Achieving attainable goals is more convincing that proclaiming great visions.

It seems that Europe has always been at a turning point. Our current status quo appears ominous because of the financial crisis and the fall of social-democratic governments throughout Europe. But in reality there never was a ‘golden age’ for social democracy, and it is unlikely that there ever will be. After the Second World War there was a long period of economic boom in Europe, and broad institutional solidarity that slowly trickled down into individual solidarity. However individual solidarity disappeared at the first sign of economic crisis. Is it bad? Perhaps. Is it sad? No doubt. Is it natural? Indeed it is.

This article will address three points: first, it seeks to distinguish the different roles and aims of analysts/theorists and politicians; second, it seeks to show what is feasible and what is not for social democrats; finally, it argues that, rather than great visions, the task of social democrats should be striving for modest goals, through ‘small deeds’.

Social-democratic activists and analysts have different interests and aims from politicians. The former should outline the ideal, or ideological model, yet stress the practical and theoretical limitations; the ideal is not a goal but a reminder of where we stand and what we should try to avoid. The role of politician – especially if in a position of power – is different. A politician (1) must deliver immediately (usually starting from a devastating economic position); and (2) is instantly trapped in, and limited by, the cycle of election and re-election. Furthermore, the audience and purpose of analysts and politicians differ. A text that acknowledges limitations and barriers to policy is rare from a politician; but for a good social scientist it is the norm.

A politician’s visionary manifesto is always aimed at the electorate. I am sceptical about the great visions and resonant phrases proclaimed by politicians in political manifestos. Perhaps this is because of my background, from having grown up in a communist country; or perhaps it is simply distrust of politicians of any creed who promise more than what is feasible, or what they can deliver. Perhaps it is something to do with the rhetoric of populist politicians in my native Slovakia, who are currently using social-democratic ideals as a curtain behind which to hide their corruption and incompetence.

When I read that we need ‘a new vision of progress based on justice, sustainability and security’, my response is that the authors are simply stating what is not attainable. Besides, does not any democratic politician of any stripe wish for the same thing?

When I read that we should be committed to ‘putting the needs of people and the planet before profit’, I hear loaded words, and an over-simplified view. There are people that are good only for making a profit, and they should be left at that – for our own benefit. Besides, would anyone, even global corporations, claim to oppose this view?

When we hear that ‘the good society is about solidarity’, we surely agree. However, what we witness in Europe today is institutional – and slowly diminishing – solidarity. What is needed but lacking – and what no good society can exist without – is individual solidarity. Social democrats in Europe currently have a great opportunity to act to invoke this important but missing value.

What, then, should be the social-democratic policies that could be shared by politicians as well as analysts? They should not overlook the basics: for example that a government should control, or even allow nationalisation of, services that are for the general good; that it should regulate markets and banks; and that it must support the basic tenets of the welfare state. However, what should be avoided are unattainable goals, or the striving for ideal arrangements in our imperfect, economically unequal and politically diverse world.

A sort of rule-of-thumb for social democracy should be as follows: any goal should be modest, concrete and in small steps – the first Czechoslovak president, T.G. Masaryk, talked about ‘small deeds’ (drobná práce) as the most valuable political engagement. In addition, a politician should act, and an analyst write, as if social democrats were always in opposition, and would never gain power, and hence never be tempted to initiate large-scale social engineering. To restate, with appropriate adjustment, Willy Brandt’s point that we need a ‘synthesis of practical thinking and idealistic striving’: we need a synthesis of idealistic thinking and practical and modest striving.

If you found this article interesting please consider donating. Thank you very much for your support!