicals with Al-Nusra Front, because the group believed it was the target of the campaign. Saudi-Arabia and Qatar tend to fund Islamist groups, which the US mistrusts. And Turkey is seeking allies to fund its war against Kurdish separatists with Kurdistan workers's Party PKK.

Still, it is unclear what Russia's strategic goals are in Syria. It could simply be that  Russia is merely trying to secure Assad home region in the mountains between Latakia and Tartus and preserve Russia's only naval base in the Mediterranean. It is possible that Russia military planners, who have typically proved to be astute analysts of the Syrian conflict than their Western-American equivalents to date, have worked out a viable scheme to rescue Assad. The most likely outcome of Russia's intervention is, however, simply that the stalemated war will drag on. 

However what seems to be crystal clear is that Putin is now counting on those in the West who believe that the priority is to fight IS, and that requires supporting Assad. But his ongoing rule is the original reason for the conflict. 

From the US-West upbeat view, a negotiated solution still seems a long way off, at least as long as Assad remains in power. Negotiations can only succeed if both parties stand to benefit. But from the very beginning, Assad, with the backing of Iran and Russia, chose a path that permits only victory or defeat over Syrian rebels, moderate or radicalised.

The only way Syria can survive as a nation is if the two large camps, consisting of the moderate rebels, if there is any, and the Syrian army, band together against IS to preserve the country.This could easily work if US, West, Russia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Iran define who is the common: enemy. That's just a wishful thinking.

By Guylain Gustave Moke
Investigative Journalist
World Affairs Expert