View previous stories
	Rediscovering the general will in hard times by Natalie Fenton and Nick Couldry Social Science Research Council & agencies USA   Rediscovering the general will in hard times, by Natalie Fenton and Nick Couldry.   “Democracy,” wrote John Dewey, “is more than a form of government.” The image we are given of democracy is often reduced to administration, the implementation and management of the necessary, but the legitimacy of the state in democracies is inseparable from some notion of the general will. Democracy, as Rousseau argued, requires some process for the formation of the “general will,” by reference to which decision-making can be measured.   The Occupy movement is an attempt to form the general will in new ways. As such, it is a potentially fundamental contribution to resolving the contemporary crisis of democracy. Our argument, written from London, is informed by observations of the occupation outside St Paul’s Cathedral, otherwise known as Occupy LSX, rather than the global range of Occupy movements. We make no apologies for that: one point of the Occupy movement is that it provides a single frame within which many local actions can resonate politically. Our concern is with the fate of the basic idea that makes this resonance possible: What does it entail? Where might it lead? How can it be sustained?   It is no accident that John Dewey’s theory of democracy as a social process was formulated, for the large part, during the Depression of the 1930s, the worst financial crisis that the world has seen—at least until now. Severe economic dislocation calls into question the usefulness of the conventional means by which we express the common will: voting, joining political parties, keeping up with the basic news of the day. When national economies are jolted by currency decline, mass unemployment, and a loss of economic activity without much hope of its return, the connections between voting and getting a satisfactory outcome for oneself, for one’s family, or for one’s community are stretched thin.   It is exactly such a disjuncture between the democratic process and desirable outcomes that we face today in the fifth year of a global financial crisis that started with the collapse of the subprime market in the United States in late 2007.   The contemporary crisis of democracy has been more than thirty years in the making. The gap between democracy’s promise of voice and its delivery is inherent to how market democracies have been run since the late 1970s. And yet it is only now in 2011 as a key pillar of the global financial system, the Euro, is threatened and the economies of four European countries are under severe threat, that this gap has started to be consistently challenged.   There are in fact two very good reasons why this gap in democracy’s workings has not been challenged until now. First, because the day-to-day finances of contemporary nation-states are entirely determined by the workings of global financial markets: we live in what Colin Leys calls “market-driven democracies,” and have done so for at least 20 years. Second, because a whole doctrine and culture has sprung up that explains the first condition as inevitable, as the “nature” of how societies run.   As Foucault pointed out, the idea that ‘markets’ are more fundamental realities than governments has roots back in the late-18th and early-19th centuries, but it only reached mature form in the neoliberalism of Milton Friedman and Friedrich Von Hayek that began to infiltrate Western governments in the mid-1970s.   The impact of these two factors on the everyday experience of democracy has been devastating. We have grown used to living in democracies that aren’t working, that is, don’t work as democracies. Apart from ecstatic exceptions when the symbolic meaning of democratic rituals has temporarily been redeemed (Obama’s election in 2008 being the most notable), we know every day the reality of a “post-democracy” where votes don’t count when it comes to the economic domain and economics’ consequences for every other domain of life and government. It is an unwelcome truth that we live in societies democratic only in name.   What is so striking about the Occupy movement is that it is a peaceful, collective attempt to face up to that unwelcome “post-democratic” truth and to explore new ways of experiencing the general will. Not surprisingly this is difficult, and full of uncertainties. The decades-long decline of political parties and trade unions in many countries has left vast numbers inexperienced in the skills of political deliberation. It is not that political opportunity doesn’t exist, but that it is so often of the wrong sort: myriad forms, as Pierre Rosanvallon argues, of “counter-democracy”—the means to say no—and few forms of ”gaining practical experience of the general will” or of actively participating in the polity, that is, of saying yes.   The Occupy movement interrupts the bleak routine of counter-democracy. It certainly says no—to bankers bonuses, to cuts, and much else—but as a part of saying yes to the possibility of thinking differently about the political consequences of global markets, to the possibility of challenging the supposed necessities of what the markets “say” and in that way reimagining how democracy may be differently enacted.   Nothing could be harder than this. Every day, when we wake up to the news, the economy is presented to us as fate, as nature: instead we need to see it once more “as a site of decision,” as a process that is open to democratic accountability. That requires new ways of thinking. It also requires new ways of acting, getting into the habit, for the first time, of treating ourselves and those close to us as citizens with a valid contribution to make to deliberations on how the economy should be run.   It means denying to certain others—economic commentators, spokespersons for business and corporate power—the authority to dominate debate on the economy that they have assumed for so long. It means seeing as inadequate (even if welcome) the apparent freedom of decision within the economy granted to the consumer with a credit card.   It means restoring economics to the domain of the political and the ethical: the common pursuit of the elements of a good life. It requires, in other words, rethinking ourselves as political subjects, as political actors.   That is why the imaginative forms of the Occupy movement must be watched with close attention. They are far more than spectacle, even though they often work well as that. The question painted on a tent outside St Paul’s—What would Jesus do?—was much more than a smart challenge to the PR sophistication of religious authorities at a prominent site of worship. It was an ethical (and so potentially political) reformulation of questions about the running of the global economy that for nearly four decades have been treated as beyond ethics, beyond politics.   What struck us most on visiting St Paul’s was the sense of serious deliberation, the commitment to finding new ways of articulating what is wrong and what must be done. This particular experiment in refinding the general will may fail. That need not matter if the idea of this experiment takes hold. It has already spread through the mantle of the Occupy movement across many countries and been replicated within those countries across many cities. But some plausible successes in expressing the “general will” are needed, so they too can spread and be tried out elsewhere.   Longer-term, an even greater challenge emerges: how to link up the successes, if they occur, of the Occupy movement to the wider political process? John Dewey wrote of turning “the Great Society into the Great Community,” but sadly both terms have become devalued through use as cover for neoliberal business as usual. It is not how we describe the process, however, that is important.   What matters is the intent, which can only emerge through intense and prolonged collective struggle, to make the imaginative and practical gains of the Occupy movement count in the formal political process and, if this proves impossible, to extend our imaginative work to a rethinking of that political process itself. A number of once placid neoliberal democracies—from Greece to Britain and the United States—are poised to start out on that struggle.   As university academics who for now still have the privilege of time in which to think and write, our main task perhaps is to go out from our institutions and listen on the streets, and then, on return, to open our doors.   (Nick Couldry and Natalie Fenton are Professors in Media and Communications at Goldsmiths, University of London).   A moral revolution for social justice, by Alan James Strachan and Janet Coster.   The moral principle of revolutions is to instruct, not to destroy. - Thomas Paine, 1795.   Thomas Paine’s words from Dissertation on First Principles of Government, written 217 years ago, capture the core purpose of the Occupy movement. The movement, at its heart, instructs us to honour one another and to ensure that government policy and our justice system reflect that ethic. It asks us to return to our founding principles.   Wherever people gather there will be unequal distributions of wealth, power and privilege. In terms of social policy, people either tend to side with those who already have these advantages, thus perpetuating the imbalance, or they wish to lessen the disparity.   There are many philosophical justifications for favouring the wealthy and powerful, including the “Gospel of Wealth,” Social Darwinism, Manifest Destiny, God’s Will and “trickle-down economics.” All of these philosophies assert the inherent superiority of those who are wealthy, powerful and privileged by appropriating Darwinism, Destiny, God or Capitalism in a profoundly self-serving manner.   These rationalizations are a sign of pathological narcissism, i.e., the overvaluing of oneself and the undervaluing of others, that springs from greed, insecurity, fear and the lust for power. This approach to life basically asserts: ‘I will take what I want, any way I can, and I don’t care about the consequences to others.’ It represents the “law of the jungle,” not the law of a civil, democratic society.   These philosophies stand in opposition to the teachings of many spiritual traditions and the dictates of love, compassion and empathy. They stand in stark contrast to a mature and developed morality, in which the individual is able to see beyond his own self-interests and values the rights and wellbeing of others.   Where can we turn, to in our American traditions, for orientation in response to those who insist on the endless accumulation of wealth, power and privilege? The answer is clear to return to our founding principles, as embodied in what is known as "The American Creed.”   When the Founders declared independence, they were strongly influenced by a key concept of the European Enlightenment: the belief that human rights were universal, transcending the law, and that the law"s purpose ought to be to uphold these rights. Thus, when Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence in 1776, he declared: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” This sentence transformed the Declaration from simply being a list of grievances against King George III into a famous proclamation of human rights. It has since become known as the American Creed, and conveys the core belief and moral value upon which our democracy is based.   This American Creed was not a perfect declaration of human rights e.g. it specifies “men” and not “people.” Furthermore, as the young country began to form, it became clear that, for the most part, “men” referred to white, Anglo-Saxon Protestants. This contradiction between the "universality" of human rights, and the actual implementation of them, is one that America has struggled with for 236 years. Nevertheless, flaws notwithstanding, this was the first such declaration of universal human rights. It heralded a radical break from traditional, top-down power structures, i.e., the monarchies that ruled Europe.   This democratic ideal would be more fully realized with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights which set up a system of checks and balances so that no one individual or branch of government could become too powerful. These documents formally reversed the power pyramid, making it clear that elected officials were to be public servants.   In order to value human rights, it first is necessary to have empathy, to see other people as human. This may appear obvious to us now, but it was only in the eighteenth century in Europe that people began to be seen as autonomous, equal human beings. Prior to that time, many kinds of people, such as servants, slaves, children, women and people without property, were not regarded as autonomous individuals who employed independent moral judgment.   Empathy is key in recognizing human rights and creating democracy. Society has many ways of ranking people, but the moral value implicit in the Creed, i.e., the self-evident assertion that all people are created equal, tells us that our innate worthiness transcends any social ranking.   A democratic government is defined by its willingness to recognize and act in accord with the unalienable truth that all people are created equal. This is not simply a political arrangement. It is a moral and spiritual commitment.   Thus, it is the sacred duty of any democratic government - as the servant of "We, the People" - to recognize the inherent worth of every citizen, to “bow down” and treat them with respect, and to use the social conscience intrinsic to the spirit of democracy to act on behalf of the disenfranchised.   In practical terms, it is essential that a democratic government recognize and rectify those circumstances in the political system in which the wealthy and powerful are given special privileges and, therefore, are being treated as more worthy.   The Occupy movement arose in part because, for far too long, the spirit of democracy had been violated on behalf of the wealthy, powerful and privileged. The Occupy movement is a moral revolution, and - as Nathalie Fention and Nick Couldry attend- its core moral intent is to reassert true democracy, grounded in empathy and justice for all. By reasserting the American Creed, the movement is letting those in power know that they are violating the spirit of democracy. It calls upon them to begin acting as true public servants.   Democracy literally means “people power.” Democracy is our power to wield. It is power born of our inherent worth and our respect for the dignity of every person, and should never be underestimated. As Margaret Mead observed, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it"s the only thing that ever has”. Visit the related web page
	Fear over rise of far right casts a shadow over Europe by Public Service Europe & agencies   Populist xenophobes undermine tolerance with their nationalist rhetoric, writes Marie-Christine Vergiat. (Public Service Europe)   A Dutch website has been recently set up to solicit complaints about central and eastern European immigrants. Internet users are urged to answer whether they have lost a job because of "a Pole, a Bulgarian or a Romanian". They can also check assorted boxes to report "noise", "parking nuisances" or "drunkenness". Such incitement to racial hatred - a clear and shameful attempt to stir up xenophobia against immigrants and moreover against those from Central and Eastern Europe - comes from none other than the far right PVV "Freedom Party".   The website"s initiator PVV leader Geert Wilders has already amply illustrated himself in this field as he was previously notorious solely for his fierce anti-Islam rhetoric, More recently, Wilders has started expanding his populist repertoire to include the above-mentioned attacks. This party is not just any extreme right-wing party; Wilders party props up the Dutch minority government headed by Mark Rutte and officially is part of his parliamentary majority. When speaking about this controversy, we can only say the Dutch government"s silence is "deafening". Last week, prime minister Rutte was invited to come to Strasbourg to clarify his government"s position to the European Parliament. Our debate went ahead, but Rutte was conspicuous by his absence. In other respects, the PM also refused to answer calls to distance his government from the PVV site.   Unfortunately, this case is not merely symbolic as it involves a party - which is a full member of a political majority, whose influence spreads far beyond Dutch borders. Similar practices are developing in many member states. Two extreme-right Polish websites designates leftists, homosexuals and foreigners as "race enemies". In Latvia, Russians are targeted via their car registration plates. In Luxembourg, a law was passed restricting access to family benefits for foreign residents.   We cannot leave Hungary and Viktor Orban"s catastrophic record off this list. These past weeks in my own country, France, racist rhetoric has taken on a new dimension since President Sarkozy - in his electoral campaign - is making use of themes usually the preserve of the extreme right-wing Front National. After attacking the Roma, he announced plans for referenda on immigration and threatened to suspend France"s membership of Schengen, ignoring one of the European Union issues to which citizens say they are the most attached.   During this week"s EP debate, the Danish EU presidency and the European Commission issued condemnations of the PVV site. But they did not go any further than making reference to sanctions by individual member states and their courts.   The commission never stops telling us that it is the guardian of the treaties. Is freedom of movement and non-discrimination no longer one of the core values of the EU then?   The sad truth is, unfortunately, much more simple. On economic matters - free movement of goods or capital and barriers to competition - the commission is quick to act. When it comes to attacks on fundamental rights, even the most long-standing ones - which include free movement of people and our right to non-discrimination throughout the EU; we are suddenly informed that it is a member state issue. And then they wonder why people are calling into question the true values of the EU? Such inflammatory speeches call to mind Europe"s tragic history and there should be a legal obligation to act.   Now, EU leaders must not only unreservedly condemn but also firmly deal with all breaches of fundamental values. It is time we started closing our doors, not to those seeking to build a new life in another country - but to the populist xenophobes who will lead us back down the same tragic path of European history.   * Marie-Christine Vergiat MEP is a member of the European Parliament.   Apr 2012   The far right takes root in Europe, by Mariano Aguirre.   Anders Behring Breivik’s attacks are part of a worrying trend in Europe of the far right’s rise within mainstream politics. From the Netherlands and Germany to Britain and France, immigrant communities are on the defensive.   The bloodthirsty attacks perpetrated by Anders Behring Breivik in Norway on July 22 last year (leaving 78 dead) provided a brutal awakening for all those in Europe who had been passively observing the rise of the Islamophobic far right. As the trial opens, around thirty political parties that openly call for a “pure European identity” are effectively in the process of consolidating their parliamentary positions (occasionally even signing agreements with mainstream right wing parties, as is the case in the Netherlands), and are claiming an ever greater media presence.   These parties, following the example of the Nordic Forum, are adept at using new technology and social networks, which gives them an even greater platform to spread their messages of hate and bolster their national and international alliances.   Those responsible for this noxious propaganda always hide behind the principle of freedom of expression, and, when they are criticised for the speeches they deliver encouraging the Breiviks of the future, they assert that the carnage perpetrated by this “lone wolf” has nothing to do with the climate that they have helped to create. Indeed, they present themselves as victims that are being suppressed. They make out that Europe will ultimately lose its “Christian identity”. These demagogues are active both inside and outside the electoral system: just as they have an elected presence in the parliaments, on the other hand they endlessly criticise democracies, accusing them of being far too liberal on the issue of immigration.   The European far right is seduced by the fantasy of a “pure” Europe as opposed to a real Europe, which is in fact successfully diversified. Like Anders Behring Breivik, thousands of individuals that haunt websites and blogs (Gates of Vienna, Brussels Journal), organisations such as the English Defence League, Platform per Catalunya, or Militia Christi, as well as religious leaders are all actively preparing fertile ground for the growth of extremism.   A study at the University of Nottingham undertaken for Chatham House by Matthew Goodwin demonstrates that extremist parties are primarily characterised by their visceral opposition to immigration (particularly Muslim immigration), to ethnic diversity, and finally to multiculturalism, alongside social behaviours that they consider to be a great danger to Europe.   Further, they think that mainstream political parties are far too “soft” in their responses to the issues surrounding immigration. Another study, by Elisabeth Ivarsflaten, shows that populist parties have always had their greatest electoral successes after integrating a strong anti-immigration strand into their speeches and manifestos.   These “new” populists carefully avoid the usual racist and anti-Semitic discourse, and prefer to position their stance more subtly, around questions of culture and identity. Paradoxically, they claim two conflicting identities: Christian through their recognition of a mythological European past, and secular in their fight against Islam.   They fight “Marxist” politicians, or those that are too liberal. It’s with this in mind that Anders Behring Breivik attacked the government buildings in Oslo and subsequently the summer camp of young labour party activists on Utøya island. They are generally pro-American, have close working relationships with the far right in the United States, and consider Israel to be a defensive western bulwark against Islam. During times of crisis they also use the argument of the welfare state to justify themselves: they contend that immigrants are stealing jobs and scamming the welfare state, in particular social security, as they have many more children than the European average, and so on.   In his manifesto - a vast copy and paste job of the greatest hits of extremist ideas -, Anders Behring Breivik opposed the welfare state and a pluralistic hegemonic identity. “European societies” he wrote “must be able to rely on a solid social cohesion, which can only really exist in a monocultural system where everyone has complete confidence in one another.”   Goodwin’s study reveals that the majority of those who vote for populist parties come from a modest background or the middle classes. They are also often small business owners or farmers afraid of drastic economic and social change. “Market globalisation and economic deregulation have hurled the planet into an era of uncertainty which is inevitably provoking fear” reminds Javier de Lucas, professor at the University of Valencia. To this, the extreme right counters with a riposte made up of simplistic formulas, and lays responsibility for the all the economic and social woes on “the politicians”, “leftists” and immigrants.   As the philosopher Slavoj Zizek concludes: “The only way to introduce passion into this kind of politics, the only way to actively mobilise people, is through fear: the fear of immigrants, the fear of crime...”   Timid counter-offensives   Moderate politicians remain relatively impotent in the face of attacks from the far right, and when they attempt a riposte, they do so in a contradictory fashion: centre-left parties - to avoid losing a public that is sensitive to these issues - willingly revisit the pet subjects of the far right, in particular immigration. In fact, Europe is imposing ever more restrictive policies to limit the right to asylum and inward migratory flow, while at the same time political parties are lauding “greater tolerance” towards foreigners. The reality is that xenophobic sentiments are on the rise, and immigrant Muslim populations and their culture are being increasingly rejected.   If Europe wants to sustain growth, then it will need to open the door wide to immigration. However, this argument does not succeed in halting the advance of Islamophobia. "There is something that worries me far more than the growth of the far right at the 2010 ballot, explains Thomas Hammarberg, Commissioner for Human Rights at the European Council: “and that is the profound inertia and above all confusion that seems to reign amongst moderate democratic parties of both the left and right. One even has the impression that these parties have come to accept the narrative of hatred and that this unencumbered xenophobia has been integrated into the political discourse as though it were something quite ordinary: their leaders have totally failed to check this rise in Islamophobia."   Leading media outlets have opened the debate, keeping centrally in their sights the fact that a major segment of their audience is sliding steadily, at least electorally speaking, towards the populist right. Meanwhile new ultra-nationalist media outlets are appearing on the media landscape, just as they have in the United States, along with thousands of websites and books, which for the most part, have been able to find a place in the unfolding discussions as though they were serious political institutions.   It is thus that the British essayist Bat Yeor, using her real name Gisele Littman-Orebi, invented the famous Euro-Arabian axis (or Eurabia), abundantly referenced by Breivik in his manifesto, and in which Europe will sooner or later be conquered by Muslims. The author explains that Jews and Christians will be subjected to Islamic law.   “Today, freedom of speech is complete and the essence of what is published is neither edited nor censored,” comments Sindre Bangstad, a teacher at the University of Oslo. “Islamophobic discourse can spread much more easily than before. In this context, outlandish opinions like those held by Breivik are barely discernible from those found on some social networks, and sometimes even in the mainstream media in Norway...”   Nevertheless, dangerous agitators are by no means all paranoid and bloodthirsty madmen. The highly respectable German social-democrat economist Thilo Sarrazin published a book in 2012 in which he very seriously explained that his country will become more and more impoverished and lose its identity as well as its potential, because Turkish and Arab immigrants possess a lower IQ. He maintains that his ideas are supported by a third of Germans who believe that the state should limit immigration and the practice of Islam. In October 2012 Angela Merkel declared, “Multiculturalism has failed”. David Cameron, the British Prime Minister, said exactly the same thing a few days later. In September 2011, the German National Democratic Party (NDP) gained 6% of the vote in the Mecklenburg-West Pomeranian parliament, an unprecedented result in that country.   On the question of immigration, centre-left parties have two options: ‘integration’ or ‘assimilation’. The concept of assimilation has suffused political discourse since the 1980s: it suggests that immigrants must adapt to ‘our’ society and renounce all or part of their religion, culture or traditions. ‘Integration’, for its part, allows ‘new citizens’ to keep their idiosyncrasies, as have all prior immigrant groups for that matter. In its modern sense, integration expects a mutual attempt to adapt and notably, the acceptance of the welcoming country of the religion of those that it is seeking to welcome.   Attempts to make religious symbols disappear from public spaces (minarets, burkhas, veils, mosques...) are more and more vocal, Olivier Roy noted in 2009 in ‘L’Islam en Europe, une religion qui doit être traitée comme les autres’, pointing out that Europe wanted to have immigrants working here, but wanted them to be invisible.   In a general sense, both strategies have failed. Immigrant communities have more of a tendency to isolate themselves to avoid being assimilated. They often feel discriminated against, and the societies that are hosting them don’t feel the need to change anything at all to accommodate them since they consider the immigrants to be an undifferentiated and fragmented external group. In Germany, after forty years of communal living, Turkish and German populations still only know very little about each other. It’s a paradox.   Goodwin’s study has also dug up worrying results regarding the political response to the extreme right in general. Since political parties became ‘electoral machines’, populist parties have been fully exploiting their ability to directly address the electorate and respond to their concerns about immigration, which the other parties do not do.   Are we ready to abandon our community-based approaches in order to adopt a multi-strand citizenry founded on fundamental shared norms and values?   “European society in its plurality is collectively responsible,” explains Javier De Lucas. “We need to teach our societies to accept an evolution towards a multicultural world and to negotiate this change successfully. Unfortunately however, society is not moving. It is not very motivated, and very restrictive migratory politics are sending contrary signals: without negotiation, a desire to change, to evolve, the unilateral integration project of immigrant populations is doomed to fail.”   * Mariano Aguirre is the director of the Norwegian Peacebuilding Centre (Noref) in Oslo. This article was originally published in French in Le Monde diplomatique.   http://www.un.org/en/events/culturaldiversityday/resources.shtml
	View more stories