British Prime Minister Theresa May attends a press conference at 10 Downing Street

Politics

هل سوف تتفوق الواقعية على الشعبوية؟

Apr 27, 2018 Anatole Kaletsky

نيويورك ـ في ظل عودة الأوضاع الاقتصادية إلى طبيعتها بشكل أو بآخر في جميع أنحاء العالم بعد عقد من الأزمات المالية، باتت النزعة الشعبوية القومية الآن تشكل أكبر تهديد للانتعاش العالمي. كان هذا الشعور حاضرا بالنسبة لوزراء المالية الذين اجتمعوا في واشنطن العاصمة هذا الشهر لحضور اجتماع الربيع السنوي لصندوق النقد الدولي. لكن هل من الممكن أن يكون هذا الإجماع قد برز في الوقت الذي تعالت فيه أصوات الشعبوية؟ بدلاً من السياسة الشعبوية التي تقوض الانتعاش الاقتصادي، هل يمكن أن يؤدي الانتعاش الاقتصادي إلى تقويض السياسات الشعبوية؟

في جميع أنحاء العالم، تبدو السياسة الاقتصادية الشعبوية في حالة تراجع، على الرغم من عدم وجود بديل واضح لهذه السياسة حتى الآن. في الولايات المتحدة، يبدو أن الرئيس دونالد ترامب قد وضع حدا لغرائزه الحمائية، كما بدأت العلاقات الاقتصادية مع الصين في الاستقرار. وفي أوروبا، على الرغم من تركيز وسائل الإعلام على نجاح السياسيين المتعايشين مع كراهية الأجانب في هنغاريا وبولندا، يتحول البندول عن القومية الاقتصادية في البلدان المهمة حقًا: فرنسا وألمانيا وإسبانيا وإيطاليا، حيث يتنافس الآن الحزبين الشعبويين اللذين حققا مؤخرًا انجازات انتخابية لإظهار دعمهما لليورو.

حتى في بريطانيا، حيث فازت القومية الاقتصادية بأكبر انتصار لها على العولمة والتعددية الثقافية في استفتاء بريكست عام 2016، قد يتحول هذا التيار. بدأت الحكومة البريطانية تدرك بشكل تدريجي أن الناخبين لا يريدون الانفصال بشكل كامل عن أوروبا، كما يطالب الأوروبيون المتشككون. لم يصبح أي من البديلين لعضوية الاتحاد الأوروبي اللذان قدما في استفتاء خروج بريطانيا من الاتحاد الأوروبي - وهو "ليتل انجلاند" الحمائي والتركيز على الداخل أو "الدول الناطقة باللغة الانجليزية" بعد الإمبريالية القائمة على "العلاقة الخاصة" مع أمريكا والكومنولث - مجديا اقتصاديا أو جذابا سياسيا للناخبين. في حين أن 3-4٪ فقط من الناخبين يعترفون بتغيير رأيهم بشأن خروج بريطانيا من الاتحاد الأوروبي، إلا أن الغالبية العظمى تريد الاحتفاظ بمعظم فوائد التجارة الحرة، والسفر المريح، والعمالة المهاجرة، فضلا عن القوانين البيئية، وصحة المستهلكين، والتنظيم الدقيق.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to PS Digital

Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 10 Comments on this article

B Wilds Apr 29, 2018

Populism has been on a tear the last several years altering how events are being framed. In truth, the subject of globalization is made up of many threads interwoven in a complex way. The discussion often extends into several issues and is not limited to free trade.

Other social concerns also feed into the mix, things like immigration, human rights, global warming, nationalism, inequality, even population growth. The political impact on all these issues, in the end, affect how countries view the world and their foreign policy. More on this subject in the article below.

http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2018/03/the-stop-globalization-or-populist.html
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Barry Rosenfeld Apr 29, 2018

One would wish that Kaletsky would stop providing propaganda in the guise of opinion. He is the epitome of self-interested homo economicus, firmly believing that only pecuniary issues are of importance. The Brexit vote, as Wellington might have said, was a "near run thing." In a trade off between social solidarity and economic gain, they narrowly choose the former. It is not a question of "realism" or "populism," a false dichotomy, and a shallow one as well, but of which of the several competing values a society chooses to favour at any one time.

If anything, the Brexit vote indicated that the UK has important regional differences that are manifest by forcing people to vote on highly divisive issues. If sufficient political ineptitude, as indicated by the contortions of the May government, lead people to marginally alter their voting to provide a shallow victory for the "Remainers," it might be seen as a failure of domestic politics and not a re-ordering of journalistic concepts such as populism and realism. It is as "real" to choose greater social solidarity as it is to choose marginal economic betterment.

One wonders why Kaletsky, who pretends to be an economist, cannot, or will not, understand the nature of trade-offs. The neo-Darwinian, neoliberal world is under scrutiny and the apologists of that order are frightened that the hoi polloi will become realistic about how they have fared under this regime.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Peter Schaeffer Apr 29, 2018

How lame can you get in attempting the pretense of the status quo forever. Orban (and his allies) just won 69% of the vote in Hungary. Renzi was crushed (again) in Italy. Merkel barely survived the last election. But no, the "liberal" elite are going to continue running things just the way they were. Maybe not.

Before the Brexit vote, the remoaners were promising a depression and nuclear war (quite literally) if the British people voted for Brexit. Neither has happened. The remoaners have been utterly discredited by their (very strident) claims of a disaster if the UK voted for Brexit. The Brexit vote happened without any subsequent collapse or war. At this point, the remoaners should have the decency to be quiet.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jonathan Engel Apr 29, 2018

Once again Mr Kaletsky, who clearly is an embittered "Bremainer", tries to read the tea leaves in such a way as to universalise his view, despite the referendum which should have ended this type of discussion. As the same time Europe's decline, and in particular it's democratic and civilisational decline, is continuing apace, justifying completely the scepticism about its adaptability to the future, or more precisely to a future the "average Brit" is prepared to accept.

Since Germany's recent election Mr. Macron is again out with his begging bowl, to be able to continue his borrowing financed Welfare State; Italy's trauma of having fallen to zero growth since the Euro crushed closed the valve of inflation (which may have had negative effects, but kept living standards rising, growth booming, and export prices attractive since WW2), migrants continue to flow in an uncontrolled manner, bringing people who do not seem to be attracted to our culture, but only to our pockets; Germany and Sweden are submerged in a rape and violence epidemic, which their police and their press suppress, like ours in Rotherham, and Telford. Is this the attractive Europe that Mr. Kaletsky is so keen on maintaining ?

The cardinal rule for dealing with earthquakes is to get out of the house, rather than try to shore up the ceiling with a broomstick. This applies to the EU. (and of course would not have applied to the EEC, which is what the British voted YES to in the earlier referendum.)
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Apr 28, 2018

Anatole Kaletsky expects “honest realism” to outdo populism. On March 19, the EU and the UK had agreed on a transition period, which will last from the day Britain leaves the EU on March 29, 2019 to December 31, 2020. But Theresa May was urged to extend the Brexit transition period beyond 2020 to avoid a “security” crisis. The duration is determined by “how long it will take to prepare and implement the future partnership” with the EU.
While the Government sources admitted that the request for more time came as cabinet divisions delay a decision on Britain’s future relationship with the EU, the author says, “reality will dictate extending the transition until after the 2022 general election, then beyond.” No doubt this extension will anger the Conservatives within May’s party and Eurosceptics, who have described the transition as reducing Britain to a “vassal state”.
But one year after Article 50 was triggered, which set the Brexit process in motion, there is a lack of clear direction in policy sectors that affects the ability to plan for the future. Today, with less than a year remaining, nothing is certain in Brexit negotiations. There are issues that need to be addressed: the Irish border, the post-Brexit immigration system etc. It remains very difficult to predict whether a soft or hard Brexit is the more likely outcome at this halfway point in negotiations.
Supporters of Brexit insist, like it or not, Britain is leaving the EU. Brexiteers on the extreme right have warned of violence at the first sign of backsliding. They do not care about the single market, nor about the customs union – they want a hard Brexit. They only care about immigration – taking back control of their borders. The sentimental appeal of Brexit to nationalists outweighs the economic one. They do not care that there is is no configuration of free trade deals to be had outside the EU that comes close to adequately replacing what will be lost by leaving the single market.
Even the government's own analysis suggests that the UK would lose between 2% and 8% of GDP over 15 years from a hard Brexit, while new trade deals with the US and others would add no more than 0.6%. Britain's problems with low exports are domestic – low productivity, a lack of public and private investment. Without the negotiating heft of the EU, the UK will struggle to achieve beneficial trade deals. The US would demand greater access to agriculture – selling chlorine-washed chicken, hormone-injected beef and acid-washed pork – and to the NHS. India and China would demand more visas – a nightmare for xenophobic nationalists.
Last month May’s government has said that it will give Parliament a meaningful vote on the final Brexit deal it negotiates with Brussels. With the Brexit deadline approaching, the author speaks of “all of the tangible promises of Brexit receding like a desert mirage.” Moreover, “both parliamentary and public opinion are shifting.” No doubt the Labour Party will seize the moment, “even though many working-class voters supported Brexit, opposing it offers the only chance of bringing down the May government.”
This “meaningful” vote – most likely in October – will allow the Parliament to decide whether May’s “final deal with Europe is genuinely better than remaining in the EU.” The author maintains that “a tactical alliance of all opposition parties with a dozen pro-European Tories could well defeat the government. If such a defeat looks imminent, May will probably move to avert it by herself proposing a referendum to make the final decision between her version of Brexit and the EU status quo.”
The author is confident that populism will not prevail in a new referendum, as the one in June 2016. Voters, instead of an “illusory choice between reality and fantasy: a fair-tale Brexit, onto which they could project whatever hopes or prejudices they cared to imagine,” they would be “offered an honest choice between two well-defined alternatives: to accept whatever agreement for leaving the EU the government negotiates, or to stay in the EU by withdrawing the Brexit notification before the March 29 deadline.”
The first battle is in six months, and it certainly takes much power of persuasion to convince the undecided lawmakers in Parliament to foil Brexit. They need to have the courage to stand up for what is good for their country, wary of the risks of being branded as “Enemies of the People” by tabloids.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
jagjeet sinha Apr 27, 2018

MAJORITY OF ONE MAY BE INAPPROPRIATE - DUE CONSEQUENCES
The author finds it difficult to admonish Brussels.
Despite the blatant evidence that it was Brussels agenda that caused Brexit.
The Public voted to leave in a Referendum approved by Parliament.
Now the Government is entrusted with securing Terms of Brexit.
Should Brussels Terms be tantamount to humiliation - let People vote again.
The only question - whether the Brussels Terms are accepted or rejected.
The second option that you have cited - is one amongst several.
Let the Parliament decide path forward - should Brussels Terms be rejected.
Until alternatives are in place - no alteration to existing arrangements.
In fact, in such critical predicaments, Parliament should impose super majority.
The Corporate World often imposes Super Majority in key predicaments.
66 % and 75 % are the usual benchmarks.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Richard James Apr 27, 2018

Brilliant writing from Anatole, as ever.
- Raja Rajamani Apr 29, 2018
  
  You are kidding! Right?
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/4ulN49sar

هل سوف تتفوق الواقعية على الشعبوية؟

Subscribe to PS Digital

New Comment

Contact us

Log in/Register

هل سوف تتفوق الواقعية على الشعبوية؟

Subscribe to PS Digital

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification