The end of liberal democracy?

[Faux Real]

With the onset of the current economic crisis, is a complete shift with regard to at least the illusion of participation for those living in a typical liberal democracy imminent?

It seems that way to me, as evidenced by unpopular amendments being pushed into law with no consideration for public sentiment. Are we in for a new era of authoritarian capitalism?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Very likely, yes, though the new authoritarian capitalism is more likely to be patterned after the EU - an unelected, unaccountable bureaucracy that functions in parallel with elected institutions and increasingly strips them of power.

[Killfacer]

I thought it ended up being more well supported than people expected, because they were led to beleive it would save the economy.

The problem with what your saying is that governments have always done things which are not particuarly popular.

[Faux Real]

The problem with what your saying is that governments have always done things which are not particuarly popular.
I'm not at all, what I mean is that now those measures are being carried out transparently at the moment.

[EvigLidelse]

I don't understand? Why would it be the end?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Very likely, yes, though the new authoritarian capitalism is more likely to be patterned after the EU - an unelected, unaccountable bureaucracy that functions in parallel with elected institutions and increasingly strips them of power.
I've heard this claimed many times but unfortunately for the people making the claim, saying it over and over doesn't actually make it any more true. Perhaps the most important part of the EU is the European Parliament, which is directly and democratically elected. There are also the commissioners which are nominated by national governments, which are themselves directly democratically elected. Together the parliament, the commission, the council and the courts keep checks and balances on one another, which leads to accountability.

But the main flaw with your argument is that the vast majority of people in the EU actually want to be in the EU. There are many Eurosceptic groups from all over the political spectrum operating all over Europe. Perhaps the only thing these groups have in common is that they all consistently fail to win the public vote. There are something like 6 Eurosceptic members (out of 166) of the Irish parliament, and they don't even like to call themselves Eurosceptic because they know it would destroy their popularity. In France, a 40% blocking minority in (democratically elected) parliament can force a referendum on a bill, yet Lisbon never went to a referendum. Why? Because Eurosceptics and anti-Lisbonites constitute far less than 40% of France's elected parliament.

I've been waiting a long long time for evidence of this evil fascist EU that we all apparently hate. I gues I'll be waiting a while yet.

[RGacky3]

Its not the end, this is history repeating.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ What you said.


I've heard this claimed many times but unfortunately for the people making the claim, saying it over and over doesn't actually make it any more true. Perhaps the most important part of the EU is the European Parliament, which is directly and democratically elected. There are also the commissioners which are nominated by national governments, which are themselves directly democratically elected. Together the parliament, the commission, the council and the courts keep checks and balances on one another, which leads to accountability.

I think our avowed soc-fash is missing the point. The EU is "tweaking" its privacy laws, and the UK is ahead of the ballgame. At the same time, the national governments are becoming less, not more, accountable.

[Demogorgon]

I've heard this claimed many times but unfortunately for the people making the claim, saying it over and over doesn't actually make it any more true. Perhaps the most important part of the EU is the European Parliament, which is directly and democratically elected. There are also the commissioners which are nominated by national governments, which are themselves directly democratically elected. Together the parliament, the commission, the council and the courts keep checks and balances on one another, which leads to accountability.


I met Alyn Smith (a member of the European parliament from Scotland) at a pro-Palestinian demonstration and was asking him about the European Parliament, because after all, whatever you might think of them you don't get to talk to MEPs every day. Anyway, absent TV Cameras and journalists he was able to be perfectly candid explaining the way Parliament is utterly sidelined and how MEPs aren't given access to any information from the other bodies and that virtually all votes they take are taken "blind" with them not being allowed to know the facts on which they are meant to be voting. Really, if ever there was a sham Parliament it is the European Parliament, indeed it has, after all, only ever shown any muscle in restraining the rest of the EU on a handful of occasions, indeed I can only think of two.

I know you are a fan of the EU, but don't be under any delusions about it, it is a closed oligarchy, making indeed other such systems look pretty open. The MEPs themselves can be perfectly nice people, indeed Alyn Smith is a politician I have a lot of time for, anyone who puts that much effort into Palestinian causes has to have something going for them, but as the Parliament itself is really just there for show it doesn't matter.

Indeed, during elections to it, the issue of Europe-level politics barely comes up. To be sure the issue-at least in Britain-of whether we should be in the EU at all is one that gets discussed at length, but there is almost no discussion of what goes on in Brussels and Strasbourg and how the various competing parties regard these issues. The elections are fought on domestic issues over which the EU has no baring. They are little more than glorified opinion polls.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I've heard this claimed many times but unfortunately for the people making the claim, saying it over and over doesn't actually make it any more true. Perhaps the most important part of the EU is the European Parliament, which is directly and democratically elected.
And that would be a wonderful thing if the European Parliament really was "the most important part of the EU" or if it had the same powers as a real parliament, but it doesn't. It cannot propose laws - that's the Commission's job - and in most cases it doesn't even have the final say on the legislation it passes; the Council of Ministers does.

Giving the European Parliament full legislative powers would go a long way towards fixing the EU's authoritarian leanings.


There are also the commissioners which are nominated by national governments, which are themselves directly democratically elected.
...which places them several layers of accountability away from the people. Look, national governments themselves are barely accountable these days. The general impression among the people is that politicians are elitist, corrupt, and out of touch with the average worker's concerns. And that is perfectly true. The major parties in most countries have more in common with each other than they do with their voters.


But the main flaw with your argument is that the vast majority of people in the EU actually want to be in the EU. There are many Eurosceptic groups from all over the political spectrum operating all over Europe. Perhaps the only thing these groups have in common is that they all consistently fail to win the public vote. There are something like 6 Eurosceptic members (out of 166) of the Irish parliament, and they don't even like to call themselves Eurosceptic because they know it would destroy their popularity. In France, a 40% blocking minority in (democratically elected) parliament can force a referendum on a bill, yet Lisbon never went to a referendum. Why? Because Eurosceptics and anti-Lisbonites constitute far less than 40% of France's elected parliament.
You seem to completely ignore the fact that politicians in liberal democracies are usually elected on the basis of being the "lesser evil." Eurosceptics don't get elected because most of them have stupid views on everything other than Europe. Europhiles get elected because people approve of some other planks in their platforms.


I've been waiting a long long time for evidence of this evil fascist EU that we all apparently hate. I gues I'll be waiting a while yet.
Refresh my memory - which side won the last referendum held in Ireland on a EU-related issue?

[Nusocialist]

I've heard this claimed many times but unfortunately for the people making the claim, saying it over and over doesn't actually make it any more true. Perhaps the most important part of the EU is the European Parliament, which is directly and democratically elected.
Exactly how democratic an organisation representing about 500 million people is, is very debatable.



But the main flaw with your argument is that the vast majority of people in the EU actually want to be in the EU. There are many Eurosceptic groups from all over the political spectrum operating all over Europe. Perhaps the only thing these groups have in common is that they all consistently fail to win the public vote. There are something like 6 Eurosceptic members (out of 166) of the Irish parliament, and they don't even like to call themselves Eurosceptic because they know it would destroy their popularity. In France, a 40% blocking minority in (democratically elected) parliament can force a referendum on a bill, yet Lisbon never went to a referendum. Why? Because Eurosceptics and anti-Lisbonites constitute far less than 40% of France's elected parliament.

In Britain it is interesting. A recent poll showed that 26% wanted to leave the EU completely and 45% want it to be just about trade and cooperation and the three main parties are to varying degrees "europhiles".

[Qwerty Dvorak]

And that would be a wonderful thing if the European Parliament really was "the most important part of the EU" or if it had the same powers as a real parliament, but it doesn't. It cannot propose laws - that's the Commission's job - and in most cases it doesn't even have the final say on the legislation it passes; the Council of Ministers does.

Giving the European Parliament full legislative powers would go a long way towards fixing the EU's authoritarian leanings.

That sounds lovely and fuzzy but the fact of the matter is that it would not work. First of all, there is simply too much legislation being passed, and the legislation being passed is too complex, to give one body full legislative power. The EP has enough work on its hands already without having to assume the responsibilities of the commission as well. Furthermore, it would be impossible for the EU to pass laws which suited everybody or represented a healthy compromise if laws were proposed by MEPs, whose job it is to represent their own countries. Commissioners take an oath not to represent their own countries' interests but to work in the interest of the European people in general, reducing the national bias in laws proposed by them.

I'm sure there are other reasons for the separation of powers (which is generally a good thing), I'm no EU expert after all. But to me it seems eminently sensible to structure the EU different to national governments as the nature of its work is very different.


...which places them several layers of accountability away from the people. Look, national governments themselves are barely accountable these days. The general impression among the people is that politicians are elitist, corrupt, and out of touch with the average worker's concerns. And that is perfectly true. The major parties in most countries have more in common with each other than they do with their voters.

Well this is what it all comes back to isn't it. The old commie mantra that democracy is undemocratic. Some people still believe that violence and not the ballot box is the only way to determine the "true" will of the people. Well what can I say, I'm just not one of those people. Obviously representative democracy has its flaws but to say that it deprives people of a say in how they are governed flies in the face of the fact that people in democracies are generally pretty happy. Why is there not more civil unrest if people don't have a right to choose their leaders?


You seem to completely ignore the fact that politicians in liberal democracies are usually elected on the basis of being the "lesser evil." Eurosceptics don't get elected because most of them have stupid views on everything other than Europe. Europhiles get elected because people approve of some other planks in their platforms.
So what's your point? That there is a large group of people out there who are Eurosceptic but have reasonable and sensible views on other issues? Then why does nobody run on that platform? If what you say is true and ordinary, decent people are truly unhappy with the EU then surely somebody who ran as a Eurosceptic with policies otherwise similar to the current ruling parties would rake in a whole heap of votes. So why not do it? As well as being able to bring down the "evil fascist empire" of the EU, you'd also be able to make a nice living as MPs generally have good salaries. It's a sweet enough deal that I'm sure a few people would have the idea. So why don't we see many more Eurosceptics running and being voted in in elections?


Refresh my memory - which side won the last referendum held in Ireland on a EU-related issue?
The side of ignorance. That's right. The commies, the neo-cons, the racists and the fundamentalists (strange bedfellows!) are all trying to make this out as their win and proof that the people support them (despite the fact that none can actually get elected), but the simple fact of the matter, according to both the mrbi and Eurobarometer polls, is that the main reason people voted No was that they didn't understand the Treaty. This was followed by a whole heap of reasons that either had nothing to do with the Treaty or were based on misinformation about the Treaty. If a poll was taken about people being pro- or anti-EU, the result would be overwhelmingly positive (in fact I think there have been such polls since).

A No vote doesn't indicate dissatisfaction with the EU, or even with the actual contents of the Treaty in question (as opposed to what we are told is in the Treaty by the commies, neo-cons, racists, fundies and other assorted loons). Nice was voted down originally, but was passed when it was put to a vote the second time, after the people had been better educated about it and the Seville Declaration (which still exists today and will exist after Lisbon) guaranteed Irish military neutrality.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

In Britain it is interesting. A recent poll showed that 26% wanted to leave the EU completely and 45% want it to be just about trade and cooperation and the three main parties are to varying degrees "europhiles".
Lol, the Tories are not Europhiles by any stretch of the imagination. It probably kills you to acknowledge it but the Tories stand exactly the same place the socialists stand when it comes to the EU. They are very clearly a Eurosceptic party, and there is speculation that Britain may consider withdrawing from the EU if they get into power in the next election. Of course I personally don't think they'd have the balls to do it, but then neither would the socialists I imagine. The EU is just too important - and too popular, even in Britain. It may come as a shock to you, but the EU is all about "trade and cooperation" (not drowning puppies, as they probably tell you in Anarchism 101).

[JimmyJazz]

With the onset of the current economic crisis, is a complete shift with regard to at least the illusion of participation for those living in a typical liberal democracy imminent?

(emph. added)

I'm not sure what you mean by this, it almost seems you think that it is the illusion of participation which goes first, followed by actual participation later. (But that obviously wouldn't make any sense). Anyway, they (I'll let you decide who) have been quite successful in making most people think that economics is something way beyond their comprehension. The result is that most people are total technocrats wrt economic stuff (like this bailout business), only they don't realize that it isn't simply the most qualified who study economics and make major economic decisions, it's those who are most qualified + have passed the free market capitalist ideological purity test. So no, I don't think the illusion of participation is going anywhere, and I don't think that actual participation in economics has anywhere to go since it doesn't exist now.

[Demogorgon]

That sounds lovely and fuzzy but the fact of the matter is that it would not work. First of all, there is simply too much legislation being passed, and the legislation being passed is too complex, to give one body full legislative power. The EP has enough work on its hands already without having to assume the responsibilities of the commission as well. Furthermore, it would be impossible for the EU to pass laws which suited everybody or represented a healthy compromise if laws were proposed by MEPs, whose job it is to represent their own countries. Commissioners take an oath not to represent their own countries' interests but to work in the interest of the European people in general, reducing the national bias in laws proposed by them.

I'm sure there are other reasons for the separation of powers (which is generally a good thing), I'm no EU expert after all. But to me it seems eminently sensible to structure the EU different to national governments as the nature of its work is very different.
Don't kid yourself. The European Parliament has a very minor role. It could easily do far more than it does now, indeed most MEPs spend the majority of their time pursuing other interests (such as Palestinian causes as was the case with the one I talked to). Much of the work of EU institutions is done behind closed doors, essentially in secrecy, there is no accountability there and nothing that is kept from the public is given to the MEPs. Indeed even things that aren't kept from the public aren't announced to MEPs a lot of the time, most of them get their information from the newspapers.

You can say you support separation of power in the EU, which is all well and good, but so little of that power is given to the Parliament that it is of little more importance than the parliaments of the old Eastern Bloc. I mean, I can only think of two occasions when the parliament has defied the commission. Other than that, most of its time is spent either giving the rubber stamp to measures that have been kept largely secret from them or else squabbling over procedural matters.