The openMovements series invites leading social scientists to share their research results and perspectives on contemporary social struggles.
The openMovements series invites leading social scientists to share their research results and perspectives on contemporary social struggles.
We are at the end of a cycle that started in the second XIXth
century.
During this cycle, including in the XXth century, the left was governed
by the
ideology of progress and economic determinism. After the collapse of the
so-called ‘communist’ countries, the question of the relevance of a new
left
for the XXIst century was raised. Different elements are necessary to
answer
it, the growing number of citizen initiatives all over the world (that
is the
subject of the launch text by Laville), the ambivalent experiences of
left governments in South America (second subject raised by Coraggio).
The analysis of these complex background issues opens up new
perspectives for collective action and emancipation (to follow, third
and fourth texts by Wainwright and Hart) and the structural crisis of
European social democracy (fifth, sixth, and seventh closing texts by Hulgard, Block and Lévesque). Very different from
those of the
traditional left; this week’s opinions and debates are also to be found
in
detail in Spanish (Reinventar la izquierda en el siglo XXI – Hasta un
dialogo Norte-Sur) and French (Les gauches du XXIe siècle – Un dialogue Nord-Sud
). Jean-Louis Laville, economist and
sociologist, supervised 'Les gauches du XXIe siècle – Un dialogue
Nord-Sud' (Bord de l’eau, 2016).
"Don't be cheated." Christian Social Union poster in Germany's federal elections, 2005. Diether Enlicher/Press Association. All rights reserved.If one word is important in social-democracy, it is ‘democracy’ that
confers a strong meaning on ‘social’. Moreover, if we want a social democracy or a socialism that can meet the challenge of the twenty-first century,
including that of an ecological transition, the only way possible is that of democracy.
The latter must be expanded to embrace the
economy (not just the redistribution of wealth) and deepened by the quality of deliberation.
This work on democracy must be at several levels, starting with social
democratic party policies for the development of their programme and for their choice of leaders.
Even within parliaments, representative
democracy can be improved by better decisions, which means that it makes a greater
contribution to social democracy. Similarly, governments at all levels should
encourage participatory democracy.
Finally, the doors of companies and offices should
be flung open to democracy by promoting the greater participation of
stakeholders. The challenges of social and ecological transition will not be
met without an appreciation of democracy in all spheres of society.
If
we are looking to a future that will address the challenges of the twenty-first
century, social democracy needs to be overhauled. The undertaking would radically
surpass any reform carried out to date. The economic and social crisis, and
especially the ecological crisis, could provide social democracy with new
opportunities to establish itself on a scale broader than that of the
nation-state.
It
could then contribute to the emergence and consolidation of a sustainable
development model. For this to occur, its leaders and supporters must first assess
the vigour of social democracy as it stands, and then embark on a radical
renewal process.
The
structural crisis in social democracy
Identifying
the tools that characterized social democracy in its heyday – the post-war boom
period – gives us some preliminary clues as to the depth of the current crisis facing
European social democratic parties. The main tools were:
– policies
promoting economic growth and full employment;
– collective
services of a universal type, redistribution aimed at reducing inequalities and
social policies promoting social welfare;
– institutional
mechanisms for regulating the market economy (work codes favouring unionization,
consumer protection, environmental protection, etc.);
– monetary
and fiscal policies and public spending policies;
– the
creation of a mixed economy (private and public companies);
– lastly,
a positioning in the world economy that promoted alliances with national and
international forces sharing the values and principles of social democracy or,
in the case of the European countries, taking this type of approach by way of a
commitment to European integration.
From
the perspective of social and ecological transition, we must reject policies of
job creation and wealth distribution focusing on growth via a productivity untroubled by its environmental impacts.
While prosperity is still possible, it can be achieved without conventional growth,
which is avoidable.
Similarly,
the institutional mechanisms of market economy regulation must now be
reinvented – though this is occurring at a time when international treaties are
making increasingly binding the mechanisms that give priority to market
self-regulation. In addition, the already limited leeway still available to
nation-states is being further eroded by austerity policies supported by most
social democratic parties.
Finally,
the modernization of social democracy has led to a thinning out of its traditional
points of reference and a greater variety of national trajectories than to the forging
of new identities.
One
should be even more concerned upon examining the life and dynamics of European
social democratic parties. As noted above, efforts to modernize in recent
decades have resulted in a greater scattering of its points of reference and a
greater variety of national trajectories than in the acquisition of new
identities.
The
agenda has not been based on a long-term political plan, but constructed on the
basis of surveys and opinion polls, leaving the door wide open to the articulation
of private interests, as may be observed in Italy’s Democratic Party (Partito Democratico, PD); which no
longer refers to itself explicitly as social democratic.
Elsewhere,
the inadequacy of reforms advanced by social democratic parties (when in power)
disappoint both those who believe in the need for major transformations and the
fraction of the left that sees itself as decidedly anti-capitalist, thus leading
to radicalization and even splits within social democracy in several countries.
In
sum, given the limitations of its modernization strategies, social democracy
must be renewed to take on new challenges and meet new aspirations, but without
forgetting that it can no longer confine itself to the national level. Of the possible factors that could deeply
affect the renewal of social democracy, four merit examination, since they involve
its social base and identity.
The social base of
social democracy in political parties
The crisis of mass parties has been described as a
"crisis of parties in their relationship with civil society (…) rather
than a general crisis of the partisan form". If this hypothesis is true,
it points the way to addressing the question of the social base to which social
democracy should devote itself.
First,
social democracy must rely on
the mobilization of its members, supporters and activists in democratizing the
political party itself. Individuals as citizens should choose their leaders
based on the programmes advanced. An initiative of this type is already under way
with the creation by the French Socialist Party of primaries. But genuine
democratization requires going much further.
Second,
it must rely on alliances and coalitions, not only to avoid leaving the door
open to the rightist forces, but also as a means of revitalizing its planning. In
principle, this is a realistic strategy since there are more and more citizens
involved in diverse political organizations, some of which share affinities
with social democracy, as in the case of the Greens and certain leftist
parties. While common platforms spring to mind, it is probably possible to go a
step further were these alliances to come up with a vision that is not limited
to the next election, and a common agenda for research and ongoing activities.
Third,
social democracy must also mobilize civil society’s associationist elements,
even if the latter are not automatically virtuous or effective. Citizen
participation is increasingly manifested through associations proposing
objectives that are a matter of collective interest or public interest.
Therefore, a social democratic party cannot rely solely on labour unions; it
must also embrace associative circles generally.
By
focusing on these three groupings, the potential social base of social
democracy could be broader than ever before, but this potential enlargement
poses a new challenge, one involving diversity, complexity and heterogeneity. It
would lead to new requirements for deliberation (and procedural matters), and for
establishing appropriate mechanisms. It also implies a strategy for
strengthening civil society and an openness on the part of elected officials toward
citizen participation.
The values and
positioning of social democracy as reformist parties
Values
remain essential in the radical reform perspective because they indicate why we
are committed and why we fight. Reflecting on values implies revisiting the
so-called traditional values of social democracy in the light of its historical
trajectory and emerging challenges, while taking into account new concerns. It
is not enough to insert fashionable new values, as did the Labour Party of Tony
Blair. We must also rethink not only the content of the traditional values of
equality, freedom and solidarity but also their interrelationships. Negotiation will no longer involve only capital and
labour but all citizens and associations concerned about a good life for
themselves and for future generations.
For
the reformulation of values to be credible, it must be accompanied by a new
rationale, position statements and especially transformative reforms. To be
convincing, transformative reforms must build on existing experiments or on the
introduction of conditions favourable to such experiments. In one way or
another, these involve the state, the market and civil society, with each of
these entities also being called upon to change.
This
approach is more demanding than so-called revolutionary approaches that often involve
forging ahead blindly. The transformations required by a radical fight against
inequality and for the preservation of the environment involve a massive
undertaking, even when such transformations are transitional in character.
Unless
social democratic parties, which are the only parties on the left that can hope
to take power in the short term, now join forces with their allies and set
themselves the task, the new approach is unthinkable in the very short term (barring
a catastrophic or unforeseen scenario in which all stakeholders would be losers).
Achieving
a smooth transition will be difficult; it will involve developing a social,
ecological and planetary New Deal. Owing to Europe’s specific historical
trajectory, and the fact that it has a critical mass of social democratic and
leftist parties, it is conceivable that this process could begin to take shape there.
This may very well be utopian (in the sense of going beyond what has already
existed until now), but a utopia that could evolve into a reality.
To
be sure, the left is often stifled without its utopias and, as Ricoeur demonstrated
in his reflection on the complementarity between ideology and utopia, the
latter can provide society with a certain context or perspective.
New compromises for
reforms leading to a major transformation
Social democrat politicians celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Treaties of Rome, 2007. Jan Bauer/Press Association. All rights reserved.Following
the economic and social crisis of 2008, the neoliberal programme for change unmistakably
revealed its limitations. Still, new compromises conducive to social democracy
will only be possible through a new societal paradigm. Right now, a social and
ecological transition – one based on a powerful scenario that does not rely on
modernization and eco-efficiency alone – may be the approach needed for major
transformation.
A rigorous conception of sustainable development (SD) requires that we
prioritize its elements so as to use the economy as a means, formulate social
and individual development as an end, and make ecological integrity a
condition.
Within this perspective, SD broadens to take into account both the short
term and the long term; present generations (intragenerational justice) as well
as future generations (intergenerational justice); companies in both the North
and the South; the local and the global; and common goods (sometimes referred
to as “the Commons”) of which the most critical are climate, air and water –
given the finiteness of the earth's resources.
In this approach, SD cannot be reduced to the incorporation of the environment
into sectoral policies; rather, it assumes "confrontation with the non-market
and non-monetary spheres linked to regulated markets", thereby opening the
door to a plural and solidarity-based economy. Without appropriate governance
at various levels, including the planetary level, it is difficult to see how
such a complex vision could result in identifiable advances.
This
suggests that, by using the above framework of reference, there will be greater
emphasis placed on major issues and broad social and societal conflicts; new
compromises will be forged. Negotiation will no longer involve only capital and
labour but all citizens and associations concerned about a good life for
themselves and for future generations. If a new model for growth is still
possible in principle, such a model would now engage in minimizing what is
toxic, replacing it instead with goods and services with high quality social content
and high quality energy.
Structuring the
national and European levels
Social
democracy in the twenty-first century will be renewed if it takes charge of the
century’s problems, which are global, and include the fields of finance,
environment, migration and global public goods. Controlled globalization
presupposes a global agreement (or a social contract), with policies responding
to market inconsistencies instead of making markets the exclusive mechanism for
regulation.
As
it was designed for the nation-state level, social democracy faces a new and
huge undertaking should it decide to move toward what some call social-globalization
and others call alter-globalism.
However,
as globalization was facilitated, first, by a strengthening of regional blocs,
it seems reasonable to begin by renewing social democracy at this level. This
is especially true for Europe – the continent most open to social and
ecological transition – where the market for goods and services is not global
but European.
This
approach is all the more relevant since the crisis of European social democracy
is largely the result of the crisis in the political construction of Europe, which
includes the difficulty in creating a “social” Europe, a Europe with greater
social solidarity.
Isolated
states may find it increasingly difficult to find solutions to the crisis in
social democracy. Once again, we notice certain paradoxes: first, over the last
two decades the construction of liberal Europe has been one of the main sources
of disappointment in European social democracy; second, a social democracy
oriented towards building a more “social” Europe might seem to provide a
measure of salvation in a sea of globalization, and this precisely at a time
when the social democratic parties in power form only a minority of EU members,
and when further development of the EU seems increasingly difficult.
There
is a degree of convergence in social democratic discourse in major European
countries, but it is still superficial. European social democratic parties are
also divided on the issue of completing the single European market and the need
for more stringent regulation. Within the 28 member countries of the European
Union, compromises cannot be taken for granted, especially where national
differences remain central. As it was designed for
the nation-state level, social democracy faces a new and huge undertaking.
It
is striking to note the diversity of strategies espoused by social democratic
political parties. Examples include the absence of explicit references to
social democracy in Italy on the part of the Italian Democratic Party (Partito Democratico, PD); the refocusing
of British Labour; the rift within German social democracy; combative social
democracy (its lack of success notwithstanding) by the coalition headed by Greek
radical leftist, Alexis Tsipras.
This
diversity suggests that while pro-EU arguments or rationales may be imperative,
they should not prevent individual countries from innovating in their own
countries and doing things differently from other countries. Nonetheless, in so
doing they will have to invest in approaches that can rally their allied European
partners, and potentially make Europe the continent most open to a thoroughgoing
renewal of social democracy.
Conclusion
To the extent that social democracy has entered a structural
crisis, its renewal calls for radical reform. Consequently, all of its constituent
elements must be reviewed, including its social base of activists, members and electors.
Its traditional values must be updated and brought into line with new values, including
the social compromises and alliances required to this end.
At
the same time, we need to consider the geographic level at which this occurs – be
it national or regional (as in our discussion revolving around the European
Union). The programs and policies of European parties claiming to draw
inspiration from social democracy, and that are or have been in power, have
proved very disappointing. When in power, they eventually govern with a right-leaning
vision; they behave as if the social democratic vision did not allow for
policies that addressed the major challenges of the twenty-first century: the growing
inequalities and environmental damage, with irreversible global warming on the
horizon.
Given
the circumstances, one might well ask whether social democratic discourse has been
overtaken, not only by the magnitude of the challenges ahead, but also by the views
and innovative practices of the men and women working to rebuild society from
the bottom up, that is, at the local level.
Indeed,
civil society has never witnessed such an abundance of relevant initiatives and
innovations! Moreover, initiatives taken within the local economy tend to form
part of a new international solidarity. Thus, the forms of solidarity underlying
fair trade and responsible consumption are having a global impact.
That
said, there are several undertakings that need to be re-invigorated at the
supra-national level, including a renewed relationship between the North and the
South, and new public spheres of debate as exemplified by the World Social
Forums. If, as seems to be the case, there is still no economic theory that
could play a role comparable to that provided by Keynesian theory beginning in
the 1940s, might not social democracy find in the experiments and achievements we
have observed not only the rudiments of new economic policy but also a
redefining of its main components? Lastly, there are many heterodox economists
whose views might be brought to bear on these issues (Stiglitz. Ostrom, Sen
Gadrey, etc.).
If
social democracy, as practiced so far, is disappointing – if not depressing –
there are grounds for confidence in its future, given the dynamism of civil
society. For transformation to occur, a qualitative leap is necessary. Social
democracy seeking radical change must encourage the emerging initiatives we
have observed, which often fall within both the political and economic spheres.
But
that is not enough; social democracy should also draw inspiration from these
initiatives, thereby further generating a fresh vision of a more just, united
and ecological world. The gateways to such an approach are numerous, but the
first seems to be the democratization of political parties themselves, which
would require that the mass of activists – and especially their leaders – display
an openness to the diversity of energetic actors that constitute a driving
force in society.
This
also means that social democracy, which expresses itself through a variety of
public spheres, must not only enter into a dialogue with but also interact with
representative democracy.
That
said, representative democracy must itself be more open to a more balanced
selection of representatives (in terms of generations and gender), while the
various implementation mechanisms must facilitate genuine debate on issues and
challenges that are impossible to face in isolation. These are all huge
changes, but constitute only the beginning, a beginning that might suffice in
restoring self-confidence, prompting the first steps towards major
transformation, by way of the required social and ecological transition.
This
piece was translated from the French by Stuart Anthony Stilitz.
How to cite:
Lévesque B.(2016)The crisis in European social democracy: a crisis like no other, Open Democracy / ISA RC-47: Open Movements,21 May. https://opendemocracy.net/beno-t-l-vesque/crisis-in-european-social-democracy-crisis-like-no-other
