The Italian government went down in Parliament. The issue was an American military base in Vicenza and the parliament had to decide whether to give a green light.
Most of the extreme left wing was opposed to it, and d'Alema, the foreign affair minister, did not manage to convince them to vote in favour of the military base.
As a result, d'Alema has resigned and the government will have to be reshuffled. It is likely that Prodi will form a second government, but d'Alema will not be in it anymore.
Hard times ahead for Prodi who will certainly not be strengthened by this accident.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
North Korea: Past and Future
North Korea is still a ticking bomb. An interesting article on the NYRB examines recent developments and future scenarios.
Here's the interesting conclusion:
Oddly though, what Kim Jong Il would decide if asked to choose between the bomb and a full, normal, nonbelligerent relationship with Washington has never been tested. Very likely, a working relationship with the United States would prove more subversive of the North Korean dictatorship than the efforts to isolate it and punish it have been. It is something that a new administration might try, assuming it is not already too late.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Distant Brides and Plural Societies
A court in Italy has recognized the validity of a marriage celebrated via telephone and in conformity to Pakistani laws. The woman will now be allowed to join her husband, who is presently in Italy, thanks to the norms that facilitate family reunion in Europe.
Yet another challenge to the Catholic conception of marriage? Is Italy moving to a value pluralist understandig of Marriage? In many ways, this is certainly the case. In this particular event, however, it simply comes down to a question of private international law.
Yet another challenge to the Catholic conception of marriage? Is Italy moving to a value pluralist understandig of Marriage? In many ways, this is certainly the case. In this particular event, however, it simply comes down to a question of private international law.
Monday, February 19, 2007
The Vatican and Same Sex Couples
Today Prodi, the Italian Prime Minister, met some of the Vatican Archibishops to talk about the new same sex partnership law proposal. It is reported that the dialogue went well.
The Church is very skeptical about such proposal, but it seems as if they want to engage in a discussion to test new ideas.
Is it a sign of conversion on the part of the Vatican? We can only hope so. But I doubt it.
The Church is very skeptical about such proposal, but it seems as if they want to engage in a discussion to test new ideas.
Is it a sign of conversion on the part of the Vatican? We can only hope so. But I doubt it.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
French Presidential Elections: 2 Months to Go
France will change its head very soon. After 12 years of Chirac, this election will be very heated and important.
For those who want to follow the election closely, please have a look here (in french).
For those who want to follow the election closely, please have a look here (in french).
Friday, February 16, 2007
CIA's kidnappings in Italy
Some further judicial frictions between Italy and the US. After the accidents involved in the killing of an italian secret agent (Calipari) in Iraq, Italy is trying again to bring some US CIA agents before the courts. Here's a report
Berlusconi's government is very likely to have turned a blind eye on the practice of rendition. Prodi will not be as lineant.
Berlusconi's government is very likely to have turned a blind eye on the practice of rendition. Prodi will not be as lineant.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Europe copies American Green Card
It will be called Blue Card, but the idea is the same as the Green Card. Highly skilled immigrants will have privileged status. This way, Europe wants to compete with Canada and the USA for the market of brains. For a good report, please see here
It would be all well and good, if Europe really had a competitive private market able to integrate quickly highly skilled people, in particular young ones. But the very problem is that jobs markets in France, Germany, Italy and Spain are quite rigid and biased in favour of more experienced people, rather than young and talented.
This might have changed in the last few years, if you listen to the report of the Economist on European Business. Who are the Champions--in business terms-- the Economist asks. Surprisingly, the competition between China and America is won by... Europe.
The relative health of the German economy, coupled with the efficiency of London, a struggle to improve of Paris, the disappearance of Berlusconi in Italy and the good term of Madrid all contribute to a renewed hope of European Competitiveness.
It would be all well and good, if Europe really had a competitive private market able to integrate quickly highly skilled people, in particular young ones. But the very problem is that jobs markets in France, Germany, Italy and Spain are quite rigid and biased in favour of more experienced people, rather than young and talented.
This might have changed in the last few years, if you listen to the report of the Economist on European Business. Who are the Champions--in business terms-- the Economist asks. Surprisingly, the competition between China and America is won by... Europe.
The relative health of the German economy, coupled with the efficiency of London, a struggle to improve of Paris, the disappearance of Berlusconi in Italy and the good term of Madrid all contribute to a renewed hope of European Competitiveness.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Red Brigades and Terrorism in Italy
In a time of international terrorism, homegrown 'communist' terrorists sound almost like a joke. But in Italy they aren't.
Red Brigades are still working and plotting against the state and some personalities. They hate particularly labour lawyers, one wonders why.
Few years ago, Marco Biagi, a labour law professor and counsel of the government was killed in Bologna.
Yesterday, the italian police captured a bunch of red brigades who were plotting to kill Pietro Ichino, another famouse labour law expert. You can find a report here.
Red Brigades are still working and plotting against the state and some personalities. They hate particularly labour lawyers, one wonders why.
Few years ago, Marco Biagi, a labour law professor and counsel of the government was killed in Bologna.
Yesterday, the italian police captured a bunch of red brigades who were plotting to kill Pietro Ichino, another famouse labour law expert. You can find a report here.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Same Sex Unions and Religion
The italian project of a civil union law is provoking extreme reactions in the country, as it was sadly predictable. The Vatican is trying to insist on the inviolability of the family understood as the union between a man and a woman. The Church is unable to understand that discrimination vis-a-vis homosexuals is comparable to any other type of discrimination based on race, or religion.
For a more balanced religious view, listen to Michael J Perry, a Catholic Law Professor at Emory, in his recent book Toward a Theory of Human Rights:
"I expect that within the next generation or two -within the lifetime of our children's children-- the understanding will come to be widely shared, in the world's liberal democracies, that refusing to recognize same-sex unions, if not morally akin to outlawing interracial unions, is nonetheless bereft of any non demeaning rationale.'
For a more balanced religious view, listen to Michael J Perry, a Catholic Law Professor at Emory, in his recent book Toward a Theory of Human Rights:
"I expect that within the next generation or two -within the lifetime of our children's children-- the understanding will come to be widely shared, in the world's liberal democracies, that refusing to recognize same-sex unions, if not morally akin to outlawing interracial unions, is nonetheless bereft of any non demeaning rationale.'
Friday, February 09, 2007
Toward a Theory of Human Rights by Michael J Perry
This book does exactly what it claims: it attempts to develop a theory of human rights. Perry suggests that a theory of human rights should deal with three basic issues. First, the moral foundation of human rights. Second, the normative relationship between the morality and the law of human rights. Third, the institutional arrangements that best protect human rights.
To each of these three issues Perry offers very stimulating, and conspicuously controversial, treatment. He argues that the moral foundation of human rights can be defined in terms of the principle of dignity and inviolability of each human being. The trouble is, Perry argues, that secular people cannot offer a proper justification of dignity and inviolability. The only sound rationale is religious.
Once the foundation established, the following step is to explain in what way the morality of human rights influences the law of human rights. This is inextricably linked to the two claims of inherent dignity and inviolabililty. In legal terms, it means that those who commit to that morality will have to do all they can to enact laws that do not violate human beings, and refrain from relying on laws that do violate human beings.
Perry takes three areas to illustrate his claims. Death penalty, Abortion, and Same sex unions. Not afraid of challenging conventional understanding, he argues that his morality of human rights requires that death penalty be abolished. It requires that the pre-viability abortions be banned; and that same sex unions be recognised.
All this, however, is not as straightforward as it looks in normative terms. For, the institutional perspective nuances the general picture in many ways. The main question is to know what role should the courts play. Perry argues that the US system of judicial review coupled with judicial supremacy, gives excessive powers to courts. In other words, he disapproves of judicial ‘ultimacy,’ the fact that the US supreme court has the last word on the most controversial issues. Instead, he favours something close to the Canadian system, that he deems a system of judicial ‘penultimacy.’ The Supreme Court expresses itself on controversial issues, but the parliament can, if it wants, overrule the court’s decision thanks to the Canadian ‘notwithstanding clause.’ Perry presents this solution as an elegant compromise that conciliate judicial review with democratic participation. He says the same for the UK HRA 1998.
In the US, judicial ultimacy is not likely to be removed. To mitigate its effect, Perry suggests that court should adopt a deferential attitude along the lines proposed by James Bradley Thayer. Roughly, thayerian deference requires courts to apply the rule of the clear mistake—that is, interference only when the statute is clearly wrong. Thayerian deference is not grounded on the belief that the legislative or the executive are better equipped to take hard decisions. Thayer believes instead that a non-deferential system of judicial ultimacy would render citizens less politically and morally awake. Institutions may make mistakes and the way to redress them is to fight political battles not to devolve all the power to review those decisions to courts.
How does this affect the treatment of the relevant issues from the US point of view? Death penalty violates the constitution, but the court should so rule only if it believes that the legislator has made a clear mistake. Pre-viability Abortion violates the constitution, but the same caveat applies. Finally, the ban on same sex unions is unconstititutional, but court should be deferential along the same lines.
Perry’s book is very welcome. He is right to insist from the beginning to the conclusion that the work on theories of human rights has just begun. His contribution will no doubt advance the debate because it focuses on central issues without seeking approval. His theses are clearly exposed and highly controversial. The debate can begin.
It should begin and take place globally. And here’s my first criticism to Perry’s book. As many Anglo-American scholars, he ignores almost entirely the debates in non-english speaking countries. Most of European countries have produced fine scholarship on these issues, and a lot of this material is also available in English. One example above all is Robert Alexy’s Theory of Constitutional Rights, translated in English and published by OUP.
This leads to a second point. One may argue that Perry draws a distinction between Human Rights and Constitutional Rights. He may then claim that theories have been produced on the latter but not on the former. Indeed, at the beginning he seems to concentrate on international human rights as opposed to domestic constitutional rights. But by the end of the book it is clear, that the morality of human rights he finds in the international arena should also apply domestically, say at the level of the US Supreme Court.
I would find such a distinction helpful as it could underline another major difference between international human rights and domestic constitutional rights. The latter are nowadays well protected precisely because of judicial review, while the former are far away from being effectively protected. This may also point to the fact that Perry’s criticism to judicial review is exaggerated. One may suggest, not so foolishly, that liberal democracies came to protect constitutional rights so robustly precisely because of judicial review. If anything, the UK example shows that during Thatcher’s government rights were not respected and judges had little weapons to fight back. Moreover, parliament was incapable to stand alone for the rights of the citizens. It is such an abuse that led the labour government to entrench rights and to protect them through judicial review.
Now Perry could say that the HRA does not introduce a system of judicial ultimacy, but only an elegant compromise between parliamentary sovereignty and judicial review. Whether that is an elegant compromise, I have many doubts. Whether it will work in the long run, it is another open issue. The HRA is in the eyes of many either too much or too little. It is too much in the very eyes of those who have entrenched it and then complained that it bound excessively the executive in its war against terrorism. Its too little in the eyes of many advocates who fought for a bill of rights, Lord Lester for example, and thought that the HRA could be a first step toward a fully entrenched and fully reviewable bill of rights.
The most controversial of all issue, however, is that of the foundation of rights. Many liberal philosophers, starting from Rawls and Habermas, have amply shown that our secular democracies have borrowed a lot from religious concepts. Dignity and inviolability of human beings may well be concepts of Christian origins, but our societies have translated those concepts to our secular frameworks. This is not to deny their Christian root, to the contrary. But liberal democracies, beyond translation, also made possible the effective protection of dignity and inviolability of human beings. This was not true of the period preceding the establishment of liberal democracies, which we could deem the age of the Res Publica Christiana. During those ages, dignity and inviolability of human beings might have been already strong Christian principles, but their violation in practice also was very common. We may say, therefore, that liberal democracies brought to a totally different stage those principles, and to a certain extent the Church is catching up with the recognition of the importance of the consequences that we may want those principles to have.
Thus, liberal democracies not only translated those principles, but they also transformed them into tools for the improvement of the society. Religion can claim part of merit, but it also has to acknowledge the intrinsic merits of liberalism, as far as the redefinition and concrete protection of those principles is concerned.
To engage with Perry’s book does not detract anything to its quality. To the contrary, the quest for a proper theory of human rights should probably start there.
To each of these three issues Perry offers very stimulating, and conspicuously controversial, treatment. He argues that the moral foundation of human rights can be defined in terms of the principle of dignity and inviolability of each human being. The trouble is, Perry argues, that secular people cannot offer a proper justification of dignity and inviolability. The only sound rationale is religious.
Once the foundation established, the following step is to explain in what way the morality of human rights influences the law of human rights. This is inextricably linked to the two claims of inherent dignity and inviolabililty. In legal terms, it means that those who commit to that morality will have to do all they can to enact laws that do not violate human beings, and refrain from relying on laws that do violate human beings.
Perry takes three areas to illustrate his claims. Death penalty, Abortion, and Same sex unions. Not afraid of challenging conventional understanding, he argues that his morality of human rights requires that death penalty be abolished. It requires that the pre-viability abortions be banned; and that same sex unions be recognised.
All this, however, is not as straightforward as it looks in normative terms. For, the institutional perspective nuances the general picture in many ways. The main question is to know what role should the courts play. Perry argues that the US system of judicial review coupled with judicial supremacy, gives excessive powers to courts. In other words, he disapproves of judicial ‘ultimacy,’ the fact that the US supreme court has the last word on the most controversial issues. Instead, he favours something close to the Canadian system, that he deems a system of judicial ‘penultimacy.’ The Supreme Court expresses itself on controversial issues, but the parliament can, if it wants, overrule the court’s decision thanks to the Canadian ‘notwithstanding clause.’ Perry presents this solution as an elegant compromise that conciliate judicial review with democratic participation. He says the same for the UK HRA 1998.
In the US, judicial ultimacy is not likely to be removed. To mitigate its effect, Perry suggests that court should adopt a deferential attitude along the lines proposed by James Bradley Thayer. Roughly, thayerian deference requires courts to apply the rule of the clear mistake—that is, interference only when the statute is clearly wrong. Thayerian deference is not grounded on the belief that the legislative or the executive are better equipped to take hard decisions. Thayer believes instead that a non-deferential system of judicial ultimacy would render citizens less politically and morally awake. Institutions may make mistakes and the way to redress them is to fight political battles not to devolve all the power to review those decisions to courts.
How does this affect the treatment of the relevant issues from the US point of view? Death penalty violates the constitution, but the court should so rule only if it believes that the legislator has made a clear mistake. Pre-viability Abortion violates the constitution, but the same caveat applies. Finally, the ban on same sex unions is unconstititutional, but court should be deferential along the same lines.
Perry’s book is very welcome. He is right to insist from the beginning to the conclusion that the work on theories of human rights has just begun. His contribution will no doubt advance the debate because it focuses on central issues without seeking approval. His theses are clearly exposed and highly controversial. The debate can begin.
It should begin and take place globally. And here’s my first criticism to Perry’s book. As many Anglo-American scholars, he ignores almost entirely the debates in non-english speaking countries. Most of European countries have produced fine scholarship on these issues, and a lot of this material is also available in English. One example above all is Robert Alexy’s Theory of Constitutional Rights, translated in English and published by OUP.
This leads to a second point. One may argue that Perry draws a distinction between Human Rights and Constitutional Rights. He may then claim that theories have been produced on the latter but not on the former. Indeed, at the beginning he seems to concentrate on international human rights as opposed to domestic constitutional rights. But by the end of the book it is clear, that the morality of human rights he finds in the international arena should also apply domestically, say at the level of the US Supreme Court.
I would find such a distinction helpful as it could underline another major difference between international human rights and domestic constitutional rights. The latter are nowadays well protected precisely because of judicial review, while the former are far away from being effectively protected. This may also point to the fact that Perry’s criticism to judicial review is exaggerated. One may suggest, not so foolishly, that liberal democracies came to protect constitutional rights so robustly precisely because of judicial review. If anything, the UK example shows that during Thatcher’s government rights were not respected and judges had little weapons to fight back. Moreover, parliament was incapable to stand alone for the rights of the citizens. It is such an abuse that led the labour government to entrench rights and to protect them through judicial review.
Now Perry could say that the HRA does not introduce a system of judicial ultimacy, but only an elegant compromise between parliamentary sovereignty and judicial review. Whether that is an elegant compromise, I have many doubts. Whether it will work in the long run, it is another open issue. The HRA is in the eyes of many either too much or too little. It is too much in the very eyes of those who have entrenched it and then complained that it bound excessively the executive in its war against terrorism. Its too little in the eyes of many advocates who fought for a bill of rights, Lord Lester for example, and thought that the HRA could be a first step toward a fully entrenched and fully reviewable bill of rights.
The most controversial of all issue, however, is that of the foundation of rights. Many liberal philosophers, starting from Rawls and Habermas, have amply shown that our secular democracies have borrowed a lot from religious concepts. Dignity and inviolability of human beings may well be concepts of Christian origins, but our societies have translated those concepts to our secular frameworks. This is not to deny their Christian root, to the contrary. But liberal democracies, beyond translation, also made possible the effective protection of dignity and inviolability of human beings. This was not true of the period preceding the establishment of liberal democracies, which we could deem the age of the Res Publica Christiana. During those ages, dignity and inviolability of human beings might have been already strong Christian principles, but their violation in practice also was very common. We may say, therefore, that liberal democracies brought to a totally different stage those principles, and to a certain extent the Church is catching up with the recognition of the importance of the consequences that we may want those principles to have.
Thus, liberal democracies not only translated those principles, but they also transformed them into tools for the improvement of the society. Religion can claim part of merit, but it also has to acknowledge the intrinsic merits of liberalism, as far as the redefinition and concrete protection of those principles is concerned.
To engage with Perry’s book does not detract anything to its quality. To the contrary, the quest for a proper theory of human rights should probably start there.
Same Sex Unions in Italy
Italian Government has presented today its legislative proposal for same sex unions. If you read italian, you can have a look at the proposal here.
The proposal still has to be voted in parliament (both lower and higher chambers). Amendments are likely to be presented.
That said, the text is a very big effort of Prodi's majority to find a compromise between the religious and the secular wing of the coalition. Any amendments would risk to compromise the compromise (if I may say).
One important proviso, this proposal has the main goal of recognising de facto couples, including homosexual couples. It does not allow homosexual to get married.
It is still an important step toward the recognition of rights and duties of stable, non-married, couples.
A final point: the debate is likely to be intense. The vatican has already intervened many times to discourage this possibility.
The proposal still has to be voted in parliament (both lower and higher chambers). Amendments are likely to be presented.
That said, the text is a very big effort of Prodi's majority to find a compromise between the religious and the secular wing of the coalition. Any amendments would risk to compromise the compromise (if I may say).
One important proviso, this proposal has the main goal of recognising de facto couples, including homosexual couples. It does not allow homosexual to get married.
It is still an important step toward the recognition of rights and duties of stable, non-married, couples.
A final point: the debate is likely to be intense. The vatican has already intervened many times to discourage this possibility.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Machism in Italy: Women are still an object.
Many newspapers report today last Berlusconi's gaffe. In public, he makes appreciative comments of young italian ladies; Berlusconi's wife did not like them and challenged him publicly to apologize.
Internationally, this news can only be interpreted in one way: Berlusconi is an old man with a very machist perspective on women.
Unfortunately, in Italy, many people still recognize themselves in this horrific image. It is sad and despicable, but that is the way it is. Of course, only a chunk of the population would share Mr B's attitude. Needless to say, those who support him in this, are also those who vote him. The rest of the population is likely to be shocked and appalled by the very possibility of such a behaviour.
Internationally, this news can only be interpreted in one way: Berlusconi is an old man with a very machist perspective on women.
Unfortunately, in Italy, many people still recognize themselves in this horrific image. It is sad and despicable, but that is the way it is. Of course, only a chunk of the population would share Mr B's attitude. Needless to say, those who support him in this, are also those who vote him. The rest of the population is likely to be shocked and appalled by the very possibility of such a behaviour.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Friday, January 26, 2007
Berlusconi's Successor?
Berlusconi elects his successor: it will be Mr Fini a clever italian politician with a very dark past.
Fini was formed politically in the ranks of MSI (Italian Social Movement) a post-fascist party created
after the end of the Second World War.
When Fini became the President of MSI, he did his best to mutate it into a democratically acceptable party.
The output was Alleanza Nazionale. The mutation, however, has never been complete. Many representatives in that party hold on to the post-fascist credo and they are less than presentable.
Mr Fini himself managed to sell a much more palatable image. But it is less than clear whether he could lead a coalition of moderate people, when his own party has such a daunting past, and nebulous present.
Former allies are probably the most dissatisfied: to the right, the northern ligue disapproves of national alliance precisely because Fini's party is in favour of national unity, while the northern party is all for federalism.
The other, former, Chritian ally declares itself uninterested: Berlusconi's coalition is not that fashionable anymore
Fini was formed politically in the ranks of MSI (Italian Social Movement) a post-fascist party created
after the end of the Second World War.
When Fini became the President of MSI, he did his best to mutate it into a democratically acceptable party.
The output was Alleanza Nazionale. The mutation, however, has never been complete. Many representatives in that party hold on to the post-fascist credo and they are less than presentable.
Mr Fini himself managed to sell a much more palatable image. But it is less than clear whether he could lead a coalition of moderate people, when his own party has such a daunting past, and nebulous present.
Former allies are probably the most dissatisfied: to the right, the northern ligue disapproves of national alliance precisely because Fini's party is in favour of national unity, while the northern party is all for federalism.
The other, former, Chritian ally declares itself uninterested: Berlusconi's coalition is not that fashionable anymore
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
The ECHR has a New President
Jean Paul Costa is the new President of the European Court of Human Rights. His mandate has just begun. He replaces the former Swiss President, Luzius Wildhaber. Here's Costa's interesting speech.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Scotland & Kosovo
The Guardian argues how a possible supervised independence for Serbia’s Province of Kosovo might play the role of a precedent in other cases such as Scotland for example. The Guardian writes, “The breakaway British region of Scotland could be among the beneficiaries of this week's expected UN recommendation that Kosovo be granted provisional independence from Serbia, leading in time to full sovereign status. If the plan backed by the US, Britain and Germany is formally accepted by the UN Security Council, it will be taken as an important international legal precedent by would-be separatist movements from Georgia to Moldova to Chechnya, and possibly also the Scottish National party.” For more information read here.
Monday, January 22, 2007
New Books on Theories of Human Rights
A Couple of good titles for those of you interested in Theories of Fundamental Rights.
The first, just published, is Tim Macklem's Independence of Mind, Oxford University Press.
The second is M.J.Perry, Toward a Theory of Human Rights: Religion, Law and Courts published by CUP (forthcoming 2007)
I add Constitutional Dilemmas: Conflicts of Fundamental Legal Rights, just to make three.
The first, just published, is Tim Macklem's Independence of Mind, Oxford University Press.
The second is M.J.Perry, Toward a Theory of Human Rights: Religion, Law and Courts published by CUP (forthcoming 2007)
I add Constitutional Dilemmas: Conflicts of Fundamental Legal Rights, just to make three.
Serbian 2007 Elections: Victory of the Pro-European Forces
On the Serbian parliamentary elections held yesterday 21st of January 2007 Pro-European political block won the majority of votes. The largest number of citizens voted for the Ex-Milosevic’s ally Serbian Radical Party but this party will not be in a position to form the new government, both because no party seems willing to ally with them (because of the international pressure) as well as they themselves publicly announced would not form a coalition with any of the parties that entered the Parliament, apart from the parties of national minorities and possibly the Socialist Party of Serbia.
The electoral results are the following: Serbian Radical Party won 81 seats, Democratic Party (of the Serbian President Boris Tadic) won 65, Democratic Party of Serbia (of the Serbian Prime Minister Kostunica) won 47, G 17 Plus 19, The Coalition led by the Liberal Democratic Party 15, ex-Milosevic’s Socialist Party of Serbia 16 and the parties of national minorities 7. In other words political parties that were in power during the ancien regime of Milosevic won 97 seats, while the parties that governed Serbia in the post-Milosevic period won 153 seat. In the parliamentary elections of 2003 this ratio was 104 vs. 146, while in the 2000 elections post-Milosevic parties won as much as 176 seats, leaving the parties of the ex-regime on meagre 74.
Bearing in mind the fact that Serbia is undergoing a painful (but arguably a rather successful) transition process, it is rather surprising even that the populist opposition parties did not win even more. As far as the governing coalition of the Prime Minister Kostunica is concerned they suffered a significant blow. Together (DSS, NS, G 17 and SPO) they won 66 seats (SPO 0 since they did not manage to cross the threshold of 5%), while after the 2003 elections they held 110 (They ruled in a position of a minority government thanks to the votes of ex-Milosevic’s party Socialist Party of Serbia). The biggest victor in these elections is the newly founded Liberal Democratic Party that together with its coalition partners managed to enter the Parliament and win 15 seats. This party is largely formed of the ex-members of the Democratic Party and together with the Democratic Party holds the claim over the political legacy of the late Serbian Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic. Democratic Party, the main-stream reformist, centre-left party of the Serbian President Boris Tadic is also a winner of these elections (the best result ever of this party) although their supporters, who hoped to win more in the elections, are left with a bitter (for them) perspective of having to deal with PM Kostunica’s Democrats for the formation of the new government.
There are several scenarios for the formation of the new government but two are the most likely:
1) The coalition of the DS, DSS-NS Coalition and the G 17 Plus is the most probable outcome, although it remains uncertain who will lead this coalition, the candidate of DS Bozidar Djelic, the current Serbian Prime Minister Kostunica, the leader of G 17 Plus Mladjan Dinkic or a neutral technocrat able to rally the abovementioned parties together. The Coalition grouped around the Liberal Democratic Party is unlikely to take part in the government, both because the Party of the Serbian Prime Minister is unready to cooperate with them and also because they are most likely to benefit from the coalition of DS and DSS in the long run. Some or all parties of the national minorities that managed to enter the Parliament will most probably take part in the new government.
A brief reflection on some recent travels...
For the Christmas break this year, I drove with my partner from Geneva in Switzerland to Ružomberok in Slovakia. In doing so, we crossed a number of international borders: Switzerland to Austria; Austria to Germany; Germany to Austria; Austria to Hungary (took a wrong turn after Vienna; if you're ever going that way, don't follow the signs to Bratislava on the motorway, they'll take you via Györ, it's a good bit longer); Hungary back to Austria, and Austria to Slovakia. Six borders, and we didn't show our passports once.
This, of course, is one of the most striking advances made by the European Union; and the extent to which it has been consolidated is illustrated by the extent to which those of us from the old EU-15 states at least now take such freedom of movement completely for granted. My experience on the trip to Slovakia did not really strike me as in any way remarkable until an even more recent trip to the US, where the difference could not have been more stark. After some checking to ensure that my passport was machine readable - and I was thus eligible for the visa waiver programme, I still had to have both a digital photograph and two fingerprints taken before I could enter the country.
This is not, however, intended to add to the chorus of voices criticising the US for recent security measures; rather it is to insist that the extraordinary advances made within the EU - so accepted now as to be almost overlooked by those long used to benefitting from them - be accorded their rightful place in any evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of the Union. It has many well-publicised shortcomings; it would be a huge error, however, to allow these to dominate discourse to the exclusion of its incredible achievements. Of course, these benefit, in global terms, only a select few; however, to arrive at this point in a continent so recently divided by two world wars and one cold one, is certainly no mean feat.
This, of course, is one of the most striking advances made by the European Union; and the extent to which it has been consolidated is illustrated by the extent to which those of us from the old EU-15 states at least now take such freedom of movement completely for granted. My experience on the trip to Slovakia did not really strike me as in any way remarkable until an even more recent trip to the US, where the difference could not have been more stark. After some checking to ensure that my passport was machine readable - and I was thus eligible for the visa waiver programme, I still had to have both a digital photograph and two fingerprints taken before I could enter the country.
This is not, however, intended to add to the chorus of voices criticising the US for recent security measures; rather it is to insist that the extraordinary advances made within the EU - so accepted now as to be almost overlooked by those long used to benefitting from them - be accorded their rightful place in any evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of the Union. It has many well-publicised shortcomings; it would be a huge error, however, to allow these to dominate discourse to the exclusion of its incredible achievements. Of course, these benefit, in global terms, only a select few; however, to arrive at this point in a continent so recently divided by two world wars and one cold one, is certainly no mean feat.
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)