Editorial

Citation

Coleman, J. and Rankin, A. (2004), "Editorial", European Business Review, Vol. 16 No. 1. https://doi.org/10.1108/ebr.2004.05416aab.001

Editorial

Editorial

The contributions to this issue of New European explore a wide variety of subjects. They cover an equally wide range of geographical locations, from the English countryside to Anatolia, from the future of the American left to the attempt to create a European political identity based on a constitution: some would say a United States of Europe, others a Swiss-style European Confederation. Yet the theme underlying these articles is that of shifting identities, or rather the tension between continuity and change. In Il Gatto Pardo (the leopard), Giuseppe di Lampedusa observes famously that in order to stay the same, it is necessary to change a little. This paradox is often invoked by pragmatic conservatives as their guiding principle, indeed the nearest they come to an ideological maxim. However, it is just as relevant to thoughtful reformers of liberal and left-wing disposition, indeed perhaps more so. For the left succeeds when it builds on co-operative traditions (as in Scandinavia, for example), and fails when it lapses into revolutionary abstraction.

Ironically, this era of rapid, unsettling changes in technology and society has made revolution and the cult of change for its own sake seem curiously outmoded. Globally, the fastest-growing revolutionary movement is fundamentalist Islam, which is by nature anti-modernist and not “progressive” in any way. The challenge for today’s political and economic reformers is to oversee a process of balanced change, a holistic approach that meets a variety of human needs, including the need for continuity and stability.

In this spirit, Sir Ewen Cameron sets out the British government’s broad blueprint for the future of the English countryside. Rural Britain, and rural England in particular, has become a political problem in recent years. This is partly because of a series of agricultural crises, notably the epidemics of BSE and foot-and-mouth disease. But there is also a conflict of values between town and country that is relatively new to British politics, although familiar in continental Europe. In particular, the ruling Labour Party has been portrayed as indifferent or hostile to rural interests, because it is overwhelmingly a party of the cities and suburbs, and because its opposition to hunting has produced acrimonious parliamentary debates.

For a variety of reasons, rural communities in England have felt themselves reduced to Cinderella status. Sir Ewen’s report acknowledges such concerns and explores a number of ways in which rural England might adapt to economic pressures, from the global economy and closer to home. Sir Ewen envisages for the English countryside a dynamic economy, based less on large-scale agriculture and more on small and medium-sized business that make use of new technologies and are environmentally sensitive. He reminds us that historically the strength of rural England has been its ability to adapt and evolve, not remain static. If his approach succeeds, the English countryside will change incrementally but preserve its underlying and recognisable characteristics. This transformation would make the English countryside a role model for continental rural economies, instead of a disaffected community at Europe’s westward fringe.

Todd Gitlin’s article is on a very different theme and takes us to the other side of the Atlantic. He writes as one of America’s principal left-wing intellectuals. This role makes him well qualified to express his frustration with the Left, the American Left especially, which has absorbed in a masochistic way a knee-jerk anti-Americanism, an attitude of “down with my country, right or wrong”. Underlying Gitlin’s critique is that the American Left has failed to change sufficiently. It is stuck in a 1970s ghetto of uncritical support for “national liberation” movements abroad and divisive “identity politics” (race, sex, etc.) at home. However, the world has moved on. Today’s revolutionary movements tend not to be liberating at all, at least not in the left-wing sense, but fundamentalist and deeply reactionary. Identity politics of race and sex are outdated and often mirror the ideologies of fascist movements.

Gitlin’s thesis is that the Left, in America, Europe and elsewhere, must develop a genuinely inclusive programme of social and economic democracy, with which broad swathes of the population can identify, and not just sectional interests. This involves opposing terrorism and fundamentalism, of whatever provenance. In the USA, specifically, the Left should reconnect with the values of individual liberty, and equality under the rule of law, that underpin the constitution and are valued by almost all Americans. If the Left changes in this way, it will pose a serious challenge to the present “neoconservative” hegemony. If it fails to do so, it will quite literally be left behind.

The next contribution, by Judith Ryser, explores some of the ways in which the European Union is adapting to its unprecedented growth. Policy-makers in the EU are trying to reconcile the widening of Europe, through the inclusion of ten new states, with the underlying ideal of deepening, or “ever-closer union”. It is an unenviable task. The European project was established during the Cold War and so its focus was centred on the West. Even there, it has been hard to forge a common political identity or do more than agree on a few broad principles. To friendly critics, as much as opponents, the current structure of the EU appears sclerotic and estranged from Europe’s peoples. Expansion makes a rethink of the EU’s structures a matter of urgent priority. Hitherto, the emphasis has been top-down, in that it has focussed on creating and strengthening centralised institutions, a European political identity that moves from the centre to the periphery. However the best way to make common European citizenship a reality might be to move from the periphery to the centre, to emphasise decentralisation, participatory democracy and localism, and to show greater respect for national and regional diversity. For this alternative view of the EU, a possible model might be the Swiss Confederation, the success and stability of which has earned universal respect.

Central and Eastern Europe will have a profound impact on EU politics, but at least they are incontrovertibly European. Turkey, by contrast, has an ambiguous status as a European nation, not least among Turks themselves. Much of the political elite looks westwards and identifies EU membership with modernity and progress. Others look towards Central Asia and are beginning to think in terms of a pan-Turkic union. Both options seem difficult to achieve. The former Soviet republics are resource-rich but politically impoverished, and fraught with ethnic and religious divisions. Pro-EU Turks are dismayed and hurt by the refusal of many Westerners to accept their European credentials. This is partly for historical reasons, partly because of modern considerations of human rights (where Turkey has fallen short) and partly because of a persistent European ambivalence towards Islam, fuelled inevitably by recent events. These issues form the basis for an important new book, a series of essays by mainly Turkish scholars, which Aidan Rankin reviews.

Finally, we introduce an incremental change to New European, the short reviews section in which Harrison Mitchell provides an overview of some recent publications on European politics and society.

John Coleman, Aidan RankinEditors