David JessopEVERY SO often the European Union (EU) experiences a period of turmoil when its member-states are unable to agree on how to move forward. Such crises come and go. But there is a sense that the difficulties of the past two weeks may be more profound, raising questions about Europe's future direction, its economic cohesion and the extent to which its citizens are prepared to accept the views of its leaders.
In all of this there are lessons for the Caribbean.
On May 27 and June 1, the voters of France and the Netherlands sent shock waves throughout the European system by rejecting, first by a margin of 55 per cent and then by a
startling 62 per cent, referenda seeking approval of a proposed European constitution.
Why the voters of these two nations decided against the EU constitution relates less to its complex provisions to which a yes or a no response had always appeared facile and more to other factors.
Although it is hard to pin down any single reason why voters on the right, left and centre allied to say 'no', a number of issues seemed paramount, including
concerns about the process of globalisation, alienation from the European decision-making process and a fear of a loss of sovereignty and national identity.
PROPOSED CONSTITUTION
For many Europeans the
proposed constitution and the manner in which it was being introduced highlighted their sense of remoteness from much of Europe's political class.
Although the new constitution sought to make the Brussels bureaucracy more accountable through enhancing the role of the European Parliament, changing the weightings for voting when decisions are made by EU member-states and giving individual
national legislatures the right under certain circumstances to reject
EU-wide legislation, voters were not interested.
Instead, in the minds of many, more potent was anxiety about their jobs and the impact of migration arising from the enlargement of the union and the failure of Europe's leadership to explain where Europe begins and ends.
In this respect, many ordinary voters saw the possibility of Turkish membership as an
economic and cultural threat rather than a strategic way to draw a line between Europe and the East.
Beyond this, other voters
simply wanted to send a signal that pulled European leaders up dead in their tracks to tell them to slow down, think again and listen more to the concerns of ordinary citizens.
But, instead and after only the briefest of pauses, Europe's lame duck leaders, President Chirac of France, Chancellor Schroeder of Germany and in a different way Britain's Tony Blair, set off down a different track.
Rather than calling for a period of quiet reflection and recognising the impact that impending changes in both the German and French leadership would have, all three nations set about changing the public agenda as if nothing had happened. They did so by causing an almighty row about the European budget which is still under way as this is being written.
COMMON THEMES
In all of this, there are common themes for the peoples of Europe and a Caribbean that is trying to bring about a single market and economy.
The first relates to a philosophical paradox that is as potent in the Anglophone Caribbean as it is in Europe. It is the desire by states to encourage efficiency and cut costs in order to encourage competition that drives growth through market-driven solutions; and a countervailing view, held by
citizens, that the state has in
perpetuity, a role as the enabler of employment and provider of social welfare.
Put another way, citizens in democracies will punish governments that remove or amend negatively the social provision
education, health care, pensions, law enforcement that they believe represent the values of their society. For as long as this dichotomy remains, voters in Europe and the Caribbean will continue to be alienated from governments seeking any change in the name of global competition that challenges the present levels of social support.
The second is a failure by electorates to understand how the end of the Cold War profoundly changed the world and the power of Government. Then the world ceased to be divided into two camps in which Europe and the United States were counterweights to the Soviet Union and trading systems supported preference and subsidies. Since then the location of power has diversified. The rise of China, Brazil and India as economic competitors is changing the nature of the old geo strategic relationships. The significance and unstoppable nature of this process means that world trading patterns are changing and as trade liberalises and competition increases, industries and jobs will migrate and new markets will emerge. The old certainties about who produces what and sells to whom will change and with it Government's power to control events and respond effectively to their electorates.
XENOPHOBIA AND RACISM
The third is the re-emergence of xenophobia and racism. Economic unions enabling the free movement of labour and larger more successful integrated economies with a welfare provision have a great attraction to economic migrants. The consequence is that voters with lower incomes and the least skills feel threatened. This results in a desire to turn back the clock to a world and culture that recognises traditional borders and national sentiment, in which change is replaced by isolation and a quiet life in liberal objectives, are abandoned.
The fourth is a profound sense of disillusion with the nature of leadership. Electorates are angry and want someone to explain in a positive manner why change is occurring and how their leaders intend managing economies, social welfare, immigration and order though the seismic economic changes and the political disruption that globalisation will bring.
Ultimately this is a challenge of leadership in which new figures with new ideas have to emerge in both Europe and the Caribbean. New leaders will need vision, intellectual honesty and the ability to explain and take their electorates with them on a road for which the map is still being drawn. They need to have more than a feel for popular concerns. They need to earn the respect of electorates. They require a global vision that they are able to relate back to domestic issues and the ability to cause stubborn colleagues, bureaucracies, vested interests and their electorates to change position to respond to the world as it is.
David Jessop is the director of the Caribbean Council and can be contacted at david.jessop@caribbean-council.org
