Democracy of the Commons

Representatives from 5-SM during a press conference (from El País).

Due to financing or cooperation, among other things, it is not easy to draw a clear-cut line, even less an opposition, between the state and civil society. However, one essential feature of the latter is that it is not interested in reaching power. But Italy’s Five-Star Movement (5-SM), under the leadership of comedian Beppe Grillo, won 26% of the vote and 165 seats in the lower chamber in the elections last week. Thus, it has become the third political force in Parliament, behind the Democratic Party, led by Pierluigi Bersani, and the People of Freedom, of Silvio Berlusconi. Has 5-SM lost its identity by having reached the legislative power?

During the campaign period, 5-SM insisted in presenting itself not as a political party, because parties and politicians were corrupt, inefficient, and did not represent citizens’ real interests. Even more, its members have always said that they are not going to formally support any cabinet or government; they will just do what citizens want.

On Monday, 5-SM held its first national coordination meeting, which the Spanish newspaper El País labeled as “chaotic”. Many of its winning candidates did not know each other. There is no platform or set of principles, but each future representative will defend what he or she thinks is the most pressing concern for his or her community. They refuse to talk about constituencies, or a left or right position, but rather say they will offer the more just answers for citizens. And, somewhat strangely, before the meeting began they said there would not be a press conference because as the event would be streamed in 5-SM website “there will be no need for questions”. In the end, they organized a Q&A exchange with journalists. New legislators asked to be called “citizens” instead of “representatives”, as a further way to underscore that they remain a social movement, as opposed to a political party.

In the discourse, to some extent 5-SM has managed to maintain its image as a movement. Another question is whether or not this will serve the long-term goal of political viability and, even, survival. Pre-election interviews with Italian electors suggest that the success in the polls of 5-SM can be explained due to the disenchantment against the existing parties; 5-SM offered an alternative. How long can such alternative last? 5-SM claims to represent the interests of all citizens, but elections show that in fact they represent just those of a quarter of electors. They need to be partial, and to build an identity around which citizens can rally, making the organization sustainable. By trying to maintain the image of a comprehensive social movement 5-SM might be losing all viability as political party. Its legislative activities will give the evidence for or against this perspective.

The Italian Job

Pierluigi Bersani, head of the Democratic Party, leading the polls for Italy’s general election (from The Telegraph).

Today Italy is having a general election. Both the upper and lower chambers are elected, and the government will emerge from the former. There are four coalitions which are at the forefront of the contest. The Huffington Post summarizes the profile of their leaders: a professor, a tycoon, a comedian, and a politician.

First, the Democratic Party, allied with other left organizations, led by Pierluigi Bersani. In most polls he appears to be around 5 and 10% above his closest competitor (this coalition has about 35% of the vote intention). In second place is the rightist coalition of the People of Freedom and Northern League parties, which supports former Prime Minister (until November 2011) Silvio Berlusconi. He owns the group Mediaset, controller of the largest media network in Italy. The Five Star Movement, coming in third place, is an association of citizens refusing current politicians, who they feel have damaged the country. The comedian and blogger Beppe Grillo leads them. They have around 17% of the vote intention. Grillo has mentioned that whatever the result, they will not support any government; personally, he is not running for a seat in Parliament. In a close fourth place appears Civic Choice with Monti for Italy, centrist. Mario Monti, Prime Minister until late December, is its leader, although he also is not competing for a legislative seat. Berlusconi said he would present himself as candidate for the Northern League for the 2013 elections, his party ended the support for Monti’s technocrat cabinet. He resigned, automatically scheduling elections for 70 days later.

Almost all news reports on the election include references about the uncertainty of the choice of individual voters or about their frank antipathy for the process. Bersani does not generate much excitement, but for many electors he seems to be the “least worse” option. The industrial north clearly identifies with Berlusconi, but he provokes discontent with most of the rest of the country due to his personal excesses during his 2008-2011 tenure as Prime Minister (sexual scandals involving underage girls, manipulation of the judicial system, for instance) and because he is associated with the economic crisis that the country is still in. Beppe Grillo has managed to rally around his movement disaffected electors with his anti-establishment discourse, arguably at the expense of Bersani, although what might come of him or of his movement in the legislature is a mystery for many Italians. Monti, appointed Prime Minister of government charged with bringing back stability to the country after Berlusconi’s administration, has lost most of his appeal once he left the technocrat stance he maintained while in office. Hence, between 10 and 30% of the electorate have not yet decided who they will vote for.

If the tendencies indicated by the vote intention polls are reflected in the final result of the election, Bersani will form a government, asking Monti for support. The law states that whichever party or coalition that receives the majority (absolute or relative) of the votes will get 54% of the seats in the Chamber of Deputies. The rest of the places are assigned proportionally among the rest of the competitors. In a way, this makes a winner-take-all situation. Shall Berlusconi and the Northern League not win (a plausible scenario), it is expected that they maintain a rather confrontational attitude towards the government. If they do win (a somewhat surprising, but still likeable outcome), Berlusconi’s most immediate in office record suggests economic uncertainty. Whoever becomes Prime Minister of Italy faces the immediate challenge of garnering confidence in his person and in the political system. The target groups, so to speak, range from citizens to the international markets. In some hours the answer to who got that job will begin to emerge.

All the Happy Families

The Duke of Palma, Iñaki Urdangarin (from El País).

Last year King Juan Carlos I of Spain did something maybe not unprecedented but certainly unexpected: he offered apologies for his behavior. The story began as one of compassion for him, given that originally the press just informed that he had to undergo hip surgery, a procedure not strange for a man of his age. Days later, it was found out that the operation was the result of an accident while in a hunting safari in Botswana, in a moment when his country had an intense debate over the new budget, whose project included important cuts to social benefits, amidst a severe economic crisis. It was also discovered that the journey was paid by a foreign businessman, allegedly in gratitude for an investment contract given to him. Under major public criticism, before leaving the hospital he said: “I am very sorry, I was wrong, and this will not happen again.”

This episode added up to another major corruption scandal which involving the Spanish Royal family. In late 2011 it was found out that the Duke of Palma, Iñaki Urdangarin, son-in-law of the King, had diverted money originally given for his charity organization, Nóos Institute, in collaboration with other public officers. These acts would have also served to evade taxes. In such occasion, the King sentenced “Justice is equal for everyone”, in reference to him not interceding in favor of Urdangarin. As a form of punishment on behalf of the Royal Family, Urdangarin was barred from taking part in any official act, and his profile was erased from the Royal Family website. The case is still in the courts.

Yesterday, Diego Torres, a former associate of Urdangarin and also beneficiary from the alleged illegal activity of Nóos, mentioned during the trial that all the activities of the foundation were within the law. Trying to underscore his point, he added that they always had the approval of the House of the King and of the King himself. As evidence, he showed copies of e-mails which include phrases such as “the Boss [meaning the King] thinks it is O.K.”, or “as my father-in-law told you […]”. This is a major step. In previous declarations, defendants had mentioned that people close (their personal secretaries, for instance) to the King or his daughters new about the assumed illegalities of Nóos. But now, the King is now implicated in a major corruption scandal.

Unsurprisingly, this situation has sprouted some debate in relation to the impartiality of the rule of law and of the public usefulness of the monarchy. It can be alleged that given the unhappy two previous experiences of Spain with a republican system, the option of eliminating the monarchy is not under consideration. The monarchy as an idea is not democratic, but the King had a major role in building it. In addition, because Spanish citizens hold the King and the institution of the Crown in a good esteem, they expect that the current behavior of Juan Carlos matches the historical image they have of him. During the last months this has not been the case. But an impartial rule of law is central to democracy. Thus, people do expect that the rule of law is not twisted to protect Urdangarin.

Brussels, Europe

Angela Merkel and François Hollande in a soccer match between their two countries, on Wednesday, before the EU Budget Summit began (from AP).

The first thing readers of Le Monde learn about the European Union 2014-2020 Summit, opened yesterday, is that its activities began almost six hours behind schedule. Then, the expected: the attending heads of government have too distant positions among themselves to assume an agreement will be reached between those who call for more spending and those who call for more cuts.

On one side, we have François Hollande, who says he will not a accept budget reductions, particularly in agriculture. Next to him is Mariano Rajoy, who expects to get funds to support youth employment, rate that has surpassed 50% in his country. Additionally, this money would compensate in part the reductions Spain made to the allocations for agriculture imposed by the EU itself last year.

On the other side there is David Cameron, who will not agree on anything unless there are more reductions. The Spanish press states that, “to make him happy”, public servants of the EU will see their salaries diminished by a rather symbolic 6%. He is accompanied by Angela Merkel, who wants “solidarity between contributors and beneficiaries”.

The reason why these differences are so important is that the budget must be accepted by consensus by the participants in the meeting. Then, it will be sent for final approval to the European Parliament. Apparently, one of the reasons for the delayed beginning of the meeting was that the European Council President, Herman Van Rompuy, was adjusting his budget project because he was aware of the distance between the positions of the countries. However,cuts won in the end. Van Rompuy announced today early in the morning that a new budget was approved. For the first time , it is less than the previous year.

This seems to have been the axis of the meeting, the place where each country stands regarding tolerated cuts. The allocations of the budget will more likely than not have important effects on the pockets of Europeans. There might be a substantial difference between farmers getting subsidies or not, or between financing youth unemployment reduction programs. However, there seems to be little or no discussion at all on the general spending structure of the EU, which has made the budget negotiations a zero-sum game. Is anything more expected from subsidies than alleviating in the short or mid-term pressures over individuals? Is the scheme of some states contributing and other benefitting from the budget sustainable? Is accountability to European citizens enhanced? Are really adjustments in allocations thought to produce different effects on the economy than what happened with the current budget? For the time being, it seems we will not be even close to knowing the answer to those questions.

The State and the Common Good

A soldier salutes from a tank during the parade in Moscow commemorating the 70th Anniversary of the End of the Stalingrad Battle (from the BBC).

Russia commemorated the 70^th anniversary of the end of the Stalingrad Battle on February 2. Part of World War II, this episode is widely acknowledged as one of the deadliest in history, with 1.2 million mortal victims from both the Soviet and Nazi sides. The outcome is source of a central civic holiday in Russia: the Red Army prevailed over the Wehrmacht, marking a turning point in the War as the Germans began what would be their final withdrawal.

In his speech, Vladimir Putin could not but retort to patriotism. As quoted in the Washington Post, he mentioned that “Stalingrad will forever remain a symbol of unity and invincibility of our people, a symbol of genuine patriotism […] And as long as we are devoted to Russia, our language, culture, roots and national memory, Russia will be invincible.”

Without difficulty, this kind of celebrations can be seen as having the subtext of an apotheosis of the state. If united the Russians were able to defeat one of the most feared armies in history, then nothing else is a real challenge. As an expected corollary: divisions are threatening because they weaken the community.

Under this light, Putin’s intentions to gain control over the diverse areas of society are less and less surprising. Also this week, the Post commented on the intention of the Russian legislature to pass a law regulating volunteer efforts. This idea, however, is older.

First, there are the diverse manners in which the government has been able to limit or directly control the activities of NGOs: forbidding contacts with foreign officers under threats of reducing funds, deliberately putting bureaucratic obstacles to any administrative procedure they must comply with, or harassing its members as if they were members of an opposite political party. Here must be mentioned the constant reduction for the scope of action for U.S.-funded or related NGOs. Second, it was last year that the draft of the volunteering regulation law was announced. The ideas surrounding the law were raising the efficiency of volunteer organizations, improve the perceptions the public has about them, or to regularize the tax regime when they offer compensations to their volunteers.

The opponents to those actions view them as means to increase the surveillance over independent groups, which work to foster citizen interests that the state is negligent about, intentionally or not. A strong state argument would say that those issues are not paid sufficient attention to because there are other topics more important for the society as a whole; division threatens. This is nothing new. Rather, it is yet another confirmation of the direction that Russia is taking.