Institutional repercussions of EU crisis plansBy
Dr. Costas Botopoulos
Professor of Constitutional Law, President of the Greek Capital Markets Commission
The “Greek problem” proved to be the catalyst for an extended institutional exercise at EU level: what we commonly call the “Lisbon Treaty” (which is, in legal fact, two plus one juxtaposed and not always coordinated texts: the Treaty on the European Union -TEU, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union –TFEU, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights) , although born during the eruption of the pan-European crisis, did not adequately provide for action in real crisis situations; such actions and measures were not only envisaged but rendered necessary when the Greek crisis grew out of proportion, in the beginning of 2010; in order to cope with the asymmetry (scant provisions, urgent need of action) the EU leaders and the EU organs thought out and put into effect a series of “support mechanisms”; such mechanisms did not frontally collide with but led to imaginative re-interpretation of the existing institutional framework. The goal of the present article is to show the parallel progress of the solution-making and of the Treaty-changing-without-amending process.
Ideological and social domination in the crisis years
Let us open up the image a little bit. Plunged as we are -not unfairly- into the difficulties of our homeland, we Greeks have let ourselves, once more, to miss far-reaching developments. While the two major political events of the last three years, i.e. the global financial crisis and the Obama election, have -in terms of ideology- vindicated ideas of the Democratic Left, in terms of relating social forces with election results they achieved the strengthening of right-wing parties. What really happened and the social democratic logic and soft power did not prevail and therefore the countries of the world, one after the other, bow to the sirens of populism, nationalistic entrenchment and the enforcement of trends and ideas which at other times would, without any hesitation, have been called extreme-Right?
I attribute particular importance to three reflective consequences of the crisis that combine psychological and political elements. The crisis might have been -on paper- a slap in the face of neo-liberalism, but also created the incubation conditions of a new Right rather than for some new expression of the Left: It filled citizens with insecurity and fear, shrunk up to disappearance the public space, reinforced the importance of small circles (homeland, family, individual) against the importance of great ideals (international solidarity, justice, equality). “Conservatism” moved from the area of ideology to the field of survival and thus its weakness was transformed into force. The Right realized this in time and effectively: on the one hand by appropriating achievements and ideas vindicated by history (from Sarkozy-type declarations on “humanization of capitalism” to promoting measures of clearly social democratic origin, such as "Economic governance’', Eurobonds, supernational authorities to control the financial system, even taxation on stock-exchange transactions) and on the other hand by hardening its attitude towards the two social issues which matter the most to its voters (security and immigration). By accepting this bilateral and hypocritically consensual positioning societies have allowed the third and greatest paradox: the abandonment of pretexts and the emergence of a "Right beyond limits'’.
Comment on a collective political essay
One doesn’t need to be a historian to observe how fast and out of control the new century evolves. If Eric Hobsbawm, the greatest historian of the age, has called the 20th century ‘’short’’, I think he wouldn’t deny us the right to already characterize the 21st century as ‘’dense’’. A recent Greek book, collection of unequal in quantity and quality articles, extending its scientific field from political science to economy via diplomatic relations, constitutes a nice illustration. This word is not accidental, as what’s interesting in this volume titled ‘’From Bush to Obama”, edited by the indefatigable Sotiris Dalis, lies mainly in its panoramic view, thus justifying the subtitle ‘’ International politics in a changing world’’.
‘’Multi-polarity’’ and ‘’turmoil’’, are, I believe, the two key-words of both the era and the book. It is also noticed by the unforgettable Viron Theodoropoulos in his short but concise prologue: perhaps never again in history have there simultaneously existed (at least with such perception from global conscience) so many issues (a fact which also provides a possible side-explanation of the retreat of politics), so many “players” (individuals and countries), so many reversals of relations and situations, such great mobility (speed, but not necessarily movement).
Social Media