The Scandinavian model’s worth emulating
GLOBALISATION and Islam are increasingly blamed for the ills of the struggling middle classes in the West. Marine le Pen’s battle cry as she campaigns for the French presidency is “financial globalisation and Islamist globalisation are helping each other out”. While these declarations garner votes from the frustrated middle classes, the blame is misplaced, and will fail to move us forward.
This formed part of the message that Lord Peter Hain brought to South Africa last week in an address he gave at Wits University on Trump, Brexit and globalisation.
Hain moved to Britain from South Africa as a teenager, and was a noted anti-apartheid campaigner. After a long career as a politician in the British Labour Party, he is now in the House of Lords.
Hain believes the decision to leave the EU by British voters was a rejection of globalisation, and will be deeply destabilising for Britain and Europe.
Populist politicians across the Western world are denouncing globalisation without offering viable means to manage what is an irreversible process. Globalisation is the reality we will have to live with for generations to come, as technology has ensured that we can no longer retreat from the reality of the global village.
The world is becoming more interdependent not less, and protectionism will only make national economic crises worse.
What the West needs instead is to adopt the Scandinavian model of ethnic tolerance, inclusivity and a strong state that will provide protection for those who have not reaped the benefits of globalisation.
In Scandinavia, strong social safety nets do not undermine labour markets or productivity. Emphasis on education and re-training have reaped handsome rewards, and immigrants and refugees have brought much-needed entrepreneurial innovation.
This has been Germany’s experience as well.
US President Donald Trump is so desperate to disparage the Scandinavian model that he engaged this week in the propagation of “fake news” that he claims to deride, saying Sweden had just suffered a terrorist attack as a result of its liberal immigration system.
No such attack occurred, leaving the world stunned that the leader of the world’s superpower could manufacture news about such completely false events in an attempt
Populist politicians across the Western world are denouncing globalisation without offering viable means to manage what is an irreversible process
to validate his own reactionary policies. There is no question that globalisation has brought about inequality, and has been associated with low wages, insecure employment and stateless corporations.
But as Hain reminded us last week, what has squeezed living standards is austerity measures, a lack of adequate social security and slow growth.
It is the neo-liberal ideology that has dominated the policies of the EU that is at fault, as it ruled out serious efforts at redistribution, and imposed harsh austerity measures.
But the solution that British Prime Minister Theresa May and Trump purports – of deregulating the free market and lowering taxes – will only make the current situation of the middle classes worse.
I fully concur with Hain when he argues that we can’t turn our backs on globalisation, but we can find ways to share the gains fairly.
The solution is to revive the role of the state in acting on behalf of society to promote the common good.
The West needs to abandon austerity policies, and urgently needs public investment in housing, infrastructure, social safety nets, education and skills.
Trade protectionism is not the answer in the age of globalisation. Even when it was invoked in the 1930s in response to the Great Depression, it only made the depression worse.
Scandinavian countries seem to have struck the right balance in managing the inequalities inherent in the global capitalist system, and the consequences of global competition, which leaves massive unemployment in its wake.
As Peter Hain has warned, it is ultimately the global elites that must respond and ensure that government policies are changed.
It is not acceptable that the top 10% of earners have done very well while the other 90% have struggled.
Britain and the US are richer than they ever have been, but average working people do not have decent pensions or houses.
Even IMF Chief Christine Lagarde has acknowledged that there is an urgent need for action to tackle the middle-class crisis as inequality and a lack of hope are fuelling populism.
According to Peter Mandelson, the former European Commissioner for Trade, globalisation does not make strong social protections untenable, if anything, it makes them more essential.
The flexicurity models of Scandinavia – enabling workers to participate in the labour market and move confidently between jobs – have kept unemployment levels low.
Taxpayer funds – spent to protect citizens against life-destroying unemployment or ill health – hedge against higher costs of long-term unemployment.
Until the West comes to terms with these realities and where the real solutions lie, the politics of populism will continue to gain traction, and with it the ugly head of racism and intolerance.
Ebrahim, Group Foreign Editor.
“THIS tape will self-destruct in 5 seconds.”
Those words were immortalised by the Mission: Impossible spy thriller TV series. This warning of the imminent selfdestruction of the taped message to the show launched every episode and cued the theme music.
That audiocassette tape had to self-destruct because it contained secret instructions on how to outwit the bad guys. Now there’s a new service that offers the same Unique Selling Point of self-destructing messages.
This service is not designed for spies on secret missions. It’s a phone app called Snapchat that’s popular with teenagers. They use it to send videos and photos that selfdestruct, Mission: Impossible style, 5 to 10 seconds after being viewed.
What’s the point of Snapchat? This great advance in digital technology was developed to overcome one of the major risks of social media use: that someone you’re connected to may see or hear something they weren’t supposed to. This happens when you become friends on a social network, and your new friend decides to peruse your content history.
There are mortifying accounts of young people inadvertently sharing their dodgy content with teachers, bosses, or even prospective employers. They can discover messages, photos or videos you never intended them to see. Worse yet, the evidence remains there forever to be viewed and reviewed. A drunken post can wind up getting a person disciplined, refused a job or even fired.
It was at this point that a couple of fraternity brothers from Stanford University set out to make the world safe for the most common form of reckless messaging, known as Sexting.
Snapchat’s founders are made out to be warriors for free expression.
According to TechBoomer, a website designed to bring baby boomers up to speed on digital life, they aimed “to create a social media environment where information wasn’t permanent, and where people had the freedom to be a little crazy, spontaneous, imperfect, and above all…honest”.
Sure, there was that noble incentive. Plus the $20 billion that Snapchat’s parent company stands to get from the imminent initial public offering.
Now back to those selfdestructing missives. My New Old Self fails to see the attraction in sending messages that can’t be saved. Never to be accessed again. Gone before you’ve had a chance to reread them.
When I write something I want to be able to refer to it. Even more so when someone writes to me. Maybe it’s the archivist in me – or perhaps the hoarder – but I like to file my correspondence for future reference.
Snapchat allows for neither saving nor savouring of messages. The idea is to check each one immediately, and view it for the 5-10 seconds you have before it self-destructs.
As unimpressed as I am with Snapchat’s self-destructive function, I have even less interest in the other things it can do. Like telling your personal Stories. These Stories have a slightly longer lifespan: they stay online for 24 hours before self-destruction.
I grew up in the era of what is now quaintly termed “snailmail”. Most of the youth have never known a letter-writing culture.
I not only wrote and received countless letters over the years but saved many, some from decades ago. I enjoy re-reading them and reminiscing. I like to look at the handwriting, the envelopes, the stamps.
As for your digital history, even if you make an effort to save it, there are issues around storage, and how to ensure access it.
I wonder what young people will have in years to come as mementos of their messages from family, friends and lovers.
Visit the blog, My New Old Self: What to do next for the rest of my life, at www. mynewoldself.com and on Facebook, and follow
@mynewoldself on Twitter.