The world over, there are different ways of viewing, for want of a better expression, "people power". In some countries, this takes the form of a revolution every ten or so years, installing another dictator. In others, it is the complete opposite, where governments cannot so much as change the VAT rate without a referendum. Extremes in the crazy systems governing this planet. What is clear though is that, with a couple of seriously wacky exceptions, in all countries of the world, the system is bigger than any individual.
What, though, is the most bizarre thing, is the sheer number of organisations, corporations, state-owned bodies and self-governing regions that bypass any form of public scrutiny. There's the Bilderberg group, the City of London Corporation, OPEC, any number of multi-billion-dollar company, media outlet or bank to name but a few. These organisations generally accept the widely-held opinion that politicians in democracies (at least those who make it) are malleable, popularity-hungry, attention-seeking, shallow petty criminals, loan sharks and dangerously crooked property owners in need of a place to legitimise, consolidate and widen their shady dealings through networking and rubbing shoulders with other like-minded individuals. A kind of LinkedIn for criminals who want to do everything officially.
These organisations also know that there are those who genuinely come into politics wishing to change the world. Visionaries, fresh-minded academics, talented individuals with imagination and a steely eye on the goals they wish to achieve. Of course, when they come up against the might of the machine, they also find their dreams dashed, their hopes halved and their ambitions annulled, either through being told that the thought is a valiant one but totally impractical, or by being ridiculed, scandalised or hounded out of office by the more sinister factions of politics, and their media buddies. This of course depends on how close to the bone the visionary entrant comes when airing his or her new ideas.
So the large firms single out the right politicians for their dirty work: they give them special deals, assure them of seats on their boards of directors and pushing their candidacies for posts where they can be of use to them after their political careers are over. This is why nothing truly pleasing to the people ever gets done; because it's not in anyone's interest. It's not in the politicians' interests, because they would be putting themselves out of use; it's not in the corporations' interests because they'd not have anyone to represent their shady interests at international level, and it's not in the people's interests because it would make us all jumpy, to think that everything was going so swimmingly well. We'd think there was a catch and start petty paranoid skirmishes with traditional foes.
Leaders in the democratic world these days are so uninspirational, so faceless, so full of themselves, that we cannot really blame the Chinese for viewing democracy with suspicion, when they see how the Greeks behaved. How can you respect a politician who, in order to secure another term in power, promises to reduce taxes, or the retirement age by a year, or unemployment by hiring another few thousand people to do meaningless tasks that could be handled by half a dozen job students? How can you respect a politician who fakes his own country's economic situation in order to join a currency union his country has no hope of keeping up with?
I'll tell you how.
Let's take each country as being a person, and the Eurozone a little like marriage. So before the Eurozone was set up, when each country was in the singles market, so to say, they put on their best outfits for summits and kept the smiles going long into the evening, a little like singles have done for decades. Once they get married, of course, the partners start noticing little niggling habits that irritate them, like too many referenda (Ireland, Denmark) or inability to save money (Ireland gain, Italy, Greece). In the end, what happens to most married people? They let themselves go. They get unfit, lazy, start putting on weight and neglecting their personal hygiene. The same has happened in the euro marriage. Now they're tied together in an eternal bond of "till death us do part" those newlyweds feel that they'll be saved by the others if things go wrong. And then the mid-life crisis sets in, where the man decides to get a Porsche convertible and go trekking in the Arctic. The woman (Germany in this case) stays at home, horrified. No wonder she (Merkel) wants to limit the manoeuvrability of the Greek economy.
Now, returning to the original question - what is democracy? For me, you can' t let the people decide everything, because we'd reintroduce hanging and expel anyone with an accent. That's unfortunately how it goes, because those with opinions, principles or views are usually a lot louder than those who just get on with their lives worry-free, and are more likely to bother to vote in any referendum, which is why David Cameron refuses to give the UK a referendum of staying in the EU. On the other hand, you can't let politicians carry on governing forever, or they get too big for their boots. They get to know the system too well. So well, in fact, they do things like rein in the national media (Italy, Hungary), reduce freedom of speech (UK, France) or change the constitution to make it harder to remove them, or to indict them for any wrogdoing during or after their terms of service (Italy again). This was not planned when democracy was conceived. It was not the main idea.
So, how has this shrinking of democratic values occurred in historically democratic countries where politicians are traditionally accept their fates every four or five years at the ballot box? In Europe, this has happened because the EU has made it necessary. On one hand, the European Council of Ministers has replaced many of the features of national government because a great deal of decisions take place at European level, and are implemented nationally under the pretext that they were actually decided by the national politicians. And on the other, because of the turbulence they knew they were about to unleash on everyone. Don't tell me that five years ago, or even ten, those politicians had no idea of the storm they were kicking up when they introduced the euro, allowing Greece, Portugal and other such ClubMed nations into the club. I cannot believe for one moment that after so many errors of judgement on the way, so many wrong moves, so many contrived agreements and forced referendum decisions in the last decade, that there is no alternative agenda. You cannot tell people "you will have democracy, but only if you vote our way". Democracy has to mean something, and it has to be binding.
On the other hand, what is it like living in a country without democracy? In a country like the People's Republic of Korea, it's probably a living nightmare. I would not wish to spend 24 hours in that country. I think the same about Myanmar and Zimbabwe. But in Belarus or pre-election Azerbaijan or Bhutan, I could imagine living, despite not having much in the way of freedom of speech. It poses the questions, "is democracy over-rated?" and "is democracy something for everyone?" When you look at China or Russia, two vast countries, are either of them capable of further democratising without keeping a firm grip on the people for fear of independence movements springing up everywhere? Would the Chinese people really know what to with full voting rights? Do they really need it? I think they are doing very well with their systems as they are now.
Let us look at something simple: if a little village in, say, Nigeria applies to the EU for funding of a bridge over a dangerous river, the European Commission will firstly send it to a committee, who will then decide whether it is viable or not. Within months, they will dispatch a surveyor, an engineer and a budget analyst to the location to draw up plans and make an offer to the Nigerians. Once this has been approved, it will go back to Brussels for ratification, and within the next budgetary outlay, funds will be made available. Months later, the bridge will be built using ethically sourced materials and properly paid skilled workers, but the whole process will take about 2 to 3 years. Then there's the Chinese. They'll just turn up in the village, ask where they'd like the bridge and get to work. The material for the bridge might not be so stable or Kosher, and the builders might be less capable, but the whole thing would take 3 months, maximum. That is the difference between an ethical democratic process and a one-party state: the bridge might take a lot shorter to build, and the shorter waiting time will mean fewer will be killed whilst the Europeans are still discussing the proposal, and there will be
So, could the slow eradication of democracy in Europe be a necessity, clandestinely being introduced to be able to compete with China and Russia in the long term? Could the lack of transparency at European level be something to do with politicians' need to hide something far more worrying from us? I doubt it. But there's still a little thought cloud in my head which does not rule it out entirely. What I think is most likely, is that the current crop of politicians is grasping at any way at all to distance themselves from the mess they made of the last 10 years.
To finish, when asking what democracy is, we cannot put a finger on it because everywhere is different. In the politically disengaged countries of western Europe, democracy has been compromised. It has shifted from parliament to talent shows, from local government to online polls and customer satisfaction surveys. Panem et Circenses is the motto of our civilisation. With the coming of the Occupy movement and the sudden unpopularity of the European Union and what it stands for, I think the day is coming where people power, in whatever form is most suited to each country, will take back control. But in the end, it's the power-hungry that corrupt the system causing an endless cycle of bad governance. That makes no difference if in Asia, Africa or Europe, dictatorships or democracies: the sharpest elbows win.
Showing posts with label European Commission. Show all posts
Showing posts with label European Commission. Show all posts
Monday, 7 November 2011
Thursday, 4 November 2010
The world in 2050 - part I, the EU vs China
What will the world be like in 40 years' time? Most historians agree with the Churchillian view, that to look at the future you need to look at the past. By then though, all of that future will have been the past. But maybe we can look ten to twenty years ahead, which might give us clues.
We live, undoubtedly, in the freest and most enlightened society on Earth. And I hope this remains so in the future. But our greatest problem is the rise of the Far East and especially China, with its ability to manoeuvre in the world without asking 27 sovereign countries for permission. China is ahead in Europe's former colonial backyard simply because it can. Democracy is being defeated, even embarrassingly, by China's decisive nature and guilt-free ability to do what is best for China.
If the EU is asked to help in the building of a bridge across a predator-infested river in Africa so children can get to the school on the other side, it will firstly send an EU delegation to assess the impact to nature, the human inhabitants and the economy. It will take its findings back to Brussels, where committees in the European Parliament will sit and discuss matters before this project finally appears on the to-do list, maybe a year, maybe three years later. It is then transferred to the respective European Commission Directorate General for planning and execution. By this time, China will have sent its own delegate, who simply shows up in the village, says "where do you want it?" and calls up some builders to get the job done. In return neither for money, nor for nothing, but for the minerals in the ground around the village.
China is, without regard for ethics or morals, simply acting like the world's rich uncle in order to gain a certain kudos in parts of the world where, when the time comes, their United Nations vote could be crucial. On top of this, it is acting like a drug pusher, in that it makes promises to return with more fixes for the locals. But fixes are just that. Temporary. And no amount of posturing will hide the simple fact that its infrastructure is crumbling because of the temporariness of the structures China builds, and the shoddy workmanship it turns blind eyes to will mean that when the Europeans come back to that village in Africa, they should take a good look at the Chinese bridge, check for subsidance and crumbling, pull it down and build its own.
China is developing a "quick fix" economy for all. You're in a foreign city for a week and you packed one too few shirts? Pop down to the local department store and pick a Chinese one up for about 7€. You won't use it much more after, because the Chinese produce shirts that are too short, where the lowest button is about your navel area and it barely fits into your trousers. There was an article in a UK paper a few years ago about Christmas coming in on a mile-long freight ship from China, that we were now all subject to buying things Chinese. How much of it remains after two years is anyone's guess, but the simple matter is that China will never outdo the status of "Workshop of the World" simply because it relies on you to throw their stuff away and buy another one from the same maker. Workshop of the World implies that your material is so trustworthy you would not buy from anyone else, even if theirs was cheaper. That is why "Made in Germany" or "Made in England" will always have an extra advantage. It is the difference between an antique table of solid oak and a plastic-surfaced, metal-legged screw-down table with a loose fitting. The former you find in a top European restaurant, the latter in a Chinese takeaway.
What does the future hold, therefore, for China? I think it has learned from the Gorbachev break-up of the Soviet Union and does not want this to happen to it. The Chinese are busy promoting real estate in outer-lying cities in China to attract Han Chinese there, further cementing China's grip on its recent acquisitions, especially Tibet, Yunnan, Qinghai and Xinjiang. It is rapidly consolidating its status as polluter-in-chief, and will soon overtake the USA as largest in everything. But the one thing it does not have on its side is affection in the hearts of other countries in the world and this cannot change while China is still seen as a sinister and work-obsessed political entity.
All Europe has to do to gain the momentum is stay the same, because soon its fusty, clunking administrative machinery with its protracted overseas development projects will be seen as a breath of fresh air in comparison to the soulless efficiency, false smiles and black business suits accompanying the Chinese wherever they go.
______________________________________________________
The simple answer to the question, "where will China be in 2050?" is that it could go one of two ways.
Either:
It could sink in a treacherous sea of dissatisfaction in its inability to produce proper material and act in an ethical and trustworthy manner, causing buyers, investors and bankers to pull out, and a nasty rise in nationalistic indignation at feeling rejected by the rest of the world. This could have the knock-on effect of galvanising the Chinese against the rest of the world or causing the split-up of its various autonomous regions, over which it has extended its wide-reaching tentacles, from the main body. By the time 2050 comes, China could be half the size in territory, and a quarter of the size in stature.
Or:
It could start the slow process towards allowing human emotion and dignity to be given space alongside work and dump its cosying up to other mean-spirited dictatorships (Zimbabwe, Myanmar) around the world. It could admit to its mistakes of allowing mass profiteering and racketeering to take a leading role in its colonisation of Africa, and start clearing up its own mess, instead of leaving that to the EU and the USA and their allies. It could stop stealing ideas from the EU and the USA and adapting them for its own purposes. It could clean up its fuel burning, whether associated with its addiction to coal or its petrol-guzzling cars. It would take its place as a model reformed nation, a shining beacon to all those nasty little dictatorships in central Asia and Africa.
But, unfortunately, neither is likely to happen. China is likely to get more and more competitive, causing other area of the world to realise the secret to winning this particularly nasty war is to become just as flexible and decisive as China. All I can see is a slow erosion of workers' rights in the EU and USA and a rise in the amount of Chinese-led initiatives. And whilst the EU and the USA are busy spending literally billions keeping terrorists at bay in central Asia and eastern Africa, China's approach is rather than to put sanctions on those countries, or even invade them, costing a lot of money and even more in lives, China just hangs a few diamond-encrusted carrots and wait until they bite.
Should the EU and USA start doing this? It is hard to say, but for all the ethical politics the EU and USA spread is being quite simply negated, even cancelled out, by China's simple interventions. It is the equivalent of a drug pusher looking for a few gophers. Find the bad boys in the school playground ready to earn a bit of cash for some thrills, and he has an inexhaustible supply of mercenaries. I think, for all the good it has been doing in recent years, the EU is currently losing the battle to keep itself afloat, even asking China for assistance in some cases.
I personally think the EU will slowly turn away from social democracy and become big in government edicts, bigger in industrial labour, smaller in intellectual workpower, smaller in military intervention. It needs to, in order to stay in the game. But it will have to go through several enormous periods of civil unrest to achieve it. China, on the other hand, is the one who can afford to stay the same.
We live, undoubtedly, in the freest and most enlightened society on Earth. And I hope this remains so in the future. But our greatest problem is the rise of the Far East and especially China, with its ability to manoeuvre in the world without asking 27 sovereign countries for permission. China is ahead in Europe's former colonial backyard simply because it can. Democracy is being defeated, even embarrassingly, by China's decisive nature and guilt-free ability to do what is best for China.
If the EU is asked to help in the building of a bridge across a predator-infested river in Africa so children can get to the school on the other side, it will firstly send an EU delegation to assess the impact to nature, the human inhabitants and the economy. It will take its findings back to Brussels, where committees in the European Parliament will sit and discuss matters before this project finally appears on the to-do list, maybe a year, maybe three years later. It is then transferred to the respective European Commission Directorate General for planning and execution. By this time, China will have sent its own delegate, who simply shows up in the village, says "where do you want it?" and calls up some builders to get the job done. In return neither for money, nor for nothing, but for the minerals in the ground around the village.
China is, without regard for ethics or morals, simply acting like the world's rich uncle in order to gain a certain kudos in parts of the world where, when the time comes, their United Nations vote could be crucial. On top of this, it is acting like a drug pusher, in that it makes promises to return with more fixes for the locals. But fixes are just that. Temporary. And no amount of posturing will hide the simple fact that its infrastructure is crumbling because of the temporariness of the structures China builds, and the shoddy workmanship it turns blind eyes to will mean that when the Europeans come back to that village in Africa, they should take a good look at the Chinese bridge, check for subsidance and crumbling, pull it down and build its own.
China is developing a "quick fix" economy for all. You're in a foreign city for a week and you packed one too few shirts? Pop down to the local department store and pick a Chinese one up for about 7€. You won't use it much more after, because the Chinese produce shirts that are too short, where the lowest button is about your navel area and it barely fits into your trousers. There was an article in a UK paper a few years ago about Christmas coming in on a mile-long freight ship from China, that we were now all subject to buying things Chinese. How much of it remains after two years is anyone's guess, but the simple matter is that China will never outdo the status of "Workshop of the World" simply because it relies on you to throw their stuff away and buy another one from the same maker. Workshop of the World implies that your material is so trustworthy you would not buy from anyone else, even if theirs was cheaper. That is why "Made in Germany" or "Made in England" will always have an extra advantage. It is the difference between an antique table of solid oak and a plastic-surfaced, metal-legged screw-down table with a loose fitting. The former you find in a top European restaurant, the latter in a Chinese takeaway.
What does the future hold, therefore, for China? I think it has learned from the Gorbachev break-up of the Soviet Union and does not want this to happen to it. The Chinese are busy promoting real estate in outer-lying cities in China to attract Han Chinese there, further cementing China's grip on its recent acquisitions, especially Tibet, Yunnan, Qinghai and Xinjiang. It is rapidly consolidating its status as polluter-in-chief, and will soon overtake the USA as largest in everything. But the one thing it does not have on its side is affection in the hearts of other countries in the world and this cannot change while China is still seen as a sinister and work-obsessed political entity.
All Europe has to do to gain the momentum is stay the same, because soon its fusty, clunking administrative machinery with its protracted overseas development projects will be seen as a breath of fresh air in comparison to the soulless efficiency, false smiles and black business suits accompanying the Chinese wherever they go.
______________________________________________________
The simple answer to the question, "where will China be in 2050?" is that it could go one of two ways.
Either:
It could sink in a treacherous sea of dissatisfaction in its inability to produce proper material and act in an ethical and trustworthy manner, causing buyers, investors and bankers to pull out, and a nasty rise in nationalistic indignation at feeling rejected by the rest of the world. This could have the knock-on effect of galvanising the Chinese against the rest of the world or causing the split-up of its various autonomous regions, over which it has extended its wide-reaching tentacles, from the main body. By the time 2050 comes, China could be half the size in territory, and a quarter of the size in stature.
Or:
It could start the slow process towards allowing human emotion and dignity to be given space alongside work and dump its cosying up to other mean-spirited dictatorships (Zimbabwe, Myanmar) around the world. It could admit to its mistakes of allowing mass profiteering and racketeering to take a leading role in its colonisation of Africa, and start clearing up its own mess, instead of leaving that to the EU and the USA and their allies. It could stop stealing ideas from the EU and the USA and adapting them for its own purposes. It could clean up its fuel burning, whether associated with its addiction to coal or its petrol-guzzling cars. It would take its place as a model reformed nation, a shining beacon to all those nasty little dictatorships in central Asia and Africa.
But, unfortunately, neither is likely to happen. China is likely to get more and more competitive, causing other area of the world to realise the secret to winning this particularly nasty war is to become just as flexible and decisive as China. All I can see is a slow erosion of workers' rights in the EU and USA and a rise in the amount of Chinese-led initiatives. And whilst the EU and the USA are busy spending literally billions keeping terrorists at bay in central Asia and eastern Africa, China's approach is rather than to put sanctions on those countries, or even invade them, costing a lot of money and even more in lives, China just hangs a few diamond-encrusted carrots and wait until they bite.
Should the EU and USA start doing this? It is hard to say, but for all the ethical politics the EU and USA spread is being quite simply negated, even cancelled out, by China's simple interventions. It is the equivalent of a drug pusher looking for a few gophers. Find the bad boys in the school playground ready to earn a bit of cash for some thrills, and he has an inexhaustible supply of mercenaries. I think, for all the good it has been doing in recent years, the EU is currently losing the battle to keep itself afloat, even asking China for assistance in some cases.
I personally think the EU will slowly turn away from social democracy and become big in government edicts, bigger in industrial labour, smaller in intellectual workpower, smaller in military intervention. It needs to, in order to stay in the game. But it will have to go through several enormous periods of civil unrest to achieve it. China, on the other hand, is the one who can afford to stay the same.
Thursday, 13 September 2007
Immigration is good: but what about those already here?
European Commission Vice President Franco Frattini has been in Portugal this week, outlining his upcoming proposals for a "blue card" for skilled migrant workers who can come to work freely in the EU. On the other hand, the Vice President has been keen to be tough on employers who hire staff without a residence permit. This also needs re-evaluating.
There are many thousands, in fact many tens of thousands, already here. They could be doctors, drivers, economists, lecturers, botanists, geologists, camera operators, banking experts, translators, opticians and anyone else but they are instead cleaning floors, driving taxis, picking fruit, working in bars and restaurants, or just sitting in detention centres waiting for someone to finally say yes, they can stay, or no, their application is not strong enough. What about these people first? These are the ones who need immediate attention. These are the ones who should be filling our job market first.
I have an Australian friend, a lawyer, who came to Belgium to visit and decided to stay. She is highly qualified and has ten years' experience too. I took her to the city hall and they told her if she wanted to set up an independent practice she would need to either go back to Australia and apply from there, or declare her arrival date, get a police criminal clearance paper within 40 days from Australia and the country where she lived prior to arriving, China (which will be a nightmare), fill in a form in Dutch, which includes a section where she needs to write 300 words on why she wants to live here, and then she should wait nine months. Oh yes, she cannot leave the country. Surely she would be an asset to the economy. Why then must she go through all this administrative upheaval? And to think, she is even from a country with strong diplomatic ties to the EU. What must it be like to come from Moldova, Mozambique or Myanmar?
Why is the system set up in a way which encourages those with fewer scruples to take part in people trafficking? In fact, if you look more deeply into it, the system is set up to discriminate against those who genuinely come here to work or to escape persecution and favours the economic migrants and those interested purely in social security, benefits and a life of peace paid for by the taxes.
We should be advertising our vacant positions in foreign newspapers but at the same time matching jobs to those already here. Lots of migrants don't want to sit about doing nothing, but they have to, because they are unable to work whilst their paperwork is being looked at, and that can last a very long time indeed, including appeals, re-schedulings and new evidence, all which can mean the process must start all over again. This is a ridiculous waste of precious time, paper and talent. It also creates tension between those who have arrived and the local residents, who without the necessary knowledge of the immigrant's predicament, immediately place them in a negative light.
We should do more to drive away the people traffickers by making it easier to come and work in Europe, especially those with needed talents and qualifications. If you make it legally impossible for those who arrive unannounced to stay, whilst opening quota-driven employment centres in embassies and cultural centres abroad, people trafficking would be rendered useless, especially if the EU makes that clear to the appropriate people.
There are many thousands, in fact many tens of thousands, already here. They could be doctors, drivers, economists, lecturers, botanists, geologists, camera operators, banking experts, translators, opticians and anyone else but they are instead cleaning floors, driving taxis, picking fruit, working in bars and restaurants, or just sitting in detention centres waiting for someone to finally say yes, they can stay, or no, their application is not strong enough. What about these people first? These are the ones who need immediate attention. These are the ones who should be filling our job market first.
I have an Australian friend, a lawyer, who came to Belgium to visit and decided to stay. She is highly qualified and has ten years' experience too. I took her to the city hall and they told her if she wanted to set up an independent practice she would need to either go back to Australia and apply from there, or declare her arrival date, get a police criminal clearance paper within 40 days from Australia and the country where she lived prior to arriving, China (which will be a nightmare), fill in a form in Dutch, which includes a section where she needs to write 300 words on why she wants to live here, and then she should wait nine months. Oh yes, she cannot leave the country. Surely she would be an asset to the economy. Why then must she go through all this administrative upheaval? And to think, she is even from a country with strong diplomatic ties to the EU. What must it be like to come from Moldova, Mozambique or Myanmar?
Why is the system set up in a way which encourages those with fewer scruples to take part in people trafficking? In fact, if you look more deeply into it, the system is set up to discriminate against those who genuinely come here to work or to escape persecution and favours the economic migrants and those interested purely in social security, benefits and a life of peace paid for by the taxes.
We should be advertising our vacant positions in foreign newspapers but at the same time matching jobs to those already here. Lots of migrants don't want to sit about doing nothing, but they have to, because they are unable to work whilst their paperwork is being looked at, and that can last a very long time indeed, including appeals, re-schedulings and new evidence, all which can mean the process must start all over again. This is a ridiculous waste of precious time, paper and talent. It also creates tension between those who have arrived and the local residents, who without the necessary knowledge of the immigrant's predicament, immediately place them in a negative light.
We should do more to drive away the people traffickers by making it easier to come and work in Europe, especially those with needed talents and qualifications. If you make it legally impossible for those who arrive unannounced to stay, whilst opening quota-driven employment centres in embassies and cultural centres abroad, people trafficking would be rendered useless, especially if the EU makes that clear to the appropriate people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)