A new social democratic paradigm must start with the recognition that freedom and equality is founded in market economies. In modern societies wealth is created by the strength, creativity and dynamism of free and equal individuals who are guided in their behaviour by information and trust. Markets are the institution that can facilitate the flow of information, provided there are rules that maintain trust. But once wealth is created, it is not necessarily distributed in a way that people will consider as fair. This may justify corrections.

As manifested in the recent financial crisis, rules for transparency and regulations that minimise informational asymmetries can be remedies for market failure. But which rules are acceptable? Standards of fairness and justice, which apply to everyone, can only emerge from free and open public debates about what is in the collective interest. They require an institutional framework within which each citizen has an equal right to make a contribution. Once that is in place, citizens can deliberate together about the objectives they wish to achieve collectively. They do not have to agree about concrete policies, but they need to achieve a consensus that the democratic institutions are fair by offering equal rights to every citizen.

The aspect of democracy is of particular importance for a new social democratic paradigm in Europe. For decades, governments have behaved as if they were benevolent planers that were implementing ‘the right policies’ in order to make people happy. But few questions were asked what it is that made people happy. This does no longer work. The debate about a European Social Model is also a debate about the content of happiness, about how people want to live: how much personal comfort are we ready to sacrifice for saving the planet? Do the rich not feel happier when ‘wealth is spread around’ (Barack Obama)? Do they not live more secure lives when crime rates are lower? And are crime and poverty not correlated? Does fairness not affect the subjective quality of everyone’s lives? These and many other questions will only find an answer after long drawn out debates and public deliberation. We increasingly find that citizens’ input into the policy-making process is a value in itself that raises individual happiness.

This brings us to the issue of policy-making in Europe. For years Europe stood for peace and prosperity. But this association is increasingly put into question. Peace is taken for granted and neoliberal policies are proclaimed to be the only road to prosperity. But many citizens only find that their income is stagnating, real wages falling, jobs insecure, new employment nowhere to be found, while top executives make fortunes. These citizens have no choice over policies. They have to accept what governments and their bureaucracies negotiate on their behalf. Not surprisingly, the approval rate of the European Union has slowly and gradually been falling. It stands today around 50%, while it was closer to 75% twenty years ago.

The recent referenda in France, Netherlands, and Ireland all have signalled discontent with the way the European Union is run. Some political leaders may wish to argue it away and blame their predecessors for negative votes, but they are missing a simple fact: if citizens in the European Union are dissatisfied with a particular set of practical policies, the only means they have to oppose them is to turn against the European Leviathan ‘in Brussels’. Europe’s institutions stifle political controversy and partisanship. Citizens have little to no choice between alternative policy packages. Yes, every five years they can vote for the European Parliament; but who believes seriously that it makes a fundamental difference to their lives? The Commission President is selected like the pope: in smoke-free secretive meetings between chiefs who are not accountable to the people. The assembled heads of governments have all kinds of interests but cannot, by definition, represent the general interest of the European Union. This Europe is the opposite of what the founding fathers had in mind when they embarked on European unification.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7