Here is for example John Dunn - who connects an analytical approach to politics with a historical background knowledge.

Which brings us straight to the republican criticism of mainstream Ralsian theory.

Any views on these two issues, or any further relevant names or debates?

As far as I know, Richard Bellamy is one of them.  He is the Director of Max Webber Programme of the European University Institute.  See this for details: http://www.eui.eu/ProgrammesAndFellowships/MaxWeberProgramme/People/RichardBellamywebpage.aspx

Hope this helps.

Dear Albert, thanks for your reply. Indeed, Bellamy is one of the key actor, he is frequently referred to. By the way, I guess, he is a key player for my other question on political realism.

Best,

Ferenc

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Horcher, 

I watched a short interview with Richard Bellamy and then a short presentation he made of his views on citizenship--following the link suggested by Albert above. These both struct me as interesting and perhaps worth thinking about a bit. I wonder if anyone can provide some overview of Bellamy's work or the directions of his related thought. My general sense of your question is that there has been some significant change of thinking under the current British government. It seems clear, too, that the recent vote in Scotland provided something of a shock to the practical system of British politics --in spite of the vote to continue the union.  It emphasizes the particular concerns of Scotland in the U.K. and it also re-emphasizes the movement toward devolution. I thought it positive that the Scots decided to have their vote and positive that they decided to stay in the U.K.  I am aware that not everyone would agree with these judgments. 

Bellamy's talk of a "disconnect" between national politics in the E.U. and the politics and policies of the E.U. struck me as accurate. He made an explicit analogy to the case of Scotland and the U.K. As the institutions and agencies of the E.U. have gained power, since Maastricht, as he put the matter, participation in E.U. elections has actually declined. I have tended to view this phenomenon as a matter of an over-powerful role of the national governments in the E.U. --by analogy with the way in which, say, the British parliament gradually won powers from the monarch (over centuries) with the E.U. Council playing the role of the E.U. monarchy. But we might put the point in a somewhat different way, as I have of late, as the idea that the E.U. still lacks for its "We the people" moment, as contrasted with its "We the peoples," moments. Bellamy seemed to suggest that this is not now possible and that emphasis on citizenship leads back to a more community based sense of participation and involvement. I wonder how other would interpret him on this point. 

By the way, I heard an interview this morning with Governor Brown of California, on NPR,which as you might expect was chiefly concerned with problems and policies of the government of California. One point mentioned was that the GDP of California is on the order of $2.2 Trillion. Still, the government of California has outstanding obligations for pensions and health insurance which present a genuine problem to the state. California is not the only state in this position. Governor Brown also put very considerable emphasis on California's development of sources of renewable energy --now on the order of 30%, as I recall. On a recent visit to California, I encountered a significant sense of people there being able to deal with their own problems. (Little interest in advice from people back east!) 

This is perhaps remarkable, since the general tendency, since WWII at least, and through the Cold War, has been to greatly emphasize the role and significance of the American federal government, in contrast to the role of the state and local governments. In important ways, I think, the U.S. is certainly more homogeneous than the E.U. Still, I believe that the emphasis here on the federal government has tended to dis-empower the state and local governments to an inordinate degree--so that, e.g., people of the best quality and capabilities are drawn to the federal government to the detriment of the functioning of the states. Yet, I also believe that the design of the U.S. federal union was, and in significant degree remains, a flexible architecture--allowing greater national unity under external stress and greater autonomy of state and local agencies once such stress is removed.  However that may be, it stands out that the constitution was explicitly formulated as the work of "We the people of the U.S." They can, therefore, rearrange things as they will, via various constitutional and legislative means. 

Though the word is regularly rejected in the U.K., and especially in the context of discussions of the E.U., I believe there is some tendency toward federalist thinking in the U.K. The word is perhaps somewhat misleading, but it seems implicated in both the movement toward "devolution" and perhaps also in the recent institution of the U.K. Supreme Court --which takes the final court of appeals in the U.K. out of the House of Lords and therefore also out of the legislative branch. I believe Bellamy said that following the vote in Scotland, the U.K. might have to "re-invent itself." Surely serious academic thought has been devoted to the idea.   

H.G. Callaway

Dear Professor Callaway,

first, a technical point of clarification: In Hungarian, we put family name first, and Christian name second. So Hörcher is my family name. Please, if you would like, call me either Mr/Prof. Hörcher or - as it is more comfortable - Ferenc (which is equivalent with Ferenc).

Thank you for your substantial thoughts on my questions. Indeed there is a lot to rethink in Europe, partly because of the issues brought up in the UK, partly because of the European votes - and now because of the Paris terrorist attacks. 

It seems to me that the UKIP and the Scottish challenge shows that there is a need to rethink the basis of the political pact within the UK, with a special focus on earlier and recent waves of immigration. THe same seems to apply to France and Germany, Spain and Italy. And all this is not independent from the crisis of trust (hardened by the economic crisis) in the EU. 

It seems to me that there is a new interest in governability all around the Western world, and new interest in what it means to belong to a political community. And I think this is quite important, as it tackles the above mentioned issues much more efficiently than the mainstream liberal (and for that matter conservative) theories did. This is the point where my question here connects to my other question about political realism.

As for California, certainly it is a vast economy, and therefore it would be hard to compare it to anything in Europe. But I agree with you that the institutional structure of the US is much more flexible than most of the traditional and newly invented European institutions. ANd surely, the "we, the people" approach is to be greeted in EUrope, too. 

Ferenc Hörcher

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Horcher,

I hope you will forgive my habit of addressing everyone on RG by their family name. This is a bit unconventional, I realize, but it simplifies things and allows for a greater focus on the issues or questions at hand. I hope that no one take this as offensive. 

I'm somewhat skeptical of those calling themselves "realists" in international relations--or at least skeptical of the American varieties. However, I think there is a perfectly reasonable sense that may be attached to the term, if I were to decide to use it. This is a matter of the aim of accuracy in social and political analysis so as to facilitate good policy and policy decisions. I'm inclined to oppose this to ideology in political thought and to anything overly idealistic.  

I think the matter of political labels usually has more to do with politics than it has to do with political theory, and I'm not much involved in politics. So, I try to use terms such as "conservative" or "liberal" descriptively (or historically), and without partisan prejudice.  From this perspective, the interest of your remark on governability is more conservative, though I would expect any reasonable policy proposals to take this into account. The way I usually put this is in terms of pluralism. Basically, I think that pluralism within a society is a good thing--a strength; but this is true only so long as there are effective means available to deal with conflicts arising among the pluralism of elements in a given society.

In consequence, a proper concern with social and political pluralism is somewhat continuous with the tradition European emphasis on ethnic uniformity within a given society. To build a society upon the basis of immigration is not impossible, certainly, and the U.S. is one good example of this, dating from its start. But this is not the same as saying that pluralism is an absolute value or that more of it is always better. Sometimes more is better and sometimes not. Certainly, I think that any multi-ethnic society should accept and accommodate its pluralism and diversity so far as possible. But integration is basically a slow social process and it can't be rushed to meet extraneous political agendas. 

The U.K. and most of the European states have moved away from the advocacy of "multiculturalism," and they have placed more emphasis on the need for integration within a given society. (Compare the U.S. national motto: "E pluribus unum" or "From many, one.") I think of this movement as more akin to pluralism which allows the need of integration (and sometime, mutual assimilation), as contrasted with the advocacy of a (universal?) imperative to maintain separate social groups or identities. Yet on the other hand, Europe-as-a-whole seems to represent the old multicultural ideal, and this seems to be still an export item even if rejected within most of the European states. The export item seems to continually confuse pluralism and multiculturalism.  

It seems to me crucial that the E.U. get its economic house in order and get back to growth. That alone will ameliorate many of the social and political tensions within the union. But that is not to say that large-scale structural reform is not in order. Europe seems to be "muddling through," but not really mastering its current challenges. I believe that slower paced globalization is called for, at the least, and long overdue. There should be less emphasis on growth through international trade and high finance. Consider, for instance, the large scale geo-political impact of contemporary U.S. independence in oil and gas production. This is the kind of thing which can re-balance for defects arising from go-go globalization. 

I am fully aware that the subject of pluralism may look very different from various European perspectives --as compared to the viewpoint of societies which combine great (ethnic, religious or linguistic) diversity within a nation or which have built themselves up through diverse immigration.

H.G. Callaway 

Dear Professor Callaway,

if you do not mind I would still prefer to be adressed by the traditional way. Your way of doing it sounds for my ears a bit strange and - forgive me for the word - in my own language it would be regarded as almost rude.

As for your suggestions, let me focus on two issues, pluralism and economic growth. As for the first one there is no problem with immigration - Hungary, my home country, has seen for centuries different waves of immigration, populating its desolated parts. However, the present discontents with pluralism is a sign, as I see it, that immigration seems to destruct traditional social ties, and no ties are rebuilt instead of them. And I take the traditional thesis of political theory true that no society can work in a flourisdhing way where social ties are bron down. So it seems to me there is a need for a lot of hard work if the sort of pluralism that is characteristic of present day Europe is to be negotiated with social cohesion.

Your other issue is economic growth. I agree that it would greatly help the present crisis if growth could be achieved. But it seems to me that growth itself is hard to achieve because there is a political crisis in the union, one that is directly connected to ungovernability. So a lot of creative energy needs to be used on this issue as well, and that will not go without theoretical development.

Ferenc 

Philadelphia, PA

Dear all, 

I am still wondering about Professor Horcher's proposals on recent developments in political theory in GB and in Europe generally, and I hope we will see some further contributions along those lines. 

I came across the following short "cartoon" analysis of the European debt crisis, which I hope may be of interest to readers of this thread:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8xAXJx9WJ8

I thought this worth a look, if only as providing some talking points. I'm sure that elements of the account may be disputed. In spite of that, the piece may be useful in getting at some features of the economic problems in Europe and their relation to political questions and problems. I want to see Europe growing again. 

This "cartoon" analysis places considerable emphasis on the idea of the need for a unified fiscal policy among the members of the Euro zone. The idea seems to be that the ECB provides a single monetary policy, but that low interest rates and political pressure brought on excessive borrowing leading to very significant economic problems for countries needing to service very high levels of debt. The connected austerity policies have proved very burdensome in several European countries. In the past, Euro zone constraints upon national fiscal policies have prove ineffective, but these have been insisted upon as a condition of debt bailouts. 

An alternative to unification of fiscal policies across the Euro zone might be very significant banking regulation at the level of the Euro zone. In any case, it seems that all the proposed solutions have various political difficulties. (There are very significant political pressures to keep interest rates very low.) So, one might say, that there is a problem of "governability" in the Euro zone. As is emphasized by various Euro-skeptics, and which I take to be true, there has never been a successful monetary union which did not involve very significant political union. Still Europe wants to have its monetary union (and I don't think that "the Euro has failed") without sufficient political union. Certainly, the theme of European federalism has been widely resisted in recent years.  We may recall the time when "ever closer union" was a unifying goal of the E.U. 

My own sympathizes rest with the gigantic efforts and achievements of the E.U., and emphasis on problems here do not put this in doubt for me at least. 

H.G. Callaway

To all experts in this discussion:

It's a lecturer from Department of Economics in University of AJK Pakistan.

I would like to invite you in the class to give 30-60 Minutes Skype lecture about European History in undergraduate course class of History of Economic Thought.

In response to that we can volunteer for your students in any affordable virtual activity. 

The class will be every Monday to Wednessday at 11am (Pakistan time)