from this link:
Leigh Phillips writes:it [the JP Morgan manifesto] is >> the first
public document I’ve come across where the authors are frank that the
problem is not just a question of fiscal rectitude and boosting
competitiveness, but that there is also an excess of democracy in some
European countries that needs to be trimmed. [calling Samuel
Huntington!!]
“In the early days of the crisis, it was thought that these
national legacy problems were largely economic: over-levered
sovereigns, banks and households, internal real exchange rate
misalignments, and structural rigidities. But, over time it has become
clear that there are also national legacy problems of a political
nature. The constitutions and political settlements in the southern
periphery, put in place in the aftermath of the fall of fascism, have
a number of features which appear to be unsuited to further
integration in the region. When German politicians and policymakers
talk of a decade-long process of adjustment, they likely have in mind
the need for both economic and political reform.” [Emphasis added]
Yes, you read that right. It’s in dry, banker-ese, but the authors
have basically said that the laws and constitutions of southern Europe
are a bit too lefty, a product of their having been written by
anti-fascists. These “deep-seated political problems in the
periphery,” say authors David Mackie, Malcolm Barr and friends, “in
our view, need to change if EMU is going to function properly in the
long run.”
You think I’m perhaps exaggerating a smidge? They go into more detail
in a section describing this “journey of national political reform”:
“The political systems in the periphery were established in the
aftermath of dictatorship, and were defined by that experience.
Constitutions tend to show a strong socialist influence, reflecting
the political strength that left-wing parties gained after the defeat
of fascism.”
All this is a load of historical horse-lasagna anyway. Italy for
example never went through a process akin to Germany’s denazification,
and in Spain, the democratising king, Juan Carlos, played a major role
in the transition. Only in Greece and Portugal were there popular
socialist insurrections that resulted in or contributed to the
overthrow of the regimes: the Athens Polytechnic Uprising played a key
role in the Metapolitefsi or ‘polity change’ (although much, much more
than the crushed student protests were involved here, including a
failed coup d’etat and the Turkish invasion of Cyprus), and in
Portugal a proper left-wing rebellion, the Revolução dos Cravos or
Carnation Revolution, brought down the Estado Novo regime. Although it
is true in the case of the latter three countries that their
late-in-the-day construction of welfare states in the 70s and 80s was
largely carried out by social democratic forces, the architects of the
Italian post-war state were the Christian Democrats, who dominated
government for 50 years.
“Political systems around the periphery typically display several
of the following features: weak executives; weak central states
relative to regions; constitutional protection of labour rights;
consensus building systems which foster political clientalism; and the
right to protest if unwelcome changes are made to the political status
quo. The shortcomings of this political legacy have been revealed by
the crisis. Countries around the periphery have only been partially
successful in producing fiscal and economic reform agendas, with
governments constrained by constitutions (Portugal), powerful regions
(Spain), and the rise of populist parties (Italy and Greece).”
Let’s parse that paragraph, shall we? Weak executives means strong
legislatures. That should be a good thing, no? Let us remember that it
is the parliament that is sovereign. The executive in a democracy is
supposed to be the body that merely carries out the bidding of the
legislature. There is a reason why liberal democracy opted for
parliaments and not a system of elected kings.
Oh, and we want strong central states. None of this local democracy
nonsense, please.
JP Morgan, and presumably the EU powerbrokers they are ventriloquising
for, finally are being honest with us: they want to do away with
constitutional labour rights protections and the right to protest. And
there has to be some way to prevent people electing the wrong parties.
Thankfully though, the authors note, “There is a growing recognition
of the extent of this problem, both in the core and in the periphery.
Change is beginning to take place.”
In particular, they highlight how Spain has begun “to address some of
the contradictions of the post-Franco settlement” and rein in the
regions.
But other than that, sadly, the process of de-democratization (okay –
I’m calling it that. They call it “the process of political reform”)
has “barely begun”.
Well, the JP Morgan paper may have been written in English, but there
is a venerable Spanish phrase that that all good anti-fascists right
across the eurozone periphery know and is probably the simplest and
best response to such provocation: ¡No pasarán!<<
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 7:33 AM, Louis Proyect <[email protected]> wrote:
> http://blogs.euobserver.com/phillips/2013/06/07/jp-morgan-to-eurozone-periphery-get-rid-of-your-pinko-anti-fascist-constitutions/
> _______________________________________________
> pen-l mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
--
Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your
own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
