"The era of liberal democracy is over" (not my words, just to be clear)

[Augustus]

Crony Capitalism is something good...and my country will restore it, because it was successful in the past, but was destroyed by corrupt leftists.

Why do you see a specifically corrupt and nepotistic version of capitalism as being a good model to follow?

 

[Augustus]

When the founding members signed the Treaty of Rome in 1957, they committed themselves to “lay the foundations of an ‘ever closer union’ among the peoples of Europe”, after the Second World War, based upon a supranational model of unification

Which is what will ultimately cause the European model to fail.

The ideological project has always been something that is favoured more by the elites than the masses. It also fails to not the experience of Marxism whereby the pull of nationalism was always stronger than that of supranationalism.

The ideological project relies on a common European identity that supersedes the national ones, yet the EU is incapable of making a persuasive ideological case in a manner that people can identify with.

What you are left with is a bureaucracy that ever tries to expand its powers, and functions largely with indifference to the diverse people affected by decisions. Governance is reduced to a rational pursuit of technocratic objectives very little of which is held to democratic accountability.

In addition, the lust for increased power and the transnational nature of the bureaucracy, leads to continued centralisation of powers whereas decentralisation is both more democratic and more effective.

When the crisis happened in the Eurozone, the priority was never 'what's best for the countries?' but 'what's the best way of saving the Euro?' So the EU looks after it's interest, rather than the interests of the Greek people who are still suffering.

For me, if you want to 'save' liberal democracy, then this will require massive decentralisation of powers to localities, a federalised 'city state' model.

With the weakening of traditional ideological identities and the contempt most people have for national politicians, the desire for 'something else' becomes stronger. On a national scale that 'something else' is likely to be more authoritarian.

On a local level though people are united by a common interest in their locality. Decision makers actually live in the places they are administering, and people become interested in politics because local realities affect them to a much greater degree than national ideological battles. Solving 100 local problems is also easier than solving 1 massive national problem in a one size fits all manner.

To restore the faith in democracy, you have to restore faith in democracy's ability to give people what they want. Centralisation of power is unlikely to have such an effect.

 

[Augustus]

Crony Capitalism is what Italy did in the 30s. It created the IRI, the Institute of Industrial Reconstruction, that saved many enterprises and it started creating huge state assets made up of public banks, factories, air companies.

That was state corporatism, not crony capitalism.

Crony capitalism is when the leader gives economic favours to his family, friends and allies (often costing the country money) in exchange for political support. It's basically an entrenched form of corporate rent seeking.

 

[Estro Felino]

That was state corporatism, not crony capitalism.

Crony capitalism is when the leader gives economic favours to his family, friends and allies (often costing the country money) in exchange for political support. It's basically an entrenched form of corporate rent seeking.

Thank you for correcting me....actually the IRI formula can be better defined as "state interventionism" ...

 

[joe1776]

Do illiberal democracy and authoritarianism have the wind in their sails?

No, neither have wind in their sails. They have both failed to provide clean and efficient government. I expect we will soon see nations experimenting with decision-making by leaderless expert teams of highly intelligent people using written, electronic communication which will be published for all to see. Team members might be randomly selected by computer rather than elected or appointed.

 

[Augustus]

I expect we will soon see nations experimenting with decision-making by leaderless expert teams of highly intelligent people using written, electronic communication which will be published for all to see. Team members might be randomly selected by computer rather than elected or appointed.

How would someone be credentialed as a 'highly intelligent expert' though?

Randome selection would work best from a random selection of the total population (sortition) otherwise you are likely to build in bias to the decision making process that will prove problematic in the long run.

 

[joe1776]

How would someone be credentialed as a 'highly intelligent expert' though?

Randome selection would work best from a random selection of the total population (sortition) otherwise you are likely to build in bias to the decision making process that will prove problematic in the long run.

Team members might be tested just as the LSAT qualifies applicants for legal training. The training and expertise would follow.

Random selection of the entire population would create a team of average intelligence.

 

[Augustus]

Team members might be tested just as the LSAT qualifies applicants for legal training. The training and expertise would follow.

This is a recipe for groupthink and conformity of thinking.

Random selection of the entire population would create a team of average intelligence.

It would create a team of mixed intelligence levels and experiences which is very different.

Not random sampling creates a team prone to biases relating to selection criteria, groupthink, etc.

 

[joe1776]

This is a recipe for groupthink and conformity of thinking.

Those problems and others happen when team members actually meet to discuss and debate the issue. With today's technology there's no need for them to meet.

It would create a team of mixed intelligence levels and experiences which is very different.

Mixed intelligence levels = average intelligence.

Experience and training in making decisions about budget problems = expertise in budget problems

 

[Vouthon]

Which is what will ultimately cause the European model to fail.

I agree with you regarding the fact that centralisation of power is not conducive to the solidification of democratic norms, however I naturally disagree with your prognosis of the future of the EU. I guess only time will prove which of us is in the right about it. What I will note, though, is the extent to which this same claim has repeatedly failed to materialize over the past 50 years.

You compare Europeanism with Marxism but there are vast differences between the EU and the Soviet Union, not least of these being the fact that the EU model is market-oriented and defined by four fundamental market freedoms (i.e. freedom of goods, services, capital and people), whereas the Soviet Empire functioned as a centrally planned economy.

And whereas the the Soviet Union existed since its foundation in 1922 as a totalitarian, centralized state until Gorbachev belatedly initiated glasnost and perestroika in 1986, the European Union has always had representative institutions and been far more decentralized, with its powers constitutionally limited to a defined set of reserved and shared competencies.

Finally, the EU is a voluntary union and any member state can opt to leave, as the UK has done, by initiating Article. 50 TEU, which states:

Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
​

The Soviet republics never joined their Union willingly (the Baltics, for instance, were annexed by the Stalin regime) whereas every EU member state willingly joined and is free to secede at will.

The EU/EEC model has proved itself to be a remarkably tenacious model throughout numerous severe crises, far more than its naysayers appear willing to admit.

In terms of European identity, it is good and perfectly rational that Europeans would cherish their national identity and consequent civic patriotism as their primary locus of identity. The EU was never intended to undermine this, which is why European citizenship is dependent on first being a citizen of a member state.

But I would say that while European identity shouldn’t become predominant over national identity, it should and is becoming an equal, overlapping identity. The better comparison is with multi-national states such as the UK and Spain. Britain started out as Three separate kingdoms and a Principality: Scotland, England, Ireland and Wales.

Between 1603-1707 and finally 1801, the UK developed into a unified, multi-national state under a shared supranational British identity.

Today, most Scots would not say: “British is my pre-eminent identity”. It is an equal, overlapping identity with our Scottishness, which has never faded from the days when we were an independent state.

Consider this from August 2017 (image of shamelessly smooching pro-EU UK millennials, just so ya know ):

The Independent – 2 Aug 17

More Europeans than ever say they feel like citizens of the EU

A record number of people in EU countries now personally feel like they are citizens of the European Union, according to a long-running survey monitoring the continent’s views on integration. As Britain heads towards the exit door the rest of the...

A record number of people in EU countries now personally feel like they are citizens of the European Union, according to a long-running survey monitoring the continent’s views on integration.

As Britain heads towards the exit door the rest of the continent feels more positive about European identity than ever, with a solid 68 per cent of the population telling the regular Eurobarometer poll that they “feel they are a citizen of the EU”.

The up-tick also comes alongside a sharp increase in optimism for future of the continent-wide bloc, with a big fall in people who foresee the continent’s economy worsening over the next 12 months compared to last year…
​

A majority of Europeans “feel” European in the sense of an identity overlapping with their national and sub-national identities.

I am at once a Scot, a Brit and a European. I see no conflict in my three identities and at the moment I’m still represented at each level: firstly by the Scottish Parliament and government; then the British parliament and government and then by the European Parliament and Commission.

In terms of democratic accountability, the Commission has British representation through the presence of a British commissioner, one per member state in addition to the President; the European Court of Justice includes British judges, apportioned equally between member states; Theresa May still sits at the negotiating table of the European Council; our government ministers meet to discuss, amend and adopt laws, and coordinate policies via the Council of the European Union, the chief legislature of the Union (distinct from the former) and British voters directly elect MEPs to the European Parliament.

So, the Commissioners are appointed by elected governments. The president of the Commission is elected based upon the results of the European parliamentary elections (he/she must come from the party that gains the most seats). The council members are the elected heads of government of the member states. The ministers in the council of the EU are representatives of their elected governments. The Parliament is directly elected and has the power to end a Commission.

The President of the Commission is “elected” on the basis of whatever party gains the most seats in the European Parliament. In this respect, it is barely distinguishable from any European parliamentary democracy with a Prime Minister and cabinet government.

The member states, in talks with this President, then determine what commissioners will comprise his/her executive cabinet (it must be one per member state).

This entire cabinet is then put to hearings before the European Parliament, which either approves the cabinet or rejects it, in which case the President must again go back to the member states and negotiate a new administration.

Theoretically this goes on and on until the Parliament is satisfied.

After this, the Parliament has the power to terminate the administration as actually happened during the Santer Commission in 1999.

It’s not a perfect system, far from it, it needs reform to compensate for its (rather obvious) deficits but I don’t regard it as unaccountable.

I can understand why people have an inherent dislike for supranational governing institutions and would prefer the old days of national autonomy without oversight from higher bodies outside the state but the EU is not an unelected, imperial bureaucratic regime like some extreme Eurosceptics portray it as.

 

[metis]

Do illiberal democracy and authoritarianism have the wind in their sails?

Generally speaking, when times get tough, or people perceive that it is, there's a tendency for more people to gravitate towards authoritarian leaders and nativistic tendencies ("the good old days"), often putting near blind trust in them. Usually that doesn't work out too well.

 

[ChristineM]

You weren't founded as a democracy but you certainly were the product of an Enlightenment liberal revolution which then gradually transformed into a democracy after the Jacksonian period of franchise enlargement.

Ergo, you became the world's leading liberal democracy.

Likewise the UK was the result of a liberal upheaval known as the Glorious Revolution of 1689, and started out as a constitutional monarchy. Gradually, it became more and more democratic throughout the 19th-early 20th centuries, until it became a liberal democracy after World War 1 in 1918.

In America "liberal" and "liberalism" have become dirty words among the majority of the population.

The same trend is occurring in the UK

 

[Stevicus]

Generally speaking, when times get tough, or people perceive that it is, there's a tendency for more people to gravitate towards authoritarian leaders and nativistic tendencies ("the good old days"), often putting near blind trust in them. Usually that doesn't work out too well.

Usually, it doesn't, although you'd think that we would have learned enough history by now that we would have tried to avoid the kinds of policies which cause times to get tough. While hindsight is always 20/20, looking back, it would have been so easy to prevent the rise of Hitler. Bourgeois greed, arrogance, and myopia are largely to blame.

 

[Augustus]

In terms of European identity, it is good and perfectly rational that Europeans would cherish their national identity and consequent civic patriotism as their primary locus of identity. The EU was never intended to undermine this, which is why European citizenship is dependent on first being a citizen of a member state.

Which is where it becomes problematic. Some chap in Sunderland doesn't see themselves as being part of a common European labour market to which all have equal access, he sees 'foreigners' coming over from Eastern Europe and keeping him unemployed/underemployed/underpaid.

More Europeans than ever say they feel like citizens of the EU

Polls that ask people whether they identify more strongly with their European identity rather than their national one tend to show something different though (table is a bit old 2009, sure I saw another one more recently but can't find it)

But I would say that while European identity shouldn’t become predominant over national identity, it should and is becoming an equal, overlapping identity. The better comparison is with multi-national states such as the UK and Spain. Britain started out as Three separate kingdoms and a Principality: Scotland, England, Ireland and Wales.

Between 1603-1707 and finally 1801, the UK developed into a unified, multi-national state under a shared supranational British identity.

Today, most Scots would not say: “British is my pre-eminent identity”. It is an equal, overlapping identity with our Scottishness, which has never faded from the days when we were an independent state.

Scotland and England share the same language, similar cultures, intertwined economies, common geographical interests, and even then with 400 years of union nearly half of Scots want independence.

EU countries have different languages significantly different cultures, different economies, etc. Northern European, Slavic and Mediterranean peoples are not even part of the same historical civilisation, All now belong to some completely artificial concept of 'Europe'.

If the EU was a small number of Western European states: Germany, France, Benelux countries then there might be chance for 'ever closer union', ideology has always trumped pragmatism in the EU though.

The President of the Commission is “elected” on the basis of whatever party gains the most seats in the European Parliament. In this respect, it is barely distinguishable from any European parliamentary democracy with a Prime Minister and cabinet government

A democratic deficit has always been acknowledged re the EU.

The main problem is the lack of a true EU public sphere where key issues are discussed and the public able to form opinions and apply pressure to decision makers.

Pressure can only really be applied at a national level, and thus for national reasons. Even then it has minimal effect on the decision making process beyond a few 'red lines' that nations may decide not to cross for domestic reasons.

The EU has rarely felt the need to justify its actions, and is really a technocracy where 'we know best' rather than a democratic form of governance answerable to the people.

As such, when the public are given a say: Brexit, European constitution (France Holland), Greek bailout, Euro (Sweden, Denmark), etc. results often go against them.

I can understand why people have an inherent dislike for supranational governing institutions and would prefer the old days of national autonomy without oversight from higher bodies outside the state but the EU is not an unelected, imperial bureaucratic regime like some extreme Eurosceptics portray it as.

While some more extreme figures overstep the mark and veer into conspiracy theory territory, there are solid reasons for criticising the EU.

Elections alone do not make a democracy.

As for imperial, you noted what the purpose of the EU was previously, ever closer union. The ideological purpose leads to the solution to all problems being 'ever closer union', more of the same. With the Euro and free movement of people the obvious pragmatic response should have been a backward step, but this is unthinkable to a project which is an ideological venture. So it is not imperial in the classical sense, but the EU exists to further the aims of the EU, not the people of the region.

It's certainly bureaucratic, excessively regulatory and massively inefficient as people try to justify their purposes.

It seems like you can only be for/against the EU: buy into the whole highly ideological venture, or oppose everything about it. My guess would be that, given the choice, most Europeans would want a much more decentralised EU with much fewer powers.

This option is not on the table though, so those who oppose what is quite an extreme ideological project, end up moving along to the opposite extreme of increased nationalism.

The EU will never acknowledge it is the cause of much of this though, it will only see itself as the solution, which, as always, is ever closer union.