"Western governments will become more inward-looking"
What should Europe and the US do?
Video comments
Theme Intro
Reinventing Democracies
Session 1 - Clip 16
David Armitage on the role of publics and managing expectations
Session 2 - Clip 4
David Armitage: changing nature of democratic politics
Session 2 - Clip 5
Rem Korteweg on the West as status quo powers and domestic concerns
Session 2 - Clip 6
Klaus Naumann on Global governance, decisionmaking and crises
Session 2 - Clip 7
John Hulsman on the effectiveness and global appeal of Western democracy & relationship between government and electorate
Session 2 - Clip 8
Tomas Valasek on Ukraine and appeal of Western ideas
Session 2 - Clip 9
Tomas Valasek on ability of democracies to learn from crisis
Session 2 - Clip 10
David Armitage on the need for governments to level with the public
Session 2 - Clip 12
John Hulsman, Rem Korteweg, Klaus Naumann, Erik Jones on the search for political leadership and the risk of demagogues
Session 2 - Clip 16
John Hulsman, Tomas Valasek, Klaus Naumann and Rem Korteweg on the ability to export Western ideas and European integration
Session 2 - Clip 17
Erik Jones on Westphalia & European Integration
Background
Over the last few decades, a paradoxical situation has emerged: although governments are grappling with increasing global problems, such as resource security, climate change and revolutions in the Arab World, their populace is becoming more and more isolationist. This is reflected in the polarization of political debate in general and the rise of anti-immigration populist movements in specific. Politicians can take unpopular decisions in defiance of public opinion, but risk defeat at the ballot box. As a result of new media technologies, the relationship between the government and the governed is also changing. At a time when transnational challenges loom larger than ever, can politicians become leaders, instead of followers?
Kiona / 15-12-2011 @ 16.49
In the case of Europe, we can see that the Eurozone country politicians are really pushing for a new Eurozone agreements, thus contradicting the statement made above. However, even though most state politicians are pushing for such an agreement, the real question is how much friction is there within national politics.
jpolchar / 08-05-2012 @ 18.52
The problem with these international agreements though is that they try to tackle a new era of polyarchy using the politics of hierarchy. Publics in countries which sign up to new regimes such as the fiscal pact will not accept the rule of countries which write the terms. As David Armitage says in clip 16, there needs to be more understanding and mutual learning for these policies to be truly legitimate. But this will not happen automatically; it must be built into the governance architectures of international institutions and replace their hard 'rule of law' approach.
Jonne / 20-12-2011 @ 10.33
I think the push for agreements was long overdue and is more out of fear of the financial markets than a genuine passion for European integration. As you said, what has been agreed on might still become stillborn when facing national parliaments.
Elsa / 14-12-2011 @ 17.50
I have just read this morning an interview of a French philosopher (Marcel Gauchet) in which he explained to what extend the lack of solutions to the economic crisis is deeply linked to the political one that occidental societies have to face. For him, both the political model of liberal democracy and the economic system of neo-liberalism reached their limits, failing either to analyze the causes or to provide adequate solutions to the crisis. http://gauchet.blogspot.com/2009/10/crise-economique-et-crise-democratique.html
In all crisis time, societies ‘values and basis are being test. Therefore, the same reluctant issues come again and again: integration, immigration, delocalization, defiance of public opinion… Isolationism have always been the immediate reaction to economic or socio-political crises.
I wonder if the question of “societies going inward-looking” is truly accurate. Indeed, for me it’s already the case, and there are many practical evidences where state’s interest largely govern the domestic policy-makers ‘agenda.
My interrogation is more about the paradox existing between what national politicians claim being able to do and the range of real possibilities: going inward-looking on issues that cannot be solved solely at a national level is a real contradiction, that populism parties don’t seem ready to understand.
Kiona / 21-11-2011 @ 15.19
I would partly say that this is the case. Just today in France Marine Le Pen, the leader of France's right-wing National Front party has announced that quitting the Euro will be one of the pillars of her election campaign. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/535a7cfc-1379-11e1-81dd-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1eKK2dhw0 - and what makes it all the more relevant, is that she has gained more popularity now than her father had 6 months before the 2002 Presidential election, when he came second.
However, just a couple of days ago I read an article on Belgium, in which opinion polls showed that they are more concerned with climate change than with the current economic crisis. More astonishing is that the current economic crisis was classified at the bottom of people's concerns of world problems. http://nieuws.be.msn.com/groen/klimaatverandering-verontrust-de-belgen-meer-dan-de-economische-crisis
Thus you can already see a fragmentation in the culture of perception in the West. This is reflected in policy formation, making some interesting reactions besides the traditional isolationist reflex towards crises.
Eline Chivot / 16-11-2011 @ 17.02
"The problem for China is political. China is held together by money, not ideology. When there is an economic downturn and the money stops rolling in, not only will the banking system spasm, but the entire fabric of Chinese society will shudder." These are the words of George Friedman in The Next 100 Years (2009). What if this situation - that might happen to China in the future in my opinion - can the exact explanation of what is happening to the West?
Jonne / 20-12-2011 @ 10.54
This can of course be argued for every civilization in history, the question is what the Chinese resilience is to declining growth. The social contract with its so far complaisant middle class will be renegotiated, its ethnic minorities might rebel. But what about the potential of Han nationalism?
barukudzo / 02-11-2011 @ 17.40
Europe and US should treat people of the world equally when dealing with them. The notion of sending large sums of money to civil society especially in Southern Africa is not encouraged at all. Nothing has changed in countries like Zimbabwe after such aid has been given. What Europe and the US need to do is to engage the state in all the developmental programs. In this way, the state can be held accountable for any action it takes. The state will also be put in a corner by citizens if it does not produce results. Civil society has proved to be greed and also not accountable to anyone. No wonder why we see some African countries looking east because they think Europe and US are pushing regime change agenda through theses civics. Engage theses dictators on a 50/50 situation. Go and assist in the mining of those diamonds,help to develop Africa so that it will not depend on Europe and US. This way, Europe and US will not be burdened by sending aid to Africa. Create a good world for everybody through good cooperation.
Jonne / 03-11-2011 @ 13.44
China has not only been successful in Sub-Saharan Africa because of unconditional aid, but because it is actually willing to do business with these countries. China's policy towards Africa can be easily criticized but its investments in infrastructure and employment opportunities (despite bringing in Chinese workers) are generally welcomed by locals. If the West truly wants to engage Africa it should treat it like a business partner and dismiss its own mercantilist subsidies.
Maarten / 03-11-2011 @ 12.27
Barukudzo, those are noble words and goals indeed - however I disagree with your comments because of of two reasons. First, I do see much benefit to the focus on civil society in development aid, in that it bypasses corrupt politics and brings aid directly to the people who need it most. Second, Western conditional aid is becoming less and less effective because China in particular is offering aid without meddling in internal affairs. This is not the consequence of our focus on civil society, as you suggest. Of course we need to try to improve African politics, but the question is: how are you going to convince African states to do this in light of this increased "competition"? I think we should try to come up with more wide-ranging and internationally shared standards when donating development aid, and especially pressure China in accepting these.
PNR / 03-11-2011 @ 12.24
How do you propose for countries, especially the US and Europe to treat countries equally? While it is a it is a wonderful ideal to strive for, the practical application of such a policy at the international stage is nearly impossible, especially when self interest is involved. Also I am not sure how engaging the dictators would be a positive development for either the US and Europe to engage with dictators, if the past year in North Africa and the Middle East has shown anything, it is that the West should refrain from engaging with dictators for economic and resource purposes. Also by engaging the dictators the structural inequalities present in the countries will not be address, and the people holding the state accountable is difficult when they are suppressed by the state security apparatus.
PNR / 02-11-2011 @ 10.55
Indeed, as Rem Korteweg says in the clip, Western nations are already inward looking. But the point for me is more that the shift in focus on internal matters will only become more pressing with the decline of western political, economic and military influence. We need people and plans that will manage that decline without clinging to nostalgia of the unipolar days, nor depression about our declining power. Recognizing the long term benefits of a global free market and the global nature of many of our problems (e.g., climate change, terrorism, resource scarcity, global economic imbalances), an outward looking approach is essential. David Armitage has a point that a lot of effort should be put into “managing expectations” of the electorate. But more than managing expectations, we need to better sell the advantages of international engagement and a globalised world economy. That requires bold plans and leaders people can believe in. The demand is greater than ever, but unlike David I am rather skeptical on the capacity of crises to somehow miraculously bring forth such people…
Maarten / 04-11-2011 @ 16.37
Ted/PNR: I think we all agree on the short sightedness of populist and inward looking politics. The question remains: is there any hope for leaders to step up and start rowing against the popular tide? Do you see any sign of real change on the way? And if indeed some more enlightened western leaders will enter the scene, what could they do to dismantle this trend towards populism/inward looking politics?
Ted / 04-11-2011 @ 14.05
I agree with PNR. Leaders and politicians should just argue in favour of international engagement if that's what they believe. In my view, the way many political parties are dealing with populism is much too defensive. It's as if they're afraid to been seen as 'out of touch with the people' if they disagree with populist parties. What happens is that they take elements of the populist agenda in an attempt to contain or appease populist sentiments, which makes them inward-looking. What they should do is distance themselves from populism and put their trust in the self-cleansing capacity of democracy. Politicians who really believe that populism is such a bad idea have to trust that the electorate is wise enough to turn away from populist parties once it turns out that these parties are not up to the challenges that need to be dealt with. Yes, that may mean they have to take an electoral defeat or two, but so be it.