|
12 giugno 2009
EU-US: a little comparison
According to official estimates, the average EU-wide voter
turnout in the European Parliament elections of 2009 was 43 percent. This is
the lowest figure since the elections began in 1979, and the numbers per
country are vastly lower than those for the turnout in national elections. It
seems that European Union citizens are more focused on national issues and show
indifference towards Europe-wide campaigns. The questions that come to mind are
whether this is a failure of EU leadership, or is there just simple apathy
among its citizens? The low figures of voter turnout can be attributed both to
the shortcomings in the EU’s authority structure, and the current times of
economic uncertainty.
Part of the problem lies in the fact that many Europeans
perceive issues raised in the 2009 election as irrelevant to their lives and
would much rather focus on national issues raised by candidates. Although EU
leaders insist that decisions made by the European Parliament should be recognized
as a form of supragovernmental authority above nation-states, Europe does not
look to be evolving into the quasi-federal entity many had hoped. In the
American political framework, the closest comparison to this model is the
separation of individual states’ rights over the Federal government.
The American Federal government still has much more
official, linked authority over the fifty states. However, each state does
maintain its ability to dissent from some Federal mandates, such as in the
matters of education, transportation and business environments (provided the
actions are not unconstitutional) and forfeit any Federal support and funds. The
EU simply does not have that kind of influence over the social policies of
nations, and accordingly, the personal lives of their citizens.
Another reason for low voter turnout can be explained by the
fact that in worrying times, nationalism and protectionism remain strong. Times
of economic uncertainty are not the best suited for citizens to contemplate
cooperation – but rather, how to avoid as much damage as possible and maintain
financial security within the facets of life that most directly affect their
existence. The “dissolving” of borders and broader European cooperation poses a
threat to many in the more well-to-do countries of the EU; since this would
mean greater competition from others in production, employment, and other
resources.
When most outsiders (and perhaps many Europeans) think of
the Eurozone, there’s a high probability that the Euro (€) is the first thing
that comes to mind. This united currency is perhaps the most tangible notion of
a united Europe – and has likely done the most to forge the European identity.
However, monetary policy is not a democratic process, and is controlled solely
by the European Central Bank. Thus, the issue that unites most Europeans is one
that they have no participatory influence in.
Although the same holds true in the United States, where the
Federal Reserve holds all power over the dollar’s standing in the country, there
is an economic interdependence that does not hold true for Europe. A sense of
protectionism has also enveloped the US during these times of high unemployment
and decreasing wealth. However, unlike Europe, there is a united American
identity within the different states. The economic interdependability of the
automotive industry means that car companies cannot be allowed to fail in
Michigan, or else industries and jobs in Arizona, Indiana, Florida, and many
others will suffer as a consequence. This protectionism (for better or worse)
has provided the United States with a unified front in the international economic
context, since all states must band together for the good of the country as a
whole. Again, this interdependence and authoritative influence of a higher
governing power is what is lacking in the European structure, and many do not
seem to place cooperation as a priority. The low voter turnout for the EU
parliament can be seen as proof that these hard times are not conducive to
cooperation.
| inviato da yrenilsalopez il 12/6/2009 alle 11:9 | | 
|
|
26 marzo 2008
Can Italy Work as a Two-Party System?
From an outsider’s point of view, the Italian electoral process can be seen as a puzzling arrangement of many different actors – all with vested interests in holding control within a largely decentralized progression. Since the dissolving of Parliament by Giorgio Napolitano, the many parties in Italy’s political sphere have jostled to send a representative into the national ticket. However, the general elections have focused on the competition between two principal figures within the Italian political scene: Silvio Berlusconi and Walter Veltroni.
Along with this national attention have come many proposals from other, often smaller political parties to unite under one common banner with Forza Itlalia and Partito Democratico, respectively. Coming from an American political perspective, this polarity of two central parties is not a new concept, and something that has, to an extent, worked well with the United States. However, the sudden bundling of several factions into two umbrella campaigns dose not bode well for Italy’s future within such a political climate.
Berlusconi’s Forza Italia has joined with several parties, (including the Casa delle Libertà and the Nuovo Partito Socialista Italiano) in order to form the Popolo della Libertà, a "united party of the moderates and reformers." Similarly, Walter Veltroni’s Partito Democratico is now joined by the Italia dei Valore as well as the Radicali Italiani on its ticket. Although the parties that are banding together share similar values with their “parent” candidate, this does not mean perfect unions were made in these alliances.
There is cause to worry about a not-so-compatible match when it comes to the political aims and ideals of these factions, many of which have grown accustomed to running independently and with their own leadership for quite some time now. Although it is understandable for parties to come together under one cause, one can’t help but wonder if the main motivator is not just “manpower” and numbers over the actual strengths of united values. The fact that these alliances formed rather quickly and with some debate and falling-outs can be seen as a foretaste of what is to come if a winning campaign further cements the bonds and forces the different parties to work together in an administrative and practical way.
| inviato da yrenilsalopez il 26/3/2008 alle 10:49 | |
|