Politics

La souveraineté qui compte vraiment

Oct 20, 2017 Javier Solana

MADRID – Dans son bien connu « trilemme politique de l’économie mondiale », Dani Rodrik, économiste à Harvard, affirme que l’intégration économique mondiale, les États-nations et la démocratie sont trois éléments qui ne peuvent coexister. Tout au plus pouvons-nous combiner deux d’entre eux, mais c’est toujours aux dépens du troisième.

Il n’y a pas si longtemps, ce qu’on nomme le « consensus de Washington », insistant sur la libéralisation et les privatisations, dominait encore la politique économique mondiale. Si la crise financière de 2008 a terni sa crédibilité, les pays du G20 n’en sont pas moins rapidement tombés d’accord pour éviter les politiques protectionnistes, contre lesquelles s’élevait précisément le consensus.

Pendant ce temps, l’Union européenne demeurait (et demeure) la seule expérience démocratique au niveau supranational – fière de ses progrès prometteurs, quoique obérée de ses multiples défauts. En d’autres termes, c’est arrimée aux États-nations que l’intégration économique jouissait encore de la faveur générale, tandis que la dynamique des marchés internationaux reléguait la démocratie à un plan secondaire.

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

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

Subscribe now to gain greater access to Project Syndicate – including every commentary and our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – starting at less than $5 per month.

Subscribe Now

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

0 Comments on this paragraph, 15 Comments on this article

Enrique Woll Battistini Dec 3, 2017

The world the baby boomer generation's grandparents knew as children has been obliterated by a century of recurring monstrous wars, concurrent with exponentially increasing revolutionary scientific and technological discoveries and inventions, and massive economic, social, political, and legal changes which for many signify development. These changes have occurred in a stark and pervasive moral and ethical vacuum, in the context of unconscionable, unsustainable, and monotonically increasing welfare disparities between the rich and the poor. The world as we know it now is at the historical fork between the threshold of recovery and the brink of a new conflagration, indeed at a very promising and very threatening tipping point, and begging for drastic global financial, economic, and social redress, which only the most comprehensive multilateral and national governance reforms that would redefine the social contracts in the East and the West, the North and the South, and between them, could satisfy. Some of the more evident issues in need of holistic attention are addressed herein.

https://www.academia.edu/23094646/OFA_-_At_the_Brink_of_Recovery_or_Conflagration_The_World_at_a_Tipping_Point_2011111506
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Bernhard Kopp Oct 24, 2017

A 'universal democracy' would not only be difficult, it would be impossible. The very idea is a chimera. Democracy is rooted in very specific institutions that are very different across EU-28/EU-27. Some of them are centuries old, with many adaptations in the 19th and 20th century, others are still non-existent in several newly democratic states. Furthermore, there cannot be a democracy in 21 languages, the EU. There is no such a thing as a transnational public, a transnational parliamentary accountability, a transnational rule of law, or even a transnational welfare state. The author is advocating the rule of a multi-lingual elites, operating without any democratic legitimacy, practically elected by nobody and not accountable to anybody. A perfect dictatorship of eurocrats. The nation state remains the core of any democratic system, just as the family remains the core cell of any society.
- Stephen Ching Nov 22, 2017
  
  Democracy is not just a form of government or institutions, it's cultural and culture draws from history whether we like it or not. many of the problems we see today in the West are a reaction by the masses to what seems to be an attempt by a technocratic elite to herd them into new Procrustean form of 'continental democracy'.
  
  It's precisely because the existing nuances of Western democracy are national and so deeply cultural, even primal, that even the uneducated electorate instinctively feel that 'something isn't right' and are pushing back. They don't rationalise it perhaps, but they do feel it and that doesn't make their verdict wrong.
  
  The EU is not a bad thing per se, but it has moved to far, far too fast pushed along by egotistical technocrats too interested in trying to agrandise their own reputations and ideals and not interested enough in the slow, hard graft of serving the general population. It's a wonder the back-lash we see now didn't happen sooner but still remains to be seen whether the technocrats will heed the warning signs ... On past form I wouldn't bet on it.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Henk Crop Oct 23, 2017

Before there was an EEC/EU there were nation states in Europe. To prevent another war, after 1945, 6 countries agreed to share coal and steel production. Followed came the idea to develop a common market. Other countries joined and the EU economy did well.
But then the EU moved from being an organisation for economic cooperation to an integrated Union. Added were an EU constitution, European socialistic values (on immigration), Open borders and centralized foreign politics. The EU expanded with many countries. However the key functions in the EU Organisation are the EU commission and the EU Parliament and they remained the same.
As a result they both began to act as the EU Government. Their role and mission changed from an office providing services to the member states to an office set out to control the member states. Under the flag of "the ever closer Union" producing binding regulations and implementing actions. In a hurry, before people could realise what happened.
We can all see the results: Large scale immigration, with slums and crime in the cities all over the EU, Frictions with Russia, Slow economic growth, Social and economic chaos resulting from introduction of the Euro, Brexit.
How come ? On paper the EU appears as a democracy.
But in reality there is small EU Elite who are obsessed with building the EU Superstate.
Impossing total control over the countries and their citizen and allocating maximum power to themselves.
How they do that ?
- Cooptation. Always the same faces in the EU top. If a national politician does not follow the vision of the Elite, he/she will never get one of these high paying EU jobs.
- The EU commision issues subsidies by which they buy loyality to the EU, beyond the national Governments.
- No respect for other opnions. They speak with disdain about others. They often call them populists or xenophobe.
- The EU parliament has litte authority and is inclined to follow the Commission.
How can the EU ever arrive at plans or actions that will have the support of the voters in the EU democracy ?
Are there solutions ?
- The EU council, compromising the Presidents of the Memberstates, have to take control and invest more time the EU project.
- The "ever closer Union" concept has to be stopped. We need a pause.
- More flexibility must be allowed in the EU project
- The Immigration has to be stopped, as it is unsustainable. No distribution of immigrants.
- Free movement of people have to be curtailed
- Robert Merrifield Oct 31, 2017
  
  Yes, the shift to a political union risks destroying the union.
  
  Britain has often led where others feared to tread and post Brexit it is clear that many elsewhere in the EU share their views and concerns. They have no desire for political union, a common army or other centralised institutions.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Ariel Tejera Oct 23, 2017

Really... so these democratic and nationalist movements are going to protect selected, advanced countries' populations from the effects of the globalization, that they themselves have been enforcing on everybody else, since 1945. It's surprising that even children would swallow that story, today.
Look at the alliances being formed to that effect, in the case of the US: with billionaires and Generals. Big time democracy, there.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Barry Rosenfeld Oct 23, 2017

Rodrik is correct, and the loser will be democracy. This approach to popular governance already is fading, not only in the less developed world, but also in the more developed one as oligarchy has become more pronounced. The future will likely be either rule by nation-states that emphasize mercantilism, as has been the case since the Treaty of Westphalia, or by multinational/global companies that employ private armies to fight over resources and markets. Science fiction?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Oct 22, 2017

Javier Solana gives his take on Dani Rodrik's "trilemma" of global economy, which insists that the coexistence of the triad - "global economic integration, the nation-state, and democracy" is out of question and that "global democracy" - may well be an illusion. The best choice would be a cherrypicking of any two of the three options, while sacrificing the third.
The author thinks the path the EU is taking, "one that aims to expand democracy beyond the realm of the nation-state", is worth considering. In his view the "sovereignty" that matters is the one that is both "effective and inclusive" - a vision that Emmanuel Macron outlined in his Sorbonne address on September 26, adding "two more key pillars: unity and democracy" to the European design.
The 1989 Washington consensus" - following the economic strictures of the US Department of the Treasury, the IMF and the World Bank in favour of keeping inflation in check, preventing large budget deficits, and upholding a free market, by opening the economy to the private sector and private capital flows - had enabled "global economic integration." But the 2008 global financial crisis "eroded the credibility" of this neoliberal economic order, which critics said had failed to deliver. In came the "Beijing Consensus."
When Obama came to office in 2009, he had his eye on the Chinese economic model. In pursuit of national economic stability, the Obama administration moved towards the kind of greater government intervention that China has been promoting over the past two decades. While benefiting from the global market, the leadership in Beijing retains power through strict control over every aspect of China's economy - a contrast to "liberalization, deregulation, and privatization."
The author points out that the word "nation-state" emerged from the subconscious to the conscious mind during the Brexit campaign and at Trump's rallies last year. Sound bites like "Britain First - taking our country back" were Brexiters' motivation to leave the EU. Trump's "America First" and "Make America great again" targeted the "accumulated powers" of Wall Street, and multinational companies. The anger incited on both sides of the Atlantic upended the "long-established balance among globalization, the nation-state, and democracy."
Although the Brexit vote and the rise of Trump are globalisation's nemesis, their supporters adopt "other aspects of the Washington Consensus, such as financial deregulation – and strengthening democracy through the nation-state." However their idea of sovereignty revolves around nativism and micro-nationalism, which "could paradoxically result in a loss of effective sovereignty." The author aims to say that the size and strenght of a country matter in geopolitics. What is the good of being sovereign if a country's strength is diminished?
In order to contain the threat of globalisation and to protect domestic interests, borders must be closed or a wall be built - as was the rhetoric in Britain and the US in 2016. The price for isolation can be high, because this inward-looking approach will weaken a country's international standing, which makes it more vulnerable to external factors, as it has no allies to rely on when facing global challenges and tackling common threats. "The spirit of cooperation, along with constructive competition" are healthy for societal development and help boost a nation's growth and welfare.
The author's advice is that "even in states that have succumbed to reductionist discourses, much of the population has not." We need to help the 48% of Britons who did not vote for Brexit, the Americans who didn't vote for Trump, or the "49% of Turks who voted 'no' to expanding the Turkish presidency’s powers, implicitly rejecting a narrative that used the EU as a scapegoat. Many of these voters would surely be disappointed if the EU turned its back on them."
While "global democracy" may be a pie in the sky, we can still strive for a vibrant global community. This requires constant dialogues to "avoid perpetuating the deficiencies of the Washington Consensus, which were revealed with such clarity in 2016." With today's information and communication technology we can build a "framework of a common and democratic public sphere" to facilitate contacts and interactions. The author believes this "common public sphere" would help us overcome "the pre-eminence of the nation-state" and move forward "step by step" toward global democracy. However utopian it may sound, the author says the EU is on its path of this experiment and we should cross our fingers that it would succeed.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Andrew Cole Oct 22, 2017

Ironically Brexit would not have happened if the EU had not been hijacked by German and French supremacism for their own national interests. The boasting from the leading politicians of both countries is continuous and turned into a very real national and hence racial hierarchy in Europe - for example Junkers "Germany is too important to fine" that has been extended to award dispensations to those like Spain who are loyal to the Franco-German elite. Its important that principles have to be followed by those spouting them, rather than being projected onto their victims as a cassus belli for uncivilized behaviour - for instance the backdoor trade blockade threatened by Germany and France against the UK and, should it declare independence, Catalonia.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Ramon Prat Oct 22, 2017

Rodrick's political trilemma helps to undertand the interaction of three elements, nevertheless for misfortune of social scientists real world is very complex, and the efficiency of countries and economies are far to be explained from a single lens.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
jagjeet sinha Oct 21, 2017

DIALOGUE MUST OCCUR WITHIN A COMMON AND DEMOCRATIC PUBLIC SPHERE
The author points out the rationale espousing the need for global democracy.
In advocating the public sphere of globalization, the EU is assumed as the nucleus.
Convenient to forget that in 1945-Ground Zero-The Anglosphere was the nucleus.
In viewing Brexit and Trump alongside Catalonia Poland Hungary, he bares all.
Classification of their departures from European Union norms as deviant is next.
Globalization means Europeanization - Madrid Paris Rome Berlin are Central.
Everyone else - Britain and America especially & now Catalonia - is deviant.
Javier Solana is clearly rooted in Brussels Infallibility - forgetting Franco's Spain.
Spain inside European Union happened in 1985 - The Anglosphere is 500 years old.
In enforcement of these roots, the European Union has unleashed anarchy.
The Anglosphere is not in control of the agenda - having underwritten 1945-2015.
America Britain Canada Australia are peripheral deviations.
Madrid Paris Rome Berlin are central - to Global Democracy.
While the author is entitled to Virtual Reality - the Real World is really different.
The nightmares of the author are of his own thinking - Brussels isnt World Capital.
In fact, given secessionist trends, it may not remain Capital of Belgium for long.
The Anglosphere is The Truth - The City-on-the-Hill remains in The Anglosphere.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
M M Oct 21, 2017

Without people, there is no identity (culture) and therefore no countries; Without countries there are no borders and no economies; Without borders there is no sovereignty; Without sovereignty there is no democracy, no rule of law and no respect for people's rights of expression and self determination. Rajoy & Co, who have no mandate to govern, and the Spanish establishment, to include the Europhiles, have learned nothing from history and from the real causes that brought Franco to power for decades. The crisis of Catalonia could have been avoided had there been a genuine will to do so, instead it appears that we are going to see more of the " Deja Vue"...
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Hurst Oct 20, 2017

The EU does not appear to understand that the Unites States of America only really came about from a bloody civil war and domination of a population. Or perhaps it does. Either way national identity will not go quietly into the night whatever Europhiles want. The EU fails to convince it has each and every citizen at its heart, QED, hence it cannot succeed with just propaganda and attempts at thought control. The bizarre thing is when the general move is to reduce government size and devolve administration to induce responsibility and engagement in decision making the EU appears to want to move in the opposite direction. The EU is therefore ahead or behind the curve, my guess is behind. Stop anybody in the street in Europe and ask them what they are. They will not say European; they will say Dutch, Italian, Romanian, ...whatever; they might add a colour reference as well, but European would be down the line of reference. So this European identity is just a derangement, it is a secondary or tertiary identity not a prime identity. Democracy at the end of the day is a local event not a remote event and the author just plain doesn't get it. In fact my guess is if he was asked about himself he would say, oh I am of Spanish origin, and quite likely proud of it. He is unlikely in my opinion to introduce himself as - oh I am am a European. So - end of story.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Virgilio Machado Oct 20, 2017

Federal European Union
https://www.facebook.com/notes/virgilio-a-p-machado/federal-european-union/448586888528811/
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
stephan Edwards Oct 20, 2017

I note the author ignores the fact that Globalization has effectively sodomized the working class in the developed world. Which is why the Voters hate Status Quo so much. Offering more of the same (which is what the author is doing) is either 1) going to result in the election of leaders that make Donald Trump & Vladimir Putin look like saints or 2) If the party leaders in the developed world rig things so no populist or demagogue can elected as I think they will do. A turning to violence has people realize the system is rigged so the winners stay winners and the losers tough s--t. That's your problem.
I f the author can't figure out I will say it "The Status Quo Is Unacceptable to a plurality headed for a majority. His big offer is the same old same old. Whoopee what a deal. World democracy ??? What a joke the EU bureaucracy is utterly unresponsive to anyone without the right connections and you want make world wide?? I think I'll pass. The vested interests are already doing well enough without giving them a world government to own.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/6yC4EqXfr

La souveraineté qui compte vraiment

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

New Comment

Contact us

Handpicked to read next

Europe’s Attackers From Within

Log in/Register

La souveraineté qui compte vraiment

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

Handpicked to read next

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification