Tag Archives: European Values

Culture wars in the cultural committee?

Posted on by

“This committee shapes Europe´s future”, the challenging words by Sabine Verheyen, the outgoing chair of the culture and education committee of the European Parliament (EP) .

The committee rarely hits the headlines, or even the inner pages. One of the smallest committees (only 30 MEPs) it covers culture and education, youth, audio-visual, media, multilingualism and sport. This disparate portfolio has one important glue: the EU has no “competence” in these areas. They remain steadfastly under national member state authority. The committee can advise, comment and publish its views. Its Activity review for 2019 to 2024 is here. Its main practical focus is on the EU´s own programmes of which Erasmus+ and the European capitals of culture (ECOC) are the most well known. In the EU jargon the committee is aptly known as CULT.

There is a new committee following the June 2024 election of a new parliament. For the first time the centre–left to centre-right groups have to contend with three far-right groups who hold 187 of the 720 seats. Far less than the doom-mongers were forecasting but still a sizeable bunch. Committee membership, for the next 30 months, reflects the political groups.

So what is the make up of the new CULT? 19 women and 11 men. Italy (5) Greece and France (4 each), Germany and Hungary with 3 each. The 2004/7 accession states contribute 10. In addition there are 30 substitutes who can attend and speak but only vote if a group member is absent. 12 women and 18 men. Germany and France have 4, Spain and Italy 3. There are no members or substitutes from Ireland, Estonia, Lithuania, Malta, Luxembourg, Slovakia, Sweden, Denmark or Czechia.

The European People´s Party (EPP) leads with 8 seats followed by 6 from the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D). The centrist Renew has 3 and the Greens 2. That makes 19 from groups which supported the re-election of Ursula von der Leyen as Commission president (although not all group members voted for her). Two from the Left leaves 9 from the far-right groups: 4 seats for Orban´s so-called “Patriots for Europe”. Meloni´s European Conservatives and Reformists have 3 and the AfD led “Europe of Sovereign Nations” has one seat. There is a single seat for the “Non-Attached group, for the time being assume he is on the far right. So a third of the committee are from far right parties.

The first action of the committee was to elect its chair. The Patriots sought the chair and put forward Malika Sorel from Marine le Pen´s party. The Greens put forward Nela Riehl who won 18-11 (one abstention). A secret vote so we have to wait for post meeting comments to see how people voted. The four vice-chairs were elected by “acclamation”: EPP, S&D, Renew and the Greens each picking up a post. The cordon sanitaire to keep the far right out of posts held up.

The election of the chair was itself a breakthrough . Nela Riehl: ” I was born and raised in Hamburg as a working-class child with roots in Germany and Ghana. As a child, I waited at barriers to cross borders within Europe, so I am deeply aware that only a united Europe is our future.” How will she get on with her opponent, Malika Sorel? Proposed by Marine le Pen´s former assistant, Sorel, whose parents were Algerian, has long been on the right. “She has written several essays on immigration and what she calls the “decomposition of France”, accusing “a part” of immigrants of “turning against the host country”. Malika Sorel-Sutter today highlights her “fear of a Lebanonization of France”, with a “migratory, security and educational chaos.”

Predictably the Patriots of Europe (a misnamed group if there ever was one) members make their views known. The Wikipedia entry for Afroditi Latinopoulou, is blunt: She is against abortion rights, opposes LGBTQ+ rights, and has expressed homophobic, transphobic, and anti-immigrant views, repeatedly calling for the borders to be closed. She has also supported the Great Replacement conspiracy theory. In June 2024, she called for Pride Parade to be dissolved, saying, “It is a celebration of vulgarity, emphasising the sexuality of sadomasochists and other various abnormalities in public view. She has also described homosexuality as “unnatural” and claimed it contradicts religious beliefs. Similar views from from Bulgarian Ivan Valchev. “ITN (his party) does not find it appropriate to give teenagers any access to propaganda that includes non-traditional practices that do not fit into the traditional Bulgarian values of gender and family”.

Some members actually have relevant experience. Of course there are many lawyers and several career politicians at mayoral, regional and national level. The education remit benefits from teachers and a former headmistress and university academics ranging from historians, speech therapists, special needs children and economists. I can´t find anyone who admits to being an Erasmus alumni.

Sport has several members. Latinopoulou may have far right views but was a professional tennis player in younger days. Lara Magoni (ECF Italy) was an Olympic skier. One of the substitutes, Carolina Morace (The Left, Italy) has 105 caps for the Italian national team and is an international football coach and member of UEFA´s Football Board. “My wife Nicola is Australian, we lived in Australia and Great Britain and now we live in Rome. In civilized countries, same-sex marriage is the norm. It is only a taboo in Italy and in countries where democracy practically does not exist, like Russia.“

The youth portfolio (let´s be generous and say under 30 years old) has three who have moved from studying straight into political roles. Zala Tomašič  (EPP Slovenia) who “will fight for the Slovenes to be in the first place in Slovenia, for everyday values ​​to be “God, family and homeland” and for “life in a world where there are only two sexes”.  Sabrina Repp (S&D Germany) takes a different view “strengthening democracy also includes protecting vulnerable groups such as women, children, LGBTQI* or migrants. Anti-democratic tendencies primarily threaten their living environment. Emma Rafowicz (S&D France) takes a similar view: “Racism, anti -Semitism , LGBTphobia exist and are eating away at the cohesion of our society. All the texts that help us understand and combat it better must be studied. Denying them on principle would be a mistake“.

Being a familiar face on TV clearly helps with political recognition. Two members and two substitutes made their names on TV (2 EPP and 2 S&D) whilst another 4 members were journalists.

Turning to the culture remit we see two Polish government ministers, one a minister of culture 2007-14 (EPP) and Joanna Izabela Scheuring-Wielgus, a recent state secretary (S6D). She was a cultural manager before entering the national parliament. A former minister of culture in Spain is among the EPP substitutes. The four vice-chairs have varying degrees of cultural experience. Hristo Petrov (Renew) is an hip-hop musician. Diana Riba i Giner (Greens) ran a bookshop specialising in children’s and youth books and was previously a cultural programmer; Emma Rafowicz (S&D) was until the elections the deputy mayor for culture, crafts and heritage, in the 11th arrondissement in Paris. Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski (EPP) was in his younger days a commercial photographer. Among the substitutes we find two more photographers and architect and an award winning novelist, Sibylle Berg.

Perhaps the member with the most immediate relevance to culture on the committee is the S&D member from Austria Hannes Heide. A member since 2019 he was the mayor of Bad Ischl, he now chairs the Board of one of the 2024 European Capitals of Culture Bad Ischl-Salzkammergut. “I am convinced that the EU must move closer to the people again and become tangible for them in order to regain acceptance. It is precisely the regions outside of urban centres that need to be strengthened, because that is where EU scepticism and nationalism are most pronounced.”. and “the New European Bauhaus is an opportunity and has real potential to become a cultural movement like its historical model and to create new awareness. But it will only be successful if it reaches the people of Europe, if it does not become an elitist project, if Europeans can imagine what it means, if there is no contrast between urban centres and rural areas, if access is social, fair and inclusive“.

So what can we expect from the new committee? There are obvious and distinct differences of approach to life between members. The traditional political and economic differences between members from the centre right to centre left now have to contend with views on culture in the broadest sense. Some oppose the LGBTI+ rights and same-sex marriage which impinge directly on some other members. Racism, hiding often behind calls for immigration controls, is a touchstone. Will there the strengthened right seek to reduce the role of common EU interventions citing subsidiarity or outright Euroscepticism? Will the far right seek to cut out references to “woke” concepts in criteria for EU programmes? Will we see more votes which require members to attend meetings (the previous CULT was not known for full attendances).

To paraphrase Dr Strangelove: no culture wars here, this is the culture committee.

Galway 2020 is prepared to launch

Posted on by

Galway have announced their European Capital of Culture programme for 2020. They share the title with Rijeka.  I have a soft spot for both:  back in 2016 I chaired the selection panels which recommended the two cities.  Rijeka have launched their programme in an innovative Time Out edition.

Galway beat off three other Irish cities for the title. Dublin in the first round and then Limerick and an imaginatively named Three Sisters ( a combined bid from Waterford, Wexford and Kilkenny).  The ten members of the panel, from ten different EU member states, were not unanimous in their choice but Galway convinced a majority. Their report is online. 

The bid was based on a  100 page “bidbook” (based on a set of questions common to all bidders) and a presentation to the panel.    Galway surprised us by handing out VR headsets (first time I think any of us had used one) and showing us a VR film.  Why?  Because a key part of their bid, the innovative bit, was their aim to be the first digital and virtual European Capital of Culture.

The bidbook is not simply a sales pitch; it becomes the de facto contract for the title holder. Why?  Several reasons.  Firstly it would be extremely unfair to the unsuccessful cities if a title holder cleared off and did something different  “But you won on the promise of X and are delivering Y”? makes the Vote Leave promises look sane. The book also provides the monitoring panel (another group of international experts some also from the selection panel) a touchstone to see how the city is progressively implementing the project.   It is expected that there will be some variation from the projects in the bid-book: partners disappear or drop out, budgets are redrawn, new projects and partners come into play.  But generally most of the bid-book should take place.

So how does the programme match up to the bid-book promises?  The journey from 2016 to now has been, shall we say, bumpy. This is not unusual in an ECOC (sorry for the acronym).  Almost predictably Galway’s management has fallen over two of the standard hurdles which have tripped many previous ECOCs.

Firstly personal, at Board, CEO and Artistic Director level.  We can go back to Liverpool in 2008 for the mother of all personnel and political problems from its selection in 2003 until Phil Redmond taking control very close to the 2008 year.  Since then Maribor 2012, Donostia San Sebastian 2016, Plzen 2016, Leeuwarden 2018, Aarhus 2017, Valletta 2018 and more have lost a CEO and/or both an Artistic Director during the build up period.   Political interference, misunderstanding of the nature of an ECOC, poor selection, the reasons are numerous, never quite the same.

Secondly money.  Again most ECOCs fail to meet the financial forecasts (hopes?) set out in the bidbook.  Selection panels are alert to this.  In Galway’s case the panel reported its concern that the private funding aspiration, at over 15% of the total, was rarely achieved.  Press reports indicate a pending shortfall in Galway. Public sector funding often also falls short as national, regional and city funding does not quite match up to their initial hopes.

So nothing new, Galway simply did not learn from previous ECOCs.    That is water under the bridge but it means more effective PR before the opening to overcome the negative impressions (until the final evaluation which I hope will follow the excellent evaluation of Limerick, Irish Capital of Culture in 2014, carried out by the then Ministry of Arts, and the independent  ECOC evaluations of ECORYS). I find evaluations by local universities unconvincing and too orientated to pleasing the management and local funders. Too often they are statistical reports with little critical analysis.

The programme?   Give a sound management team €30m plus, a few years lead in and a good programme surely follows.  There are enough artists to fill a years programme; at the lowest end simply putting the standard festivals into the programme fills a lot of pages.   An ECOC should be more.  In many ways an ECOC, linked to a city’s cultural strategy over the following few years, should be saying to the local arts scene that it needs to step-change for the future, the current business as usual needs shaking up.  The local arts scene often think an ECOC is an opportunity for more money for them to do what they are doing now.   Wrong.  An ECOC is strategically instrumental.  It is not a marketing exercise for the city, although the tourist business will pick it up.  It is an opportunity to change the city.  And over time, not over one year.  Take perhaps the most holistic city development taking in an ECOC: Lille in 2004.  Still changing, still developing after more than 20 years.  And not just with periodic spectacles.

The Galway programme follows ,on the surface, the proposals in the bidbook.  Same project titles, but it seems they have been slimmed down.  Many of the more innovative elements are missing or downplayed.   A shortfall in funding?  Too adventurous? Various managers not up to it (a common ECOC problem between selection and delivery which is why most ECOCs now run extensive cultural management training programmes).  Is the programme international enough?  To me that is a fundamental issue.  It is why an ECOC is radically different from a national capital of culture (like Limerick 2014, Derry 2013, Hull 2017).  They have narrower criteria and objectives.  It is difficult to see the internationalism in the programme.  There is a page of international names but are these who have helped on the way or are actually providing content during the year?  The recent norm is that well over half of the events in an ECOC are international (and the further away the better).

One key sentence in ECOC formal reports is: an ECOC is not just about promoting your own city but increasing the awareness of the diversity of European cultures in your own city. Note the plural.  One key point made by Galway in the selection was that 24% of the residents are New Irish.  I can’t see a corresponding engagement of them in the programme or even in the list of staff of the ECOC.   I can’t see, but this could be in a secondary programme, much debate about the cultural implications of Brexit.  This is perhaps one of the key European issues which needs discussion in an ECOC in Ireland.

A major legacy of many ECOCs has been that the local arts managers have used the event to pioneer new international partnerships and break new ground.  I can’t see this from the programme.   I hope the normal festivals are different in scale and content to their previous incarnations. “International Festivals” should surely be totally international!  One standard question of the selection panel used to be ” How will your festivals be different in the ECOC year?”.

The ECOC year is about to start.  Time to watch, time to enjoy.  Time soon for the city administration to sit down, with many others, to plan.. and finance.. the legacies. The bidbook listed many to be used as starting points.  Will Galway follow the way of some ECOCs and fold in December 2020 and disappear or will  the cultural life in Galway in 2021 be demonstrably different from that in 2019?  And I don’t mean tourists but artists, youth groups,  arts in school, participatory and community arts, the creative industries, attendance at arts events (and not counting passive attendance at spectacles). And will people have a wider understanding of the other lesser used languages in Europe alongside a growth in Gaelic?   Twenty years, and longer, from now journalists will still be describing Galway as a European Capital of Culture, not just in the tourism pages.  It is a brand which requires constant  attention.  Time will tell.

 

Unity through Conferences

Posted on by

It’s November and the conference season in full swing across Europe. Austerity and cuts may be the dominant reality but Europe’s cultural cosmopolitans have their boarding passes at the ready.

The ever-welcome newsletter of the Platform for Intercultural Europe (PIE) sets the scene.  Conferences in Belfast, Brussels, Turin, Vilnius, Helsinki, Brussels (again), Cosenza, and Kobuleti; and that’s just November.  Amidst this cornucopia of lanyards, name tags and lost luggage two themes emerge, the ever-changing make-up of European societies and how “culture” can, or should, solve Europe’s problems.

I’m sure that participants in all these events will come away energised with new ideas, some which may be put into practice.  My own more limited hope is that conference organisers put as much as possible onto their websites after the event. It is so frustrating to read the programme, perhaps read some advance papers, and, then, nothing more. (advance #Hashtags also useful!).

The Platform’s newsletter goes some way to open up one series of meetings.  The European Commission’s use of expert groups has come under criticism recently from the European Parliament. The PIE reports on a meeting in Brussels of the “Open Method of Co-ordination” .. an expert group on  “Cultural Diversity and Intercultural Dialogue”. It’s a comprehensive report: just as well as I can’t find any formal minutes or names of members. “Open” clearly does not mean “public” which is a shame in today’s more transparent requirements of governance.

I was taken by Chris Torch’s expert paper prepared for the meeting in which he gives an overview of migration and poses some ways forward for the arts sector to address social cohesion and diversity issues.  A sound paper but one I felt stopped short of proposing the radical changes needed.  It seems the OMC meeting itself also took the easy way out with its interim view that arts organisations should perhaps carry on as usual and merely add some additional “community” arts to their programmes.  The EU prides itself on its “Unity in Diversity” but nowhere more so than the ways member states deal with their own citizens and residents in their countries.  This point was raised at the meeting by representatives of member state governments. The Torch paper underplays the wide nature of “migrants” weakening many assumptions and recommendations he made.  There are, post 1945, four main waves of migration, loosely described as “guest worker”, post colonial, economic and intra-EU free movement. Western Europe has seen the four waves, in different mixes, from the 1950s. The newer member states in Central Europe had a long period of increasing mono-culture and a more recent and shorter experience of both emigration and fluidity.  Countries with a history of being emigrants themselves now find themselves receiving migrants. In many countries migrants, as in newcomers, are outnumbered by second and third generation citizens, no longer migrants nor should they be considered as such. Racism not migration is the issue.

Each country has a different mix based on their own history. I found both the Torch paper and the report on the meeting too timid in their views. The hard topics are avoided: religious  and cultural differences, the rise of overt racism (in Greece for example with Golden Dawn, in Hungary etc). In short: the policies and practices of the last decade do not seem to be working. More of the same is not enough.  What was missing from the Torch paper and it seems from the OMC is the realisation that change is needed within the arts and creative industry sectors, as employers of managers and artists. Adding activities on the margins of the mainstream is not enough.

Brussels naturally, hosts two conferences which look at two sides of the second mega-theme.  Culture Action Europe, a lobby group for the arts sector, opens with a programme  Let’s ask ourselves: what we can do for the European project, in what ways can we be useful? And then: engage to do it!   I do admire the conference’s aim ” A starting point for a large-scale movement of European citizens, regardless of the sector in which they are engaged, to reclaim the destiny of the European project.”

These arts sector orientated debates are followed two weeks later at the Brussels Conversations on a Cultural Coalition for a Citizens Europe, discussing “the future of the European project and the citizen’s role in making it a reality”.  A brave aim when many are questioning the very concept of the European project. Was the Nobel Peace Prize the final accolade for the project now it has achieved its original aim of ensuring enduring peace between France and Germany?  I do like the conference proposition that  “The lectures and workshops in this encounter will move beyond the theoretical-legal-philosophical discussion and show that citizenship and its cultural component is something we should practice in our daily lives”.

A busy time indeed. And myself?  Well not to be left out I’m speaking at a conference in Paris on 23 November.  My theme?  “Europe: cultural solutions to a wicked problem?”

 

More Europe or More European?

Posted on by

“More Europe”;  “Less Europe”:  calls triggered by the eurozone crisis and the inability of the politicians to solve it for more than a few months or even weeks at a time.   Pro-Europeans seek More Europe; euroseptics seek and look forward to the demise of the EU, or at least its fading away to a trading alliance.

The euro crisis highlights a major weakness of the EU, one known for many years. The Euro-elite quite simply ignore the citizens.  The Monnet method, little by little so no-one notices has been exploded.  Everyone notices now (except the euro-elite of course).

Do we have a European Union of citizens?  We take advantage of its many advantages from cheaper  roaming phone calls, ease of low-cost flights, open borders and a common currency for many, no visas and only slightly longer border queues for the rest.  But the crisis has shown the cultural fault lines.   North/South; hardworkers/skivers; tax payers/tax avoiders.  A stereotype blame game.   Perceptions are far ahead of reality.

Unity in diversity, perhaps the weakest euro-jargon phrase ever thought up, hardly papers over the cracks. Indeed it has become the clarion call for less Europe.

The Euro-elite call for more Europe, for a more cultural Europe.   Mega superstars,  Rem Koolhaas and Luc Tuymans, riding on global success and commercial marketing, call for deeper citizenship based on a shared culture.   Throughout history there have been sharing of cultures in architecture, in classical music, in some literary areas.  The Beatles to Lady Gaga to  Adele transcend anything the Eurovision Song Contest throws up.  The Soul for Europe meets in November in Berlin focussing on “civil society” and cultural values.    The Danish EU presidency brings together more eminent culture players in “Team Europe“, including the obligatory conference in Brussels for probably the same audience as all the events in Brussels attract.  The Institute of Ideas brings Euro-sceptics for a debate whether the EU will be the death of democracy.

But is the European Commission starting to wake up?   Tucked away in a corner, hidden from the headlines, it has asked us for our views on being European citizens. And on those areas we care about when we move between countries.    Moving from one country to another, baffling administrative arrangements,  discriminatory tax arrangements, denial of democratic rights. inconsistent health  and social security arrangements.

The Commission produced a very good report in 2010 on the problems of the “free movement of people”. Their scorecard on progress is a masterpiece of hiding just how few changes have taken place.

They are asking for your opinion.     If you move within the EU.. as a tourist, as a student, as a worker, a retiree. If you are in a partnership with someone from another member country, or want to live in another, or vote or fall ill, now is your chance to have your say.

“No taxation without representation” worked in 1776.  About time it worked in the EU; we  should be able to vote in national elections where we live as well as European Parliament and local.  Tax rules explicitly discriminate against fellow EU citizens.

For me it seems absurd that after 60 years European governments have done so little to facilitate free movement of people: surely the most fundamental cultural aspect of a European Union of citizens.  More Europe means just that: More European.

Make your views known.

The new soft power player: people

Posted on by

Soft power is associated with nation states or groupings of states.  The “West’s ” soft power played a key role in ending the Cold War according to its proponents.  The more adventurous supporters go further: the “Beatles and demin” were more powerful than economic collapse and missiles.

The USA has soft power; the EU is trying to think of its soft power, China is embarking on a major soft power drive.

Nowadays the term soft power is used indiscriminately. Rather like public diplomacy a few years ago. It has become the fashion in thinking circles.

The term itself embodies two very opposite characteristics. Soft.. nice the cuddly.  The arts, schools, universities, academics talking to each other, consumer goodies.  It is extended into the universal values arena:  political groupings which accept defeat and opposition; democracy, religious freedom etc.

Power is overlooked.  Power is hard by definition.  This is not the area of mutual understanding and awareness to use another universal phrase.

Power means convincing others to do what you want them to do.. and which they are not doing now.

“Soft power is no power” is a common riposte from the hard powerists (trade, military, the world of sanctions, boycotts, leading up to invasions and conflict).  There is very little serious evaluation of whether soft power really works.  Lots of theory; lots of anecdotes, lots of belief and an increasing number of indices (see my earlier articles and here).  But where’s the evidence?  I’ll explore this in the next article in this series.

But there is a new soft power on the block:  people,  individual people.  It is likely that the online digital activism of Avaaz.org and others will block the relatively secretly organised international agreement on internet control:  ACTA.

Nellie Kroes, the European Commissioner says:

“We have recently seen how many thousands of people are willing to protest against rules which they see as constraining the openness and innovation of the internet. This is a strong new political voice,” Kroes said in a speech at the Re:publica conference in Berlin. “And as a force for openness, I welcome it, even if I do not always agree with everything it says on every subject.”

“We are now likely to be in a world without [the stalled US act] SOPA and without ACTA. Now we need to find solutions to make the internet a place of freedom, openness, and innovation fit for all citizens, not just for the techno avant-garde,” Kroes continued.

It was not many thousands. It was millions.  from many countries.   Several governments are going to be seriously angry at the ending of ACTA.   Soft power in the hands of people.  Do I hear democracy by citizens rather than democracy by vested interests?

 

Hollande’s cultural challenge

Posted on by

If Francois Hollande wins the French presidency then a major cultural challenge has been set for him.  With nearly one in five French voters expressing a preference for a racist party, and the (hopefully) outgoing president making statements which are not out of place at a le Pen rally,  France really has to get to grips with its attitude to racism.

Something is clearly wrong.  It will mean changes to current practices, in employment, in all sectors.  Current policies have clearly failed.      A President Hollande will need to mobilise a changed cultural sector to help in the anti-racism programme.  Changed?  Yes.    How open is the cultural sector, from museums, theatres, orchestras, to independent arts organisations and groups to a multi-cultural programme.   Audience extension and development.  An interesting take on the Musee de Quai Branly for example is here.  Personally I loved the architecture but really disliked the approach taken in the exhibits, as did the author.

The report in Germany on the future of museums makes an interesting point.  Ignore the headline grabbing comment about closing half the museums and focus on the comment about the need to engage closer with the tax paying public.

In addition, he argues, cultural institutions should be organised differently and [be given] more detailed targets, not only in regard to visitor numbers, but also guidelines about where visitors should come from and what age groups in particular should be attracted to the museums.

This is not only a domestic issue.  France’s soft power and cultural attraction is weakened with such a growing vote for the extreme right.   And if the right win in the second round?

 

 

More Europe? More Europeans

Posted on by

With austerity and unemployment rising across most of Europe now is certainly the time for more Europe.  Comments by candidate Sarkozy, seeking the racist vote were quite frankly appalling for a President or any politician seeking high office.   (“They must know which side of the Mediterraean they live in”).

I make no concessions to this view.  The closer, and to adopt a Chinese buzz word in its most progressive meaning, harmonious Europe we have the better for everyone.  It is not just a case for eurozone countries to work together or closing down out-of-date tax loopholes between countries. We need to move to a more positive approach to Europeanness at the personal level. For far too long the EU has focused on the corporate and national.  In the next period.. and starting now not waiting for the 2014-20  “Europe 2020” agenda the priority must be to bring Europeans together.

“Unity in Diversity” is being abused to mean “my diversity is paramount” as nationalism and regionalism take precedence. It is no use arguing for More Europe if the target audience, the participants are the already cosmopolitan members of European society.   At the same time I think it is useless to promote some ideal “European Culture”: a favoured viewpoint of an intellectual elite.

As a starting point I recommend this publication from the Council of Europe:  “A Handbook on Tolerance and Cultural Diversity in Europe”.   The European Year of Citizens in 2013 has a fundamental political task in taking head on politicians at local, regional and national level, the commission and civil society.

2012: A European clash of civilisations?

Posted on by

It’s the time of year for forecasting.  What do you expect. or hope, will happen in 2012?  The European Council for Foreign Relations puts forward  Ten Trends for 2012.    Most are reasonably predictable and safe political points (the standard positioning of the ECFR) but it leads with a very challenging point for those interested in culture in Europe: “the European Clash of Civilisations”.

Although the real cause of the crisis is the structural flaw of designing a single currency without a common treasury, Northern Europeans have tended to explain the euro’s problems as a clash between a fiscally-responsible north and an irresponsible south. Southern countries, on the other hand, feel betrayed by what they see as the limited and conditional solidarity of the north – which they see as part of the problem. They feel they have contributed to Germany’s success during the last decade by buying German exports such as cars. France, meanwhile, is caught in the middle – the equivalent of what Huntington called a ‘torn country’ (like Turkey in the conflict between the West and Islam). It wants to be part of the north – which is where power is shifting – but finds itself in danger of becoming part of the south.
The facts do not always support this cultural reading of the crisis – for example it was the rule-worshipping Germans that broke the Stability and Growth Pact, while the Spanish abided by its provisions – however, like Huntington’s original thesis, it risks becoming self-fulfilling, leading to solutions which may not make sense in economic terms – such as simultaneous austerity by all, which Keynesians argue leads to stagnation.

In the last decade there are have more conferences, papers and seminars on “what is European identity; what is European culture.”.   How effective have they been?  Did any of them come to terms with the deep culture of European citizens?  Now is the time for some serious re-thinking and actions with the whole European project under threat.

So an invitation to those interested and active in European culture: what do you see in 2012?  Has the cultural sector any role in averting a cultural divide in Europe?  Does it remain on the sidelines and content within its own audience and production?    Are there any ideas for the Year of European Citizens. Or will 2013 be too late?

Should citizens take the lead in the Year of Citizens?

Posted on by

The European Commission has proposed 2013 to be the “European Year of Citizens”.    Its aims, sorry, challenges, are to:

  • raise citizens’ awareness of their right to reside freely within the European Union and of how they can benefit from EU rights and policies;
  • stimulate citizens’ active participation in EU policy-making;
  • build debate about the impact and potential of the right to free movement, especially on strengthening cohesion and people’s mutual understanding of one another.

Now most of these “Years” seek raise awareness of  an issue.  The concept is favoured by UNESCO, Council of Europe, various UN agencies as well as the EU.   One major weakness is that very few of the promoters put any money behind them; they expect others to spend their own money to deliver the results.   I haven’t seen any serious long-term evaluation of the years but they seem to be liked by officials and politicians.

The concept of European citizenship is important and in my view a Good Thing. Indeed if we are to survive the eurocrisis over the next few years then a greater shared sense of community amongst voters is essential. We can no longer continue to live in a Europe with its own variation of the Clash of Civilisations.

So how can we be better European citizens and what can the powers that be do?  Here are five ideas:

*  EU citizens living in other EU countries should be allowed to vote in the national elections as well as local and regional. No taxations without representation worked in a country two hundred or so years ago.  Voting is not the end of the world but it indicates a degree of equality and of belonging.

*  If you have a bank account in one EU country then you should be able to able an account in another automatically. No more Catch-22s when moving within the EU.

*  Ministries of Foreign Affairs should be renamed European and Foreign Ministries (some, Austria have done this). Again to demonstrate that being European is not being foreign.

*  The next elections for the European Parliament should be contested in the name of the political groupings in the Parliament with a single EU wide manifesto  and not by domestic political parties.  Citizens should vote for the various presidents directly, of Council and Commission.

* No discrimination in various tax and social security systems between EU citizens and domestic citizens.

There will be more.. please add them

A call for your support for the Free Theatre of Belarus

Posted on by

The Free Theatre of Belarus is no ordinary theatre.  You can read about it  here.  Time Out calls it the “bravest theatre in Europe”.  It is supported by Kevin Spacey, Tom Stoppard, Jude Law, Index on Censorship and many others.  Natalia Kaliada gave the most powerful speech at this years European Culture Forum in Brussels

It now seeks your support.  It’s time to give.

http://www.sponsume.com/project/belarus-free-theatre