Turkey Club! (Or, Turkey and the EU)

Michael Teitelbaum and Philip Martin raise some interesting questions in their article (Foreign Affairs, May/June 2003) about Turkey's potential accession into the European Union. Much of the article spends time analyzing the pertinent economic facts -- whether or not allowing Turkey into full EU membership would trigger a wave of Turkish migrant workers that might destabilize or weaken other European economies. This is a huge concern, and one that I presume has only become more wide-spread in the last few months as the global financial crisis has battered European markets.

However, I think the article makes one of its most important points early on -- that there are distinct cultural and political fears underlying much of the opposition towards admitting Turkey into the EU. Last semester, I had the chance to attend a week-long student debate in the EU Parliament that focused on the Treaty of Lisbon (an effort to strengthen the Union in the wake of the failed European Constitution) and more broadly the question of "enlargement" or whether or not non-traditional European countries should be allowed into the European Union.

The quote (in the article) from the former President of France reminds me of a lot of the research I did about French cultural fears of a more powerful European Union. Here in the United States, some variant of the "melting pot" has always run through our cultural consciousness. Even in the face of recurring domestic Culture Wars, it can be hard to grasp the European cultural mindset. The differences are apparent even on the insitutional level: France has had a "minister of culture" since the end of the 1950s, and periodically holds summits where the agenda focuses on the spread and protection of specific cultural values. Cultural nationalism, then, plays a distinct role in much of French politics. Particularly given existing fear and distrust against Muslims in France, it should not be surprising at all that there would be powerful opposition to letting in a heavily-populated middle-Eastern country into the EU.

At the end of the day, though, there is still hope. Turkey has made some remarkable strides on certain human rights issues (notably torture and some womens' rights issues) and might eventually become sufficiently "European" to warrant more consideration. Likewise, the need for a larger EU to tackle global ecological and economic issues might spur some of these hesitant European countries to reconsider. Either way, this is a key area where politics, economics, culture, and institutions are deeply intertwined.

Oh the Brits

Tony Wright’s British Politics provided an excellent introduction into a very much different democracy than the one we enjoy here in the United States. Two clear distinctions, each of which is related to the other, struck me as especially interesting. Wright writes (ha!) that while the political Left and Right differ on numerous political issues, “both agreed that Britain’s top-down, government-centered way of doing politics should be defended and protected” (38). This really struck a chord with me as a very politically interested American. In the United States we suggest almost by default that the conservative Republicans are the party of small government, and the liberal Democrats are the party of big government. Traditionally, Republicans favor tax breaks and loosening of governmental regulation while the Democrats favor higher taxes to support numerous programs as well as a high degree of regulation. Granted it isn’t quite fair to say that all British politicians favor big government in the way that Democrats, but that’s really the point. In Britain, Wright explains, when parliament replaced the Monarch as the political (legislative and executive) power, they didn’t forfeit any of the control. They essentially maintained the monarchic level of governmental reach and power and simply transferred it to Houses of Parliament. Wright says this change “preserved intact and undiminished the supreme authority of the State” (49). This seemingly has two consequences. First, it simply necessitates a large government, relatively larger than the US. Second, as a result of the authority of the State, the government’s legitimacy seems to come less from “the people”, as in does in the US, and more from the traditional legitimacy of the “ King in Parliament”. That’s not to say the British don’t have a huge say in their politics. They do by voting. If they feel the country is going in the wrong direction they can vote to change the majority party. However, it appears to me that in a system where the majority party essentially operates as one executive and legislative entity with virtually no checks and balances, this traditional form of legitimacy must serve some kind of reassuring role to the citizens whose laws are almost entirely controlled by one essentially monopolistic political party. 

British Politics

In Tony Wright's British Politics, he speaks about the notion that English people are relatively unconcerned with their democracy, quoting Hugo Young as writing, "The British do not passionately care about democracy (14)." It seems that the British people have given Parliament a good deal of performance legitimacy- "As long as they get a vote every few years and the children don't starve, they are prepared to put up with almost anything (14)." Wright describes the strong central government of Britain in great detail, a government whose strength, to my mind, is born out of it's peoples laissez-faire attitude towards its Parliament. This in turn contributes towards the long-standing stability of their government- the MP are more than happy to maintain their heavily centralized government and the power it provides the Parliament so long as the people will support it. It even extends to their lack of a truly centralized constitution- there is no motivation to codify their numerous laws and edicts unless the people demand a clear outlining of their rights. It creates a cyclical relationship where both lawmakers and citizens are given what they desire, the citizens being provided a safe, stable society and the lawmakers the power to enact the policies they see fit. Such a system could never work in a country like the United States where rights and regulations were clearly stated from the conception of the nation. One must consider, however, whether the British system is more preferable in today's society. It allows the government a great deal of fluidity that the heavily codified American government cannot hope to simulate. In a time when quick, decisive action is all the more necessary and prevalent, it seems the British government has a governmental leg up on our own.

postwar

Something I found very interesting in the Retribution chapter is that according to Judt, "Germans in the 1940s had little sense of the way the rest of the world saw them." (57) They did not understand the full extend of what their countrymen and leaders did during the war. Instead, they were inclined to view themselves as victims of their own post-war difficulties-- "food shortages, housing shortages, and the like." (57) The rest of Europe, while wanting to move on past the difficult memories of the atrocities, very much blamed the worst crimes against humanity on the Germans and expected accountability and justice to be served. It's mindblowing to imagine the German people of that time as being detached from the actions of their state leaders, as feeling victimized while so many others were being hatefully targeted and murdered. Of course to a certain extent, the Germans would have been conditioned by their government and used to the propaganda and exploitation as simply what happened to other people, not them; they had their own problems. This mentality shows just how subjective and relative history can be depending on the perspective of the teller. Human selfish need can blindsight even the most guilty away from objective analysis to biased interpretation. Of course, everyone in that generation was struggling with post-war difficulties. There were bigger problems than economic strife though. Everlasting dilemmas had arised due to ethnic cleansing, and the Germans were standing around asking why the finger was being pointed at them so harshly. This is hard for me to conceive, but I suppose we humans are that capable of convincing ourselves what we want to believe. There may not always be a definitive, mutually agreed upon right or wrong, even if there are exact accounts of history, because of what side of the line we were standing on at the time of the events.

Democracy and Constitutional Liberalism

In “The Rise of Illiberal Democracy”, Fareed Zakaria makes a clear distinction between democracy and constitutional liberalism, a political system characterized by the rule of law and the protection of basic individual liberties, and claims that in the modern world, constitutional liberalism has led to democracy but democracy has not necessarily given rise to constitutional liberalism and the protection of liberal values.
I think Zakaria makes a valid point that it should not be assumed that constitutional liberalism exists in every democratic country, and that constitutional liberalism cannot exist in any non-democratic state. However, I think that democracy sets the conditions needed for constitutional liberalism, and that the factors involved in the creation of democracy are also factors that lead to constitutional liberalism; one of the main factors for democracy is education.
In “Economic Development and Democracy”, Lipset suggests that countries with higher levels of education tend to have democratic governments, and that if it cannot be said that education is a sufficient condition for democracy, it can be said to be almost a necessary one. This begs the question, why is this the case? Why are lower classes in countries with higher education more receptive to democratic values? I think that not only does education encourage independent thinking, but also those who are educated are more aware of their individual rights. With education as a factor for democracy, I think that education in a democracy motivates citizens to push for political decisions that protect their personal liberties, and to use their freedom to vote to do so. Perhaps Zakaria is right in claiming that democracy does not necessarily lead to constitutional liberty, but I think that high education as a factor of democracy, combined with the freedom of speech and assembly involved in democracy, secures constitutional liberty in the modern world.