Reformism in a 'Conservative' System: the European Union and social democratic identity (original) (raw)
Related papers
Renovating European Social Democracy
Renewal (London), 2007
The ‘end’ of social democracy has been pronounced repeatedly, with varying degrees of conviction in recent decades (Dahrendorf 1990; Giddens 1994; Gray 1996, 1998). Meanwhile, in 2007, both the French and Italian left have entered (yet another) phase of introspection, ideological redefinition and aggiornamiento. In both cases, the path of social democratisation is seen (by at least one major faction) as virtually synonymous with modernity and ‘renewal’. This attests to the capacity for ideological innovation, and renovation, within social democracy. How could so many erudite scholars pronouncing the death of social democracy so assertively over the last two decades ago have been so mistaken? The answer lies in how social democracy is conceived, and some hidden assumptions within these commentaries on the fortunes of the left in the late twentieth and early 21st Century. There is a tendency to identify social democracy firstly with a particular set of institutional ‘means’ (such as corporatism or nationalisation) and secondly with the policy paradigms within which those means were couched (such as ‘planning’ or ‘Keynesianism’). The fortunes of social democracy are evaluated in terms of particular means through which, across the twentieth century in different national contexts, the political aspirations of social democracy have been channelled. This leads to detailed analysis of particular national configurations of institutions, policies and paradigms. These means-oriented approaches have generated much invaluable insight into the nature of social democracy and its historical, political and programmatic development. However, the lessons to draw from this means based analysis of social democracy are not those which first leap off the page.
Social Democracy Caught in the European Trap
2015
Political science literature has extensively described social democracy’s ‘two metamorphoses’. First there was the establishment of social democratic parties as major government parties in the ‘Keynesian State’ period and then their ‘de-social-democratisation’ after the 1970s, while the renovation promoted by Tony Blair and Gerhard Schröder was associated with electoral success at the end of the 1990s. The propulsive power of this new social democratic identity was then rapidly exhausted. Until the last days before the 2014 European elections, opinion polls carried out in EU member countries allowed the social democrats to hope that they could pass the 200-seat threshold in the 751-seat European Parliament (EP) and make good the setback they had suffered five years earlier. Indeed, in 2009 only a quarter of the MEPs belonged to the EP’s S&D group, which was at an historically low level. We will first show that social democracy managed to stabilise its weight in the EP only while continuing to decline in percentage of votes. This result should be seen in the context of the historic trajectory of a political family of parties that we extensively studied in The Palgrave Handbook of Social Democracy.2We will next address the present state of this family of parties in the middle of capitalism’s structural crisis and the dilemmas it faces in the very peculiar regime of the European Union. The social democrats, because of their own history, have tied themselves up in a bundle of constraints — which are creating their present difficulties. For this reason, they will probably not be of much help in putting an end to the austerity that is devastating the European continent. This will be the last point covered by this article.
The Crisis of the Social Democratic Movement
SSRN Electronic Journal
The financial collapse of 2007, the accompanying refugee crisis, the health crisis and the corona virus pandemic have all played their part in the current gloomy political climate. The left lacks a clear message or strategy to improve the lives of ordinary people. The emphasis on austerity and competitiveness brought about by the financial crisis has worsened people's social conditions. The need for a "new left" with a relevant narrative is undoubtedly important. The insecurity and instability currently facing the so-called social left is a direct cause of this desire. The demand for a "new left" with a relevant narrative is undoubtedly necessary. This demand arises directly from the current insecurity and instability that the so-called social left is facing. As part of a political program whose core is an effective welfare state, the democratic left needs a contemporary pragmatism in the form of realistic but substantive political goals and demands. The new left narrative must place the goal of social justice at the centre of a social realist framework that does not focus only on the need for economic competitiveness and financial balance. It is necessary to advocate a modern social "philosophy" of solidarity, progress and justice. This new agenda must be embedded in a long-term political reform strategy that can only be realized if the goals are clear to the public.
2004
Socialist and Social Democratic parties leave few political observers and citizens indifferent. For several years, a certain number of actors on the political scene have presented it as a political family in crisis, lacking in imagination and dynamism, incapable of renewal and doomed to fade into insignificance. Others, on the contrary, describe it as a grouping with a promising, even brilliant future. This book does not set out to confirm either of those two visions. Its aim is to analyse in-depth the transformations which are affecting, at the current time, the different aspects of Social Democracy: new organisational models, changes in political and electoral performance, changing relations with the trade unions and civil society associations, reactions to the emergence of new political rivais and new values, new ideological trends and political programmes, etc. For the first time, the analysis does not concern exclusively Western Europe, but also deals with the Social Democratic parties of the consolidated democracies and the organisations that claim to be part of democratic socialism in Central and Eastern Europe, and highlights the specific characteristics and points in common. At the dawn of the 21st century, it is therefore the challenges and the different responses to those challenges that are analysed by several of the leading European specialists in Social Democratic parties in Europe. "
What's left of the left: Democrats and Social Democrats in challenging times
2011
for joining us and commenting on the chapters presented at the Harvard conference. We also want to thank James Clifton for his excellent work on the references. Last but by no means least, we want to thank our wives-Laura Frader, Jane Jenson, and Barbara Baran-exemplary scholars and professionals all, for contributions to this book and to our lives, too numerous to mention. We love you all and appreciate your tolerance. 20 Cronin, Ross, and Shoch broad in its reach but necessarily selective; and it will be transatlantic, but also aware of the very real differences that separate the European experience from that of the United States.8 The first chapter focuses on the unique history of social democracy in Europe and its roles in securing democracy, prosperity, and a measure of social justice and social protection in the postwar years. It also makes clear the pitfalls, detours, and false starts that accompanied what the author, Sheri Berman, considers the victory of social democracy, and the continuing difficulties that social democrats have had in understanding their own achievements, sustaining them in hard times, and building upon them in the most recent era. Gerassimos Moschonas follows with a comparative essay on the shifting electoral fortunes and social bases of center-left parties over the past quarter-century. The story he tells is mixed and complicated, like Berman's, in which achievements and setbacks are carefully balanced through time and space. Less mixed, but unsurprisingly so, is the record of center-left parties in eastern and central Europe surveyed by Jean-Michel De Waele and Sorina Soare. In that unfortunate region the legacy of "actually existing socialism" and Soviet domination cast doubt on the legitimacy of anything calling itself socialist or social democratic, even as the economic and social wreckage left behind called out for a political vision offering more than neoliberalism and "shock therapy." Three case studies follow: on Britain, France, and Sweden. Britain and Sweden illustrate two potentially viable paths for center-lefts. France, in contrast, embodies many of the obstacles to taking any path. James Cronin reviews the unhappy history out of which New Labour emerged and argues that this history, and the desire to transcend it, explain a great deal of what New Labour has been about. Viewed in that historical context, New Labour has achieved more than it is usually credited with having achieved. It may or may not be a model for the center-left, but despite its defeat in the elections of May 2010, it is at the least a model worth studying. Art Goldhammer and George Ross undertake a similar analysis of the lengthy process by which the French center-left reached its present impasse. They see a record of incoherence and factionalism that has prevented French socialists from capitalizing on the many failures of their opponents and from undertaking the sorts of policies that might give them a more lasting purchase on voters' preferences. Jonas Pontusson tells a different story about Sweden, where, he explains, a period of political uncertainty and economic distress in the 1980s afforded social democrats the opportunity to sort out what was central in their vision and program. That involved a reaffirmation of the party's commitment to work rather than to a particular job, to the skills and training and social sup