As the Great Euro Mess got messier, the past weekend witnessed a desperate bid by Europe’s political class to clean it up. Over the course of three days, two democratically elected leaders — the Prime Ministers of Greece (the epicentre of the Euro crisis and Italy (the greatest threat to the future of the Union) — were eased out of their offices and replaced by field experts handpicked by Brussels to perform the magic.
On Sunday, scam-ridden billionaire Prime Minister of Italy Silvio Berlusconi lost his position to Mr Mario Monti, a former high-ranking member of the European Commission (the executive body of the European Union). Only two days earlier, Mr Berlusconi’s counterpart in Athens, the embattled political scion of Greece, Mr George Papandreou, was succeeded by a former vice-president of the European Central Bank, Mr Lucas Papademos. Both Mr Papademos and Mr Monti have significant influence and are well-regarded within the corridors of high power that extend from Berlin to Paris via Brussels.
However, it is outside the corridors of power, on the streets of Athens and Rome, that the two will have to prove their mettle. While they are respected by people of their respective countries neither has any significant experience in popular politics. Mr Monti was made a lifetime member of the Italian Senate only earlier this month while Mr Papademos, who is currently the head of a transitional National Unity Government, is not even a Member of Parliament. Yet, it is interesting to note that, while the continent’s intellectual elite have not taken too kindly to the fact that neither Mr Papademos nor Mr Monti is an elected representative the masses remain largely unperturbed.
In fact, there is a palpable sense of hope and optimism in Athens. Unlike the week-kneed Papandreou, his successor is seen as someone distanced from Greece’s deeply-entrenched political system, a man of principles and an ‘an expert’ who will fix the country’s problems perceived to have been perpetuated by a group of self-serving politicians who now are a discredited class.
Similarly, in Rome and elsewhere in Italy, the people heaved a collective sigh of relief as Mr Berlusconi — a man they had elected to power three consecutive times — prepared to leave office. Even the financial markets reacted appropriately.
Clearly, there is a strong anti-incumbency sentiment at work and there is no doubting the sense of popular disenchantment with the current crop of politicians. It has produced a counter-narrative that, with the politicians out of the way the country is now in “a safe pair of hands”.
To what extent this presumption will hold true is yet to be tested. For one, Messrs Papademos and Monti do not have history on their side. Technocrats before them have routinely failed to register significant political gains not just in European countries but across the world.
For instance, the erstwhile Soviet Union was effectively the world’s first technocracy — its Politburo consisting of a large number of engineers. Similarly, in the US it was a technocrat in the form of former Defence Secretary Robert McNamara who led the country into the disastrous Vietnam War.
Closer home, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is no less a technocrat than either Mr Papademos or Mr Monti — in fact, like both men, he too is a former central banker and a well-regarded economist who scripted India’s early stellar growth story. Yet, as Prime Minister, Mr Singh has failed to deliver.
Moreover, Italy and Greece have already had similar periods of brief technocratic rule. Between 1993 and 1994, a former central banker, Mr Carlo Azeglio Ciampi, served as Prime Minister of Italy. Later, as Finance Minister, he even oversaw Italy’s induction into the Eurozone.
Similarly, former Bank of Greece director Xenophon Zolotas held the top job in Athens from 1989 to 1990 after no single party won a majority in the previous general election. Mr Zolotas headed an apolitical non-partisan unity Government until fresh elections were held the next year — very similar to Mr Papademos’s current political arrangement with the Greek Government. And ultimately even the Eurozone itself is a technocrat’s creation.
However, none of this should serve as a reason to write off Europe’s newest leaders who, make no mistake, have taken on some of the toughest responsibilities in the world right now. In Rome, Mr Monti will have to convince investors that it is indeed possible for Italy to cut its 1.9 trillion Euro debt and actually spur economic growth even while austerity measures continue to cripple the population.
But before that Mr Monti must build his own Government that will last till 2013 — and that is already proving harder than expected. For Mr Monti, who is yet to be officially instated as Prime Minister, the honeymoon is already over.
Meanwhile in Athens, Mr Papademos too has been given a tall order to fill. And he only has 100 days to deliver results until the next elections are held in February. In this time, Mr Papademos will have to do what no Greek politician wants to, i.e. implement greater austerity measures and carry out the unpopular conditions of the bailout package. Indeed, it is worthy mention that his predecessor, Mr Papandreou, had to quit office because he had dared to suggest that the austerity measures be subject to a popular referendum. Three days later, following tremendous pressure from Brussels, which simply could not afford the risk of losing the referendum, he took back his suggestion.
Many have pointed to exactly this episode as an example of how technocracy is taking over European democracies. This is far from the truth. Democracy is more than just referendums.
Besides, if the Greek are allowed to vote on the bailout package, the Germans too should be allowed to decide on the same for they are the ones paying for it. And, if Greece and Germany are allowed this luxury, why should the people of Spain, Portugal and other European countries not have their say? This is simply an untenable situation.
Democracies work best when Govern-ments have ample space and freedom to function. At the end of their terms, after the people have experienced the pros and cons of their policies, the electorate is free to make its decision known at the next general election.
Also, those crying themselves hoarse about a technocratic takeover in Europe would do well to remind themselves that both Mr Papademos and Mr Monti have been selected by the elected representatives of their countries and are perfectly legitimate leaders in their own right. This is not a hostile takeover.
It is, however, true that technocrats such the heads of the European Central Bank, the European Commission, the European Council and the International Monetary Fund, do have an important role to play in the decision making processes of the Eurozone. Yes, at some point the member states will have to come to an agreement over how best to implement an effective system of democratic checks and balances but that is a task for future.
For now, the focus must be on resolving the imminent crisis at hand and preventing another global recession. In the meantime, critics may take comfort in the fact that while technocrats may be at the helm of affairs for now, the nerve centre of the Eurozone lies in the hands of German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicholas Sarkozy — two popularly elected leaders who represent the collective will of 145 million people across continental Europe.
Source: The Pioneer
On Sunday, scam-ridden billionaire Prime Minister of Italy Silvio Berlusconi lost his position to Mr Mario Monti, a former high-ranking member of the European Commission (the executive body of the European Union). Only two days earlier, Mr Berlusconi’s counterpart in Athens, the embattled political scion of Greece, Mr George Papandreou, was succeeded by a former vice-president of the European Central Bank, Mr Lucas Papademos. Both Mr Papademos and Mr Monti have significant influence and are well-regarded within the corridors of high power that extend from Berlin to Paris via Brussels.
However, it is outside the corridors of power, on the streets of Athens and Rome, that the two will have to prove their mettle. While they are respected by people of their respective countries neither has any significant experience in popular politics. Mr Monti was made a lifetime member of the Italian Senate only earlier this month while Mr Papademos, who is currently the head of a transitional National Unity Government, is not even a Member of Parliament. Yet, it is interesting to note that, while the continent’s intellectual elite have not taken too kindly to the fact that neither Mr Papademos nor Mr Monti is an elected representative the masses remain largely unperturbed.
In fact, there is a palpable sense of hope and optimism in Athens. Unlike the week-kneed Papandreou, his successor is seen as someone distanced from Greece’s deeply-entrenched political system, a man of principles and an ‘an expert’ who will fix the country’s problems perceived to have been perpetuated by a group of self-serving politicians who now are a discredited class.
Similarly, in Rome and elsewhere in Italy, the people heaved a collective sigh of relief as Mr Berlusconi — a man they had elected to power three consecutive times — prepared to leave office. Even the financial markets reacted appropriately.
Clearly, there is a strong anti-incumbency sentiment at work and there is no doubting the sense of popular disenchantment with the current crop of politicians. It has produced a counter-narrative that, with the politicians out of the way the country is now in “a safe pair of hands”.
To what extent this presumption will hold true is yet to be tested. For one, Messrs Papademos and Monti do not have history on their side. Technocrats before them have routinely failed to register significant political gains not just in European countries but across the world.
For instance, the erstwhile Soviet Union was effectively the world’s first technocracy — its Politburo consisting of a large number of engineers. Similarly, in the US it was a technocrat in the form of former Defence Secretary Robert McNamara who led the country into the disastrous Vietnam War.
Closer home, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is no less a technocrat than either Mr Papademos or Mr Monti — in fact, like both men, he too is a former central banker and a well-regarded economist who scripted India’s early stellar growth story. Yet, as Prime Minister, Mr Singh has failed to deliver.
Moreover, Italy and Greece have already had similar periods of brief technocratic rule. Between 1993 and 1994, a former central banker, Mr Carlo Azeglio Ciampi, served as Prime Minister of Italy. Later, as Finance Minister, he even oversaw Italy’s induction into the Eurozone.
Similarly, former Bank of Greece director Xenophon Zolotas held the top job in Athens from 1989 to 1990 after no single party won a majority in the previous general election. Mr Zolotas headed an apolitical non-partisan unity Government until fresh elections were held the next year — very similar to Mr Papademos’s current political arrangement with the Greek Government. And ultimately even the Eurozone itself is a technocrat’s creation.
However, none of this should serve as a reason to write off Europe’s newest leaders who, make no mistake, have taken on some of the toughest responsibilities in the world right now. In Rome, Mr Monti will have to convince investors that it is indeed possible for Italy to cut its 1.9 trillion Euro debt and actually spur economic growth even while austerity measures continue to cripple the population.
But before that Mr Monti must build his own Government that will last till 2013 — and that is already proving harder than expected. For Mr Monti, who is yet to be officially instated as Prime Minister, the honeymoon is already over.
Meanwhile in Athens, Mr Papademos too has been given a tall order to fill. And he only has 100 days to deliver results until the next elections are held in February. In this time, Mr Papademos will have to do what no Greek politician wants to, i.e. implement greater austerity measures and carry out the unpopular conditions of the bailout package. Indeed, it is worthy mention that his predecessor, Mr Papandreou, had to quit office because he had dared to suggest that the austerity measures be subject to a popular referendum. Three days later, following tremendous pressure from Brussels, which simply could not afford the risk of losing the referendum, he took back his suggestion.
Many have pointed to exactly this episode as an example of how technocracy is taking over European democracies. This is far from the truth. Democracy is more than just referendums.
Besides, if the Greek are allowed to vote on the bailout package, the Germans too should be allowed to decide on the same for they are the ones paying for it. And, if Greece and Germany are allowed this luxury, why should the people of Spain, Portugal and other European countries not have their say? This is simply an untenable situation.
Democracies work best when Govern-ments have ample space and freedom to function. At the end of their terms, after the people have experienced the pros and cons of their policies, the electorate is free to make its decision known at the next general election.
Also, those crying themselves hoarse about a technocratic takeover in Europe would do well to remind themselves that both Mr Papademos and Mr Monti have been selected by the elected representatives of their countries and are perfectly legitimate leaders in their own right. This is not a hostile takeover.
It is, however, true that technocrats such the heads of the European Central Bank, the European Commission, the European Council and the International Monetary Fund, do have an important role to play in the decision making processes of the Eurozone. Yes, at some point the member states will have to come to an agreement over how best to implement an effective system of democratic checks and balances but that is a task for future.
For now, the focus must be on resolving the imminent crisis at hand and preventing another global recession. In the meantime, critics may take comfort in the fact that while technocrats may be at the helm of affairs for now, the nerve centre of the Eurozone lies in the hands of German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicholas Sarkozy — two popularly elected leaders who represent the collective will of 145 million people across continental Europe.
Source: The Pioneer
