Where now for European Social Democracy? Introducing the Good Society Debate
European social democracy needs a fresh start. In the wake of the most severe economic crisis in decades it became clear that social democrats have not paid enough attention to the development of a real political alternative to the dominant free market orthodoxy. When the demand for an alternative politics was there social democrats had very little to say. Adaptation to the political mainstream over the last one and a half decades was a strategy that gave short-term electoral success at the price of the long-term viability of social democratic politics. Recent national and European election results prove that this short-term success is over and that the crisis of social democratic politics has reached worrying levels indeed.
It is therefore vital to reenergise European social democracy with a new politics and a new identity. We need a new epoch of novel social democratic thinking. A fresh political start does not mean romanticising the past. But it cannot mean further adjustment to a failing socio-economic model either. We need a new political narrative that combines sharp analysis of the shortcomings of the economies and societies we live in with an authentic and convincing vision for the future. In the past we have too often relied on a narrow set of pragmatic policies addressing individual problems. A new social democratic narrative needs to capture the imagination of citizens as well as provide specific solutions.
In April we published our joint paper “Building the Good Society”. It was meant to be the first point of reference in the debate that is needed to stimulate the development of a new social democratic identity. The “Good Society” as the guiding principle for a new politics needs to be filled with life by a broad discourse that is truly pan-European in scope. Previous social democratic renewal periods originated in one or few countries and spread from there. Today, we need a broad and inclusive debate from the beginning on, taking as many national experiences and views on board as possible. Contemporary Europe is not the Europe of the 1950s or the even 1990s anymore. This needs to be reflected in how we want to build a new social democratic identity and the Good Society.
For this reason, we today start an unprecedented project. Social Europe Journal in association with Soundings Journal (www.soundings.org.uk) and supported by Compass (www.compassonline.org.uk) and the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung (www.feslondon.org.uk) are organising a pan-European online debate. For the next six weeks, contributors from all over Europe will publish their views on the “Good Society” on this website. Contributions will refer to our joint paper but also add new arguments to the debate. We invite everybody to use the opportunity to discuss each contribution. The Good Society debate is open and inclusive so make your voice heard and help us to start developing a new social democratic narrative for the 21st century.
This is a much needed debate! Congratulations Jon and Andrea for taking the lead in this long overdue rethinking. I hope there will be some good ideas for a new social democracy. We have no choice other than reinventing ourselves. If things get worse they might become terminal.
Yes , I do think that a social debate .. with citizen would be very usefull ..Thank You for the idea !!
Apologies for this being a bit long as a comment, but these are not simple issues, and I do end with a question!
One message it seems to me could be developed as a distinctive social democratic position is for greater European coordination on the broad objective of increasing the proportion of high skilled, high value adding, well paid jobs. It needs to be stressed that greater coordination is very much not the same as greater European control. In terms of how to achieve this, with the EU constitutional settlement now essentially in place, there is a need for a rebalancing between politics as spectacle and politics as consensus.
A very high proportion of jobs being high value adding would both set a floor on pay for the few low skilled jobs that will remain, and make paying for welfare benefits much less problematic. It seems to me the policies to make this possible are already relatively well developed at the EU level, specifically the Lisbon competitiveness agenda and the Scandinavian flexsecurity model. It is important that both develop in parallel. Competitiveness without active and effective welfare policies will leave too many behind, but active and effective welfare is expensive and needs a much more productive private and public sector.
Constitutional democracy provides the fundamental check needed to prevent unlimited political power, which is enormously destructive. But elected politicians will always ultimately limit the judiciary. In the Anglo-American world, spectacle has emerged as the primary controlling mechanism with which politicians have to deal, while in most of continental Europe the extreme difficulty of one party gaining overall power leads to a need for consensus providing a check. It seems to me a balance of the two are actually required, as spectacle can lead to irrational and damaging policies, while consensus can lead to too much focus on the needs of the political parties themselves rather than the broader population. Here in Britain, this suggests less spectacle and more consensus, while at the EU level perhaps some more spectacle is needed.
In terms of EU spectacle for the next few weeks, there is a big opportunity to move forward on this agenda through the debate on who will hold the positions created by the Lisbon treaty. The important role of the Commission should not be discounted and Barroso will remain an important figure. This is in line with the democratic principle that the Commission President should come from the party with the majority in the Parliament. Democratic logic also suggests that the political majority of the national government leaders making up the Council should determine the party of the Council President. Consensus suggests with two EPP Presidents, the High Representative should be a PES member. David Miliband for me would be an outstanding candidate for the role, where building a large and well-funded new External Action Service to effectively pursue Europe’s interests in the short and long terms must be the primary goal of the first term. It would also free up a key position in Britain for someone like Hilary Benn who would campaign very effectively in the upcoming general election on a pro-European agenda, (even though from the comedy potential angle I would like to see him as High Representative, so both the US’s and EU’s top diplomat have the same name, but with one ‘l’ of a difference!). This leaves the question of who should take on the new role of Council President. With a small southern country Commission President and a large northern country High Representative, it does seem that a small central European country national makes sense. Gender is an important factor, but not I would say a determining one given the pool of candidates. Of the names currently discussed, this suggests Wolfgang Schlüssel, former Austrian Chancellor. But he is very much an unknown quantity for most, except for going into coalition with the far right Freedom Party, which is not exactly a positive recommendation. In the spirit of consensus, who else could fill the role?
European Social democracy should be about creating a fairer society to achieve ‘the good society’ Fairness and equality should be the basis for a good society, particularly as the effects of the recession continue to have such a huge impact, particularly amongst people experiencing poverty. Poverty in Europe is a real and urgent challenge and the recession has increased unemployment numbers, increased precarious jobs and the vulnerability of workers, and increased demand on social security benefits when the public purse is empty.
Last week I attended an event in Brussels on the challenges of communicating poverty issues in Europe. 2010 is the year of Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion in Europe and 2010 aims to highlight the reality of poverty and break down public perceptions. A good society based on equality and fairness will alleviate poverty in Europe and as Simon has mentioned above an active and effective welfare state, combined with ensuring work pays (does not keep people below the poverty level) will ensure the poorest in society will not be left behind, excluded from the good society. The UK needs to learn from other EU member states what a modern, flexible and progressive welfare state is, one that is suitable to take people out of poverty and out of the economic crisis.
I particularly like the stress on the need for a new political narrative. For too long we would not allow us to have visions for the future and neglected socio-cultural issues. How do we want to live in the next decades? We will not be able to answer that question without paying far more attention again to the so-called side issues – gender, culture, diversity to name just a few of them – even in an economical crisis. Let’s be imaginative – then we will capture the imagination of citizens!