What kind of democratic government do we need?

Big problems call for big solutions

Victor Angelo

 

Angela Merkel came to power in 2005 because the Social Democratic Party (SPD) refused to enter into an alliance with the extreme left, which had its ideological roots in the defunct German Democratic Republic. If it had done so, the SPD would have taken the leadership of the new government and Merkel's fate would have taken a back seat. The SPD, which belongs to the same political family as António Costa's party, had obtained 34% of the vote in the September legislative elections, one percentage point less than the CDU/CSU grouping, which had Merkel as its candidate. After three weeks of negotiations, the Centre-right and the Socialists reached a governing agreement. The German parliament then approved the coalition of the two. They represented around 70 per cent of the electorate.

Merkel, at the head of the most voted, took over as head of government. She ended up leading Germany for 16 years, always in coalition. During her last mandate, she had the leader of the Socialists, Olaf Scholz, as vice-chancellor. On 8 December, Scholz became the new chancellor following elections last September. He too governs at the head of a coalition, which brings together the Greens, who are on the left of the political spectrum, and the Liberals (FDP), on the right. The common programme was negotiated over two months, measure by measure, always with the aim of reaching a compromise. During the process it became clear that one can negotiate with everyone except the extremists, the xenophobes and the enemies of freedom.

The German political culture is based on the search for platforms of understanding and the stability of the system. It has been this way since 1949, when Konrad Adenauer headed the first post-war democratic government based on an agreement between three parties in what was then the western part of Germany. In short, it is about maintaining a predictable, balanced course that is representative of as many voters as possible. A large part of the economic growth, modernisation and social welfare that defines Germany today is based on the stability and moderation of those in power.

Annalena Baerbock, leader of the Greens and now foreign minister, said that the new government "reflects the diversity" that exists in the country. This might seem an exaggeration. But the truth is that at the leadership level there is a will to include and to seek a balance between the interests of the different segments of society. There is no notion of a "main enemy", as there is in other political horizons. Whoever thinks of party action in terms of an "enemy" lives, perhaps without realising it, in a totalitarian ideological framework, in which political struggle is seen as an antechamber to the crushing of opponents or as a kind of civil war without shots being fired. There are no enemies in a democracy among all those who respect the constitution and understand that the prosperity of each citizen is fundamental to the progress and security of all.

The German example is not unique in the EU. Next door in the Netherlands, multi-faceted government coalitions have also been the norm. As in Belgium, Italy, Ireland, Finland, Luxembourg and so on. Not to mention the curious case of Denmark, which has a government composed exclusively of social democrats (socialists) but enjoys stable parliamentary support from three left-wing parties.

Advanced democracies are based on the search for broad consensus. Half plus one may be enough to have a majority in parliament and set the governing machine in motion. It is, however, a minimalist and only formal conception of democracy. The digital revolution, global competition, the enormous energy, security and social challenges, all this and much more can only be dealt with in the necessary depth if there is a broad common will to reform, modernise, simplify and protect. We have very complex issues ahead of us.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 14 January 2022)

 

 

 

My understanding of leadership

I have learned that a true leader sees it as his or her mission to create broad alliances, to bring people of different convictions together. Therefore, when I am asked to give an opinion about any political personality, that is always my point of departure. Is he or she a consensus builder? Every society has its own divisions and lines of fracture. The leader knows that but does not try to take advantage of it.

My advice is very straightforward. Look at the person who is in a position of power and assess if such a politician is a divisive or an inclusive leader. Then, you have a clear-cut criterion to judge. 

And you decide based on your own understanding of what it means to live in a nation. If you are a progressive individual, you will see harmony and social cohesion as part of the national wealth.

Daring times

Many thinkers in our part of the world are advocating for a changed world. They are convinced the current global health crisis is a golden opportunity to build a more reasonable future. On the same vein, the UN Secretary-General is also talking about a “better world”.

I certainly would support an approach that would reduce the fragilities many people are exposed to and respect the environmental balance we all know it is needed. The big question is, however, how can we do it with the same old leaders? If there is no change in leadership, the chances we will see a transformation are extremely limited. Therefore, the point is to challenge the current leadership.

How feasible is that?

My question should not be seen as giving up. I am convinced it is important to draw lessons from the crisis and battle for them to influence the next choice of options. We are facing the first global crisis of the modern times. This is a global world with a global shock and a common set of deep problems. We have in our hands a unique opportunity to think differently and act otherwise. The UN should take the lead and set up a set of proposals for the consideration of the world leaders. It might not be heard to at the beginning. But it could rapidly generate enough popular traction and then the political leaders would have to take those ideas into account.

This is no time to be short in ambition and frightened by crazy people in power. It is just the opposite that must happen. It is time to show we can respond to the call of the future.   

Screen politics

I call it TV democracy. People spend years watching superficial and foolish things on their TV screens – most of the channels are just light on substance and short on comprehensiveness – and then acquire a simple and biased view of public life. They are therefore ready to vote for people like Donald Trump or Jair Bolsonaro, meaning, for simple minds that speak to the most common stereotypes and views. Those elected have the legitimacy the polls give to the winners. But they do not possess the knowledge and the experience that are required to lead a country. They know that. They react to it through arrogance and a fighting stance. And they keep implementing demagogic and inflammatory policies, to hide their weaknesses and respond to the primary feelings of the TV watchers. Their leadership is based on showmanship, on theatrics, and on headlines.

This ends up by eroding the democratic institutions and creating deep fractures within the nation. These leaders are expert dividers, specialists on managing people’s passions and instincts.

TV democracy is a serious threat to national progress, social cohesion, and stability. Unfortunately, in many countries, we seem to be moving in such a direction.

The US is going in the wrong direction

Poor American society. I should not say more than that this evening. But I believe there are enough citizens in the United States who understand that the current direction must be changed, by democratic means. To continue the same path can only bring added conflict, divisions, and violence. That is not the kind of ally we want to have. That is not the kind of superpower that can make the world safer

The drifting United States

The US is in crisis and I feel deeply sorry for the many friends I have in that great country. It continues to be deeply affected by the coronavirus pandemic, more than 100,000 lives have been lost and millions of people are without a job. Now, there are demonstrations and anger in many cities in response to police brutality and racism. The African-Americans are the main target of the racist attitudes we can easily notice within the police forces and in some segments of society. But the key problem resides in the political leadership of the country. President Donald Trump is a man that stirs up conflict and social disharmony. His approach to power is based on antagonising part of the American society. It is the politics of the hatred and rejection, splitting the citizens in two clear-cut groups: the supporters and those that he sees as enemies. At a time the country needs solidarity and unity of purpose, President Trump brings in discord and resentment. Seen from this side of the ocean, that is the most direct route to a deeper national disaster. And we can only be extremely worried because the US are the most powerful nation on earth. It cannot be adrift, rudderless.

A very unequal new world

One of the most damaging consequences of the pandemic will be the augmentation of social inequalities. Some people will not be particularly impacted by the economic crisis that results from the measures taken to combat the Covid-19. They will experience no real change in their lifestyles. But the others, many of them, will see their income disappear or be dramatically reduced. They will be the new poor, finding themselves in desperate conditions. Their numbers will reach new heights, causing a totally distorted social reality and extreme instability. Such a situation will be explosive. The new poor are not used to navigate the poverty waters. They will feel left behind. We should expect if nothing is done to mitigate the misery, a very serious political challenge.

The vision

In our part of the world, Easter time is about a renaissance. That’s a very appropriate moment to talk about the future. The public message must be inspired by prudent optimism. It´s good politics to describe the possible scenarios ahead of us. And give people more information about recovery plans. People appreciate being treated as adults, as responsible citizens. There is too much talk about the pandemic and not enough about the actions that will be supported during the recovery phase. Let’s move from fear to resilience. Leaders must share a vision that brings hope and shows to everyone they know what they intend to do, once the public health menace is under control. To narrate a vision will also help the leaders to sharpen their views on the policies that are required. A vision is not about wishful thinking. It is about what one sees as the situation after the crisis. It has a powerful positive effect on everyone, including on the leadership itself.

Power politics

Politics is obviously about controlling the power of governance. And such power must be played with the aim of managing conflicts, finding a balance between different and contradictory interests, as well as to create alliances and to open opportunities for as many people as possible. Then, we can say we have a progressive approach to politics.

Fighting corruption

Widespread corruption remains a major issue in some developing countries. It cannot be absent from the policy dialogue with our partner countries. It must be a very central topic and our common responsibility is not to run away from the issue. Diplomacy is no justification to ignore the fate of the populations that see their economy being capture by a few members of the political leadership.

Today, I had a long discussion about the matter and how it affects equitable growth and the fight against poverty. The starting point was the current situation in Zambia. And I was sad to note that I have seen better governance in that country. And unfortunately, it is just an example.

Day 13 for the Yellow Vests

Today it was the 13^th Saturday with Yellow Vest demonstrators in Paris and other French cities.

It’s obvious the movement is still able to gather a good number of people. We can say so even if the total number of protesters today was smaller than in past weeks. The variety of reasons that bring the activists to the streets explains the numbers.

This is not a rally of dunces, as some would like us to see it. There are extremists in the ranks – militants from the far-right and from the far-left. They are trying to ride the social malaise. And they feel happy when they see cars burning or the State authority being challenged. But the majority of those on the streets is composed of people that face daily hardships and want to benefit from a safer economic environment. They are simple people, and they raise the key question about how to organise the society in developed nations at a time of big digital transformations, combined with international economic competition and the emergence of masses of skilled workers in other parts of the world.

Politics as currently played

I rarely write about religion. I am even tempted to say I never write about the matter. But being prudent by nature, let me use the word “rarely”. Or let me say it differently: to me is clear I avoid commenting on religious matters.

As a regular blogger, both in English and Portuguese, and when for many years I wrote as a columnist, politics is my theme.  And now, as I watch the political debate and the fights associated with it, I am getting the impression that for many people partisan politics has become like an act of faith.

Politics today seems to be much closer to religious beliefs, and the traditional intolerance that goes with them, than to social and economic choices. There is plenty of emotion and very little rationality. That has an obvious impact on the discourse of public figures that want to be successful in politics. They go for the soul, not for the mind.

Fragmentation and the balance of interests

Recently, I have seen a bit of alarm about our “divided societies”. Some analysts would even say that we are more divided than ever, and they would point in the direction of the social platforms as the vehicles used to promote splits – and conflicts – among the people.

It’s true that Facebook, Twitter and other instruments of communication are being used to propagate all sorts of views. And to create a group mentality that aims at opposing – and fighting, as well – another set of opinions.

But I think the reference to fragmentation is exaggerated. Our societies have for a long time been composed of different social categories. Politics and democracy have been the translation of different interests and distinct views about societal organisation and our common destiny as a nation. Diversity is the norm. And we should not be afraid of it. The point is to be able to find the equilibrium between the interests of diverse categories of people. That’s what leadership must be about.

Poverty in the EU

Recent data shows that one in 10 European workers lives in a household that is statistically classified as poor. This is undoubtedly a high percentage of people. They work but their income is not enough to cover the full range of their basic needs. Very often, they are the only source of income in their nuclear family because they are single or divorced people with small children at their charge.

Childcare is an expensive line in the European families’ budgets. As such, if there is an entry point for any programme aiming at addressing poverty, this is an obvious one. Social systems must be geared towards providing better help to parents. Childcare and schooling, from a very early age up to the end of mandatory education, must be free – and some additional cash made available – for those parents that have low levels of income. That would be money well spent, both in terms of poverty reduction and the education of the new generations. It would also have the benefit of reducing the chances of poor people being tempted by populist politicians.

EU at Sixty

The EU leaders today met in Rome to celebrate the 60^th anniversary of the common European political dream. And they approved a Declaration to charter the way for the next ten years or so. In my opinion, the most salient point of this initiative is about unity. The leaders have shown they believe in the joint future of the EU Member States. They are particularly keen about strengthening the Euro, as the Union's currency. And they want to focus their attention on four priority areas: security, economic prosperity, social protection and a more strategic presence in international affairs. It´s a good choice even if within each one of these areas there is still a need to be more precise, both in terms of narrowing down the areas to concentrate on what is indeed transformational and timelines.

End of break

Time to resume the daily routines, after a period of rest in Southern Spain. And the first thing I notice is that the key people in the European institutions are still too much focused on security issues. It´s not a good idea. The security mechanisms are in place and they can do the job at hand. The politicians do not need to meddle too much with the security domain. They just need to provide the necessary legal and financial support. And then concentrate their minds on the economic and social challenges that are at the centre of the citizen´s preoccupations as well as on the relations between Europe and some key outside nations. That should be the agenda for the rentrée.

Young radicals for political reasons

Malek Boutih is a French Member of the National Assembly. His family roots can be found in North Africa and in the Islam. 

At the request of Manuel Valls, the Prime Minister of France, Boutih as looked at the radicalisation of the French youth. After four months of interviews and consultations, he has just issued his report. He called it “Géneration Radicale” and indeed the key point he makes is that many among the French youth are indeed attracted by a radical approach to politics and social engagement. Boutih´s main conclusion is that the extremism the young people espouse is basically a political response – and not a religious option. The extremists see no room for them in the French society, have no hope of a better life, feel they do not belong –notwithstanding they are second or third generation French nationals, as children and grandchildren of North African former immigrants – and then they look elsewhere. They end up by seeing violence as a means to be heard and a way of gaining the protagonism that an European society will never afford them.

The report is worth noting. And the key reading is that Western European societies have to be prepared to respond, in a comprehensive, multifaceted manner to the radical challenge. This is not a temporary problem. It is something that has now deep roots in our societies. It requires top attention.