Gaffes make for interesting (and true?) politics….

By Johan Eliasson (from polscithinking nr.3, 2002)

NOTE: The following material may prove provocative and even offending to some, and should be read with care. Furthermore, for those not interested in the EU don't moan and sigh in utter despair over "yet another piece on the EU": the following exposition of personal thoughts, comments, and politico-economic analysis (or incoherent rambling if you so prefer) should interest, amuse and provoke anyone interested in political leaders and "the game of politics"(choose your definition of this frequently utilized yet highly ambiguous epithet).

For anyone interested in politicians actually speaking their mind and "telling us as it is", and for those who believe decision-makers should express the views of the electorate instead of perpetually exhibiting guardianship, engaging in meaningless phraseology to the detriment of substantive debate leading to empirically verifiable changes (oooops, long sentence here), the so-called "gaffes" by political leaders in the EU provide over last two weeks may provide some hope. Let me explain.

The head of the EU Commission (the body in charge of overseeing and implementing treaties on all community matters, including EU trade policies and mergers; does the name Monti ring a bell with all you economists and trade experts??) Romani Prodi, referred to the existing Stability and Growth Pact (an agreement on how member states must maintain solid state finances and not rack up debt) as "stupid". Of course he is absolutely correct, and we'll get to why in a bit, but there's more. Italy's Prime Minister, media mogul Silvio Bersculoni, also caused jaws to drop as he proclaimed that Europe to be based on Christian values and this should be reflected in the new EU constitution (currently under construction). He has sought explicit, yet received implicit, support from the Vatican. A substantial Muslim minority in the EU and applicant states (plus Turkey, but we'll get to that later) probably agree with my spontaneous reaction of " So much for religious tolerance". And, before expanding on these two cases, a lapse of propriety occurred when Giscard d'Estaing, former French President and head of an odd constellation of Euro-philes and Euro-skeptics officially titled the Constitutional Convention which is trying to hammer out the aforementioned constitution, said what a majority of citizens in every member state have expressed in domestic surveys: Turkey is not European and its membership would mean the end of the EU. Whether Turkey actually is European or not is beside the point (that is a whole different ball-game and best left for another discussion), as is the question of "what is Europe". What is interesting, and, here it comes, refreshing, is that d'Estaing, like Prodi and Berlusconi, blurted what many economists have stated and most citizens feel.

Let's begin with the stability pact, or perhaps more befitting: the economic disaster pact. While the deal has a sound economic basis intended to prevent states from engaging in lax, perhaps even irresponsible, fiscal policy with accompanying debt-escalation, it was premised on economic growth far in excess of current levels. Economics 101: in times of lethargic growth and rising unemployment, demands for tax increases and spending cuts to curtail debt are senseless. They are counterproductive. The European Central Bank, "the most independent central bank in history"(Dornbsuch,1999) and conservative to the extreme (a statement is probably a contender for an "understatement of the year award" if such a category exists in any of the 13-per-dozen award ceremonies held annually in the U.S.), has maintained an interest rate 2-2.5 % above that of the Federal Reserve, citing fears of inflation. Yet inflation is not a problem. Instead the Eurozone may come to experience stagflation as oil prices sky-rocket as the result of a war in the Middle East accompanied by a reduction in world demand due to such price-hikes(Britton,2002). We have been there before, and it ain't pleasant. So, going back to Prodi, EU leaders should praise his honesty and together agree on either to accept loosened fiscal policies until stable growth returns. This is the sensitive alternative and one which would calm market analysts and investors if done swiftly, agreed upon by all EU members, and backed by the ECB. Temporarily incurring current account deficits, and also increasing state debts will be less harmful then the alternative which is to unite behind the existing pact which will prolong meager growth rates. Explaining the latter to the electorate will take some linguistic-aerobics, something EU leaders normally excel at yet seem as of late less capable of performing. Thus, absent any significant inflationary pressures and faced with the prospect of a long-term European version of what the U.S. experienced last year but show signs of escaping from, a "slow growth-recession", the ECB should follow the Federal Reserve and lower interest rates to stimulate growth. EU leaders acting in concert on fiscal policies and backed by a stimulus-sighted ECB: now that would be truly path-breaking (and would make inapplicable such remarks as uttered by Prodi a few weeks back).

Now, in regards to a Christian basis for socio-cultural and political Europe. Yes, of course this is the case! The same Judeo-Christian values upon which the U.S. Constitution is based dominate also in EU member states and the respective constitution. Yes, many states are predominantly Catholic, but Catholics are Christians, and the commonalties in social values, laws and the judiciaries across member states are striking. Thus it is understandable that Berlusconi, along with several members of the European Parliament, have expressed concerns about the effects of potentially admitting "Muslim states"; in quotations as everyone knows that the only states referred to are a selective few on the Balkans and Turkey; the latter a secular state nonetheless! The sentiments expressed are also reflective of the (unfortunate) fact that in no member state is there support for Turkish membership, and in no state is there significant support for EU expansion except to include Switzerland and Norway, two (Christian) states whose people express little desire to join as they constitute the two wealthiest states on earth (per capita) and do very well on their own: thank you very much. It is also striking that those who argue that the EU suffers from a "democratic deficit" and advocate greater openness and accountability to its citizens, are also frequently heard advocating expansion. Is their advocacy of adherence to "the will of the people" selective? Perhaps there are more "gaffes" to be uncovered here….

Anyway, a return to Berlusconi's and d'Estaing's statements is in order, where an admiration of their respective candidness is nonetheless transcended by solemn dismay. The EU, the "greatest peace-project ever"(Lindh,2001)should not, and can not, be exclusionary unless it erects formal territorial boundaries; a spatio-consciousness territoriality in which certain socio-cultural and religious elements are deemed unacceptable, in essence constituing a perpetual "other" (irrespective of this nation and nation-state's wealth). To construct such territoriality within the EU is indeed possible, yet not plausible, as it would require far more contentious debates than heretofore seen. Thus it will most likely never occur. This is good. However, instead, an equally detrimental, an implicit yet widely spread belief in certain groups as "others", never to be admitted to the European family, will be strengthened ,and its roots extended to certain new "acceptable" nations (as in peoples). Oh my, what a pity.

EU leaders will continue to balance political correctness EU-style in official statements with occasional blurts revealing their true beliefs and preferences. All the while citizens will continue to accuse leaders of dishonesty while on occasion showing nascent signs of shock when their leaders actually express what a majority of EU citizens feel and believe. Whether or not one shares the views of most EU citizens on the aforementioned issues (which your truly does not), and regardless of whether one supports a deeper, stronger and larger EU as a means to redress economic problems (the first issue discussed above but which may have faded in memory by now; not to worry, it happens to the best of intellectuals at times), and overcome exclusionary sentiments based on other than commonly agreed upon, secular criteria, for admission to la familia du EU (which I do), politicians' comments and ensuing press coverage provides ample food for fodder for political junkies and experts alike. Which of these yours truly identifies with shall remain unstated, at least until the day I too find myself in the position where everything I said is scrutinized and analyzed and I too be accused of a gaffe by speaking my mind. That is, lest any reader levies such an accusation based on any or all of the commentary you have just finished reading.