Editorial

Editorial

This issue examines some of the ways in which technology, the welfare system,the political process and the idea of citizenship are being adapted to the conditions of the new Europe. The UK, for example, prides itself on a distinctive legal system, or more properly two legal systems, for Scotland has a legal tradition of its own. The differences between British and continental European law arise largely out of certain differences in historical experience. For example, the absence of Napoleonic occupation prevented the common law tradition from being rationalised and ironed out. To the Napoleonic mindset,English common law, in particular, can seem quirky and convoluted, like the“rolling English road”, perhaps. Yet to many English this very quirkiness guarantees fair play and flexibility. Some Britons look enviously across the Channel, however, at a legal system that is more rationalist in its principles and based on the inquisitorial, rather than adversarial, approach. For the problems associated with adversarialism in law are now almost as obvious as the problems of adversarial politics. Neither adapt well to an increasingly complex society in which the old divisions, such as “right” and“left” are blurred, and where there is rarely a straightforward choice of either/or.

The challenge for British politics and law must therefore be to retain the elements of fairness and respect for the individual that give them their greatest strength, and abandon the adversarial elements that hold them back. That challenge informs a great deal of political and legal discussion in Britain, both internally and in relation to the European Union. David Birch’s paper reflects this, because it is concerned not only with the mechanics of identity cards, but with a refinement of the idea of citizenship that their introduction in Britain would bring. Critics of the idea of a national identity card invoke historic liberties, which are largely “negative”liberties, the “right to be let alone”. This right is also important in continental Europe – especially those countries which have experienced totalitarian rule – but it is balanced by an idea of positive freedom, of citizenship conferring rights, entitlements and personal freedom. If properly implemented, an identity card scheme might in reality confirm and extend existing rights, and lead to a change in the relationship between citizens and state. There are many dangers, however, and much depends on how the debate is conducted over the coming year.

Paul Kingsnorth, a seasoned ecological campaigner, regards apathy as a myth propagated by a tired political class that has failed to keep pace with and interpret recent developments in politics. Among those interested in politics,allegiances are more fluid, ideologies less rigid or defined, and acceptance of hierarchical and authoritarian structures far less unquestioned. This is reflected in the growing support for single-issue movements and campaigns,especially among the young but crossing conventional lines of age, class and gender, and a parallel decline in – and dislike for – political parties and their leaders. These single-issue movements cover a wide range of issues – environmental, human rights, animal welfare and tackling poverty,for instance – but they consider them in isolation, which is often counter-productive in practice. A new politics must find a way to make connections between these disparate issues while avoiding the rigidities of the past. Paul Kingsnorth reports on a courageous attempt to make such connections and create a movement of “Active Citizens”. The initiative is taking place in the UK, but is of relevance throughout Europe.

Across the European Union, welfare reform is a contentious issue. It is often looked at in terms exclusively of expansion and contraction, the former to protect living standards and prevent pockets of deprivation from developing, the latter to save taxpayers’ money and encourage self-reliance. Heinz Steinert approaches the question from a new angle, which is communitarian rather than narrowly individualist or collectivist in character. The problem with prevailing approaches to welfare provision, he argues, is that they are top-down,bureaucratic and disempowering. Not only do they “trap” individuals in a web of dependency, but they also undermine local cultures of social solidarity. The key to welfare reform is therefore decentralisation,localisation and the removal of top-heavy, bureaucratic local bodies which fail to respond to local needs. He considers the possibility of citizens’income, which has been examined in previous issues of this magazine, as well as a revival of the “friendly societies” run on co-operative lines that have deep roots in European culture.

Professor Steinert’s contribution should not be seen as an end in itself, but as the start of a wider discussion that will point the way beyond facile neo-liberalism and the simplistic defence of the state.

Finally, Judith Ryser brings the issue full circle with her review of a pioneering study of human rights, which interprets them in terms of a spiral, in which personal freedom interacts with the social, economic and environmental dimensions. This produces a more rounded, more holistic concept of human rights than the somewhat narrow “Enlightenment” definitions to which we have been accustomed.

Aidan Rankin