Eurovisie February 2017

Eurovisie a publication of the study association for european studies

Also:

En marchĂŠ!

A plead for optimism The weak remnants of our revolutions

Let’s not take democracy for granted Solidarity in the EU

February 2017 / www.ses-uva.nl / eurovisie@ses-uva.nl

Want to write for

Eurovisie?

Send your article to eurovisie@ses-uva.nl

volume 12, issue 3 - feb. 2017

editorial mats licht 4

Let’s not take democracy for granted Gilles de Valk

Column Joep Leerssen

7 The remnants of our revolutions Mats Licht

10 Career Dinner 2017 Jasmina Hegerová

15 Russia’s European Spring?

Michelle Kooiman

18

Interview SES board members Tom Dautzenberg

8 Solidarity in the EU Dion Kramer

13 A plead for optimism Daan Leseman

16 Give automation to the people?

Alexandra Staubinger

20

Red-baiting in the 21st century Kinderen voor Kinderen Hanna Blom Levente Vervoort

22

25

S

tatements, ideas and opinions: recently everyone’s day is full of them, we can hardly escape all the thoughts that are being thrown at us from all directions. Like this one: print media is dead. Once 2003’s most popular party statement to show you just got AOL, now the wording of a thinly veiled threat dripping from a certain slum-lord’s sphincter-shaped lips. Excuse the blunder, the original wording, of course, is: ‘The media – not nice, terrible, terrible liars – they’re dead.’ And let’s face it, paper kills trees anyway.

So what is this backward adherence to the printed word even good for? A nostalgic but sacredly important homage to the earliest days of enlightenment? The safeguarding bulwark of quality journalism? I have always been doubtful of such high claims. The only real impact of the printed press I see is on the extracurriculars of Bambi-eyed tryhards applying for programs wildly out of their reach. I worked at the school paper, it was printed and, like, totally edgy, eco-paper, too – now let me in or so help me my lawyer!

Personally, I don’t care if things have actual functions. My mind was so thoroughly de-economised by a traumatic stint at business school that I actually enjoy things that have no purpose. Every single one is a slap in the face of the money economy. I still don’t understand why Irish needs to be brought back from the dead, but I digress.

Maybe, since everybody already assumes we, print media, are dead, we should take the chance and have some fun while we’re at it. I always held that the main point of personal journalism is to propose opinions. So that’s what we’re doing in this issue. A lot.

imprint Editorial office: Kloveniersburgwal 48, room E2.04/2.05, 1012 CX Amsterdam Editor-in-chief: Mats Licht Editors: Hanna Blom, Michelle Kooiman, Daan Leseman, Gilles de Valk, Levente Vervoort Design: Emiel Janssens With contributions by: Tom Dautzenberg, Jasmina Hegerová, Dion Kramer, Joep Leerssen, 3 Alexandra Staudinger

Let’s not take democracy for granted

Though we might consider democracy to be self-evident, we should be aware of the increasing threats that it faces.

Gilles de Valk explains what we should take care of.

4

I

n the week that Donald Trump was inaugurated as president of the United States, and in the week that supporters of the German political party Alternative für Deutschland chanted “Wir sind das Volk! Wir sind das Volk!”, Joachim Gauck, President of Germany, said the following in his farewell speech: “The decisive dividing line runs between democrats and non-democrats.”

With non-democrats, Gauck does not refer to any religious group, nor to any foreign power that threatens democracy. Neither does he refer to the division between leftand right-wing politics.

Then who are these non-democrats and how are they non-democratic? Donald Trump, then still campaigning, stated that

the elections were ‘rigged’ before they even took place. Geert Wilders, leader of the Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV), called the Dutch House of Representatives a ‘fake parliament’. Marine Le Pen, leader of the French Front National, claims to be the ‘candidate of the people’.

When we think of democracy, we think about elections. Though elections are necessary, they are not sufficient for a well-working democracy. Democracy is not merely about elections, but also about the balance of powers. The separation of legislative, executive and judiciary powers provide a proper framework for checks and balances. In Poland, however, the state of law already crumbles, but a loss of legitimacy for one of the democratic institutions is already harmful to democracy. When Trump says that the elections will be rigged, or when

Wilders calls the House of Representatives a ‘fake parliament’, they deny the legitimacy of democratic institutions and therefore threaten democracy. Besides, non-democrats do not adhere to the constitution, which protects the rights and liberties of minorities. In 2014, Wilders asked his supporters whether they wanted more or fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands. His supporters answered by screaming “Fewer!

Fewer!” Wilders replied: “Then we will take care of that.” There are many more examples of politicians in Europe who are flirting with the exclusion of minorities. We should not forget that democracy is about the protection of minorities’ rights, rather than the majority’s vote. Hence, such statements

5

hit democracy at its heart for two reasons: firstly, they tend to deny minorities the same rights as any other citizen, even if they enjoy full citizenship. Secondly, they suggest that minorities are not members of ‘the people’.

This brings us to the next point: nondemocrats claim to speak on behalf of ‘the people’. According to Jan-Werner Müller, populists claim to be the only legitimate representative of ‘the people’. For populists, ‘the people’ will always exist, even outside democratic procedures, because they consider the political world to exist of a unified people outside. In this way, they can always claim the support of ‘the people’, even if elections do not have favourable results for

“Populists might seem and claim to be democratic, but in fact they are not”

them. But in fact, a democracy is pluralistic in its essence, because it recognises the existence of differences within society. This causes anyone who does not agree with ‘the people’ not to be considered a member of ‘the people’ by the populists. These people are traitors in their eyes. Or as Müller said: ‘Only some people are the real people.’

Consequently, populists will never be there for all the people. Thus, it should be stated that populists might seem and claim to be democratic, but in fact they are not.

Let it be clear that this does not mean that non-democratic statements or movements should be restricted. Nevertheless, we should realise that they are a serious threat to democracy. We should realise that populist politicians and their supporters constantly undermine democracy – either intentionally or unknowingly. They harm democracy by mistrusting democratic institutions, by neglecting the constitution, and by claiming to represent ‘the people’.

But do they know how undemocratic they are? Do they know what they put at risk? Do they know that they play with fire? Most of them probably do not. So the least we should do is try to prevent it from turning into a wildfire.

There are several ways to contribute. A very good example was given by Flavia Kleiner, a 26 years old student from Switzerland. In 2016, a referendum (which in my opinion is undemocratic in the first place, see my previous article for Eurovisie, December 2016) that was initiated by the Swiss People’s (!) Party was held. The question was whether foreigners should automatically be evicted in case they violated any law. While the polls predicted a ‘Yes’, it turned out to be a ‘No’ after an intense campaign, which was led by Kleiner. Kleiner and her companions managed to persuade and involve the private sector, civil society and citizens. Kleiner stood up for democratic values, something that many political parties did not dare to do, because they feared losing support. As a consequence, populist parties were able to set the political agenda and rhetoric. This is a trend we see anywhere in Europe. Kleiner, however, showed that defending democracy can make the difference.

This article is not meant to scaremonger. It is meant to raise awareness, because there is a serious problem. 33 per cent of the Dutch youth marks the functioning of democracy in the Netherlands with a 5 or lower (on a scale of 1 to 10). 73 per cent has little trust in politicians. With elections coming up this

6

year in Germany, France, the Netherlands and other European countries, we should stand up for democracy. You do not need to have the same opinion as anyone else, but you do have to acknowledge other opinions.

That is what distinguishes democrats from non-democrats. Having a democracy is no guarantee for the eternal existence of democracy. A democracy requires maintenance. So let us not take democracy for granted.

“Having a democracy is no guarantee for the eternal existence of democracy.

A democracy requires maintenance”

Sources and recommended readings Caroline de Gruyter, Rutte, doe als Flavia Kleiner (25), NRC Handelsblad, 2016 I&O Research, Jongeren en Democratie, 2017 Jan-Werner Müller, What is Populism?, 2016

The Politics of Bling J

ust back from a trip to the Central European University in Budapest, a place dear to my heart; established by George Soros (well, yes, OK…) to provide an intellectual space for open society research, CEU has rapidly evolved into a hub for intellectuals and academics in post-communist Central and Eastern Europe. The fine minds gathered there have experienced the benightedness of the Communist regimes as well as the brutal chauvinism of their ultra-nationalist successors; small wonder that in Orbán’s Hungary the CEU academics are now a beleaguered minority.

A side excursion to the National Museum showed me Orbán’s Hungary in full force.

The Museum itself was established as part of that 19th-century Romantic Nationalism that I research; it hit its stride after the 1867 “Ausgleich”, when the Hungarian Kingdom finally got some cultural breathing space under the Habsburg dynasty. Over the next decades, Budapest exploded, understandably enough, into a manic cultivation of its identity and its past, with more statues and monuments per square mile than almost anywhere else, all of them in the late-Romantic academic mode of heroic poses, in-your-face allegory, frilly ornament and shiny surfaces. As I always said, you need a high tolerance for 19th-century kitsch to study Romantic Nationalism.

Much of the museum was born out of this this bling nationalism and documents it. What strikes me now is that it is no longer just documenting it, but wallowing in it, lovingly showcasing it, celebrating it, perpetuating it. The shiny medals, calligraphed honorific scrolls, embroidered national uniforms, huge big paintings of proud guys with big moustaches and macho poses doing lofty things for the Fatherland, banners, heraldry, idealized maps in Smarties colours… there to be admired, revered, like the Sacred Crown or the Royal Regalia. It was propaganda on display.

It was a propagandistic display.

Even my very, very high tolerance for

LE ER SS EN

19th-century kitsch showed OD signs.

I do not mind ceremony or lustre; a pontifical mass or royal wedding, what’s not to like? On the other hand, the interior decoration standards of, say, an upmarket brothel in Las Vegas… And so, meditating on this transition zone into tastelessness, the picture of Donald Trump in his Trump Tower office came to mind. The entire decoration is, as you know, gold-plated; and on the wall Donald has framed every paper object that adds lustre to his gold-plated ego; including, notoriously, a cover of Playboy magazine. Interesting thing, that: some art critics have argued that Playboy-style nude photography is in fact the 20thcentury continuation of late-academic nude painting. Glamour sex.

Now the word “kitsch” is not itself value-free. It was born as a rejection, by modernist art critics of the 20thcentury, of what they considered the tastelessness of 19th-century consumer art. And as Pierre Bourdieu has pointed out, to reject kitsch for “difficult” modern art has become a dog whistle technique for the elite to flaunt their superior taste and education and to keep the vulgarians out. The people who deplore the Trump Tower’s tasteless bling are also snooty elitists who call Trump’s voters “deplorables”… Or so the argument of the self-secondguessing Left would go.

But wouldn’t the inverse argument also hold? That immature bad taste goes together with immature bad politics?

What Orban and Trump go for, both in their aesthetic and in their political taste, is the sweetness and brightness of jelly beans, gummy bears, smarties; bright colours, gold-plated; enamelled medals, flags and heraldry; heroic poses, in-your-face allegory, frilly ornament and shiny surfaces. As easy on the eye as a glamorous Las Vegas pole dancer. The mouth-watering promise of immediate gratification. The politics of bling. And it is rotting our teeth and our brains.

7

Tom’s Gossip Corner Tom Dautzenberg “SES is looking for new Board Members”. It might seem a little premature to start the search for a new daily board of our study association, as it is only February and the new academic year starts in September. However, the application period starts in April, and it is already in June that the new board will be installed during the last General Assembly of the year. Therefore, the time has come for you to make up your mind: do you want to be involved in the inner core of the study association? We asked a few (former) board members about their experiences to help you out a bit. knowledge about computers to help Gilles (Secretary of the 2015-16 board) fix the email system. Because your role is less clearly defined you can at certain times feel redundant. However, because we made so many little improvements, I very rarely had this feeling.”

Thijs Maartens, Commissioner of Internal Affairs in the 31st Board of SES (2015-16) Could you define your role (internal affairs) within the board?

“I was Commissioner of Internal Affairs in the board of 2015-2016. The position of Internal Affairs is different from other positions in the sense that it has very little pre-determined tasks you have to do on a weekly basis. Your only pre-determined tasks throughout the year are the organisation of two General Committee Assemblies and an Active Members Weekend. This means you have to be the handyman of the board, stepping in wherever your help is required.

In my year this mostly meant using my

8

How did you and your board set the main goals for your board year?

“Setting goals for the new year starts when you are voted in as a board and is one the most important decisions you have to make as a board. This is because during the whole year you will be working to accomplish these goals. To determine these goals you look for problems that frequently occur in the SES, but cannot be solved by one of the committees. We worked on two things that we felt were outdated. The first of these things was updating the payment system of the SES to match contemporary technology.

Secondly, we updated the mailing of the SES, making sure the mails no longer go into your spam folder. Our board managed to accomplish both of our goals, which I am personally very proud of.”

What were the greatest challenges that you came across during the board year?

“The greatest challenge for me was a personal one. I put off asking my fellow board members for help too long while organising an outing. At a certain point there was a risk that the outing would not happen. However, I stepped over my pride and asked them for help, and we managed to organise a fantastic event that everyone loved. This was probably the biggest obstacle I overcame during my board year.”

You were also part of the Board Selection Committee. Could you explain how you formed the current board?

“I loved being in the Board Selection Committee because you really feel like you have a say in the continuation of your own work. The process of choosing a new board is hard, because there are strict democratic rules that need to be observed to outlaw any nepotism that may occur. The process of interviewing candidates and making a decision is difficult, especially if you know the people that are applying. However, I feel we, as a committee, chose the best combination of people to represent the SES, and the members seem to agree with us.

Here is hoping they can make their final months a big success!”

the members are most important. Luckily I ended up being in a board with five awesome girls who are still among my best friends. I think we as a team succeeded in organizing all sorts of great events, but most importantly we were able to keep the older members engaged with the association, and at the same time were able to show new members how much fun SES can be. I can say that my board year was everything I wanted and so much more.

Sabine Lammers, Treasurer in the 30th Board of SES (2014-15) The job of treasurer is often not the most popular one before the board is being chosen.

Was it your position of preference, and why was it (not)?

“Surprising as it may be, the position of treasurer was my position of choice. I had a lot of experience as a member of several committees of SES, so I was sure that I had the knowledge and confidence to take this position. I wanted to have an important role within the board, but without the task of being the face of the association. The position of treasurer gave me this possibility.”

Lodewijk Rijksbaron, Chair of the 32nd Board of SES (2016-17)

What were your main goals as treasurer in the 30th SES Board?

“One of the goals as a treasurer for me was to come up with a system to make it easier for the Financial Control Committee to search for the right invoices and transactions.

So I was very determined to come up with a numbering system for declarations and invoices, since this was a little messy beforehand. In my board year we also had the sixth lustrum of SES. It was a goal for us as a board to gain as much sponsorship income as possible, as we wanted a big celebration, but we did not want to touch our savings more than necessary. Luckily the lustrum committee has done a great job with gaining sponsorships! As a result I was able to save money for the seventh lustrum (which will take place in the 2019-20 academic year).”

When and how did you decide that you wanted to be part of the Board?

During my Intreeweek, Hannah (Commissioner of External Affairs of the 31st board) was one of my group leaders. She was really enthusiastic about the SES and the fact that her board year had just begun. From that moment onwards, I was thinking about being part of the board. To be part of the association I joined the Travel Committee in which Hannah was the board coordinator, so I was able to see first-hand what it all entails.

As soon as I figured this out, I set a goal for myself; I wanted to pass all my exams so that I had a stress-free board year. Furthermore, I wanted to know what all the positions in the board entailed and which one would suit me best. The Board Information Evening was very helpful as well as the Facebook posts explaining every position. In the end the position of External Affairs or Chairman had my preference.

Why did you choose to apply for a board year?

I joined the Board as a fifth year student, so I had a lot of experience beforehand. I’d been participating in several committees, and I was member of the Advisory Board for a year. At the end of that year I decided that I was still missing something in my SEScareer, so I decided to apply for the board. I wanted to experience being part of a team for one year, work closely together and organize events for the members, because in the end

What do you consider the biggest challenges within the daily board?

Position wise: keeping track of what every board member has to do and make sure that you remind them of that in a decent way. Of course it is impossible to know what every board member needs to do but to have an overview as chairman is really important.

Besides that, I have not yet come across major challenges.

How did you define the main goals of your board year?

Personally, there was one thing I really wanted to change and that was the website.

In the first week of August we went to Tom’s place in Maastricht to work on the policy plan and we all agreed that the website would be our main goal of the year. On that weekend, we discussed what distinguishes us as an association. For two years now, that have been our international students, to make sure that these students feel welcome at and concerned with the association. At last, we wanted to be an approachable board because we were impressed with how the last two boards handled that. The weekend in Maastricht not only gave us a clear overview of our board year to come, it also made sure we really got to know each other.

What were your main motivations to be part of the board?

I joined the board not only because I saw how much fun the board before me had but also the experience I would get out of it. Something I always lacked before my board year was a planning habit. Now that I have more to do and less time, I have seen my planning skills improve. Furthermore, I wanted to do more than only studying. The number of hours you have to be present at the UvA is insanely low so I experience the combination of the two as really doable.

Besides all this, I also wanted a change of environment. For the last 21 years, I have been living in the same city with mostly the same people, but I think to stir it up (s/o to Bob) sometimes is really good for yourself.

These are the reasons for my application and until now I have no regrets.

Anything still unclear? Any questions for the current board members, or do you just want to talk to them? Don’t hesitate to send them an email. Soon, SES will also host a Board Information Evening, and we will give you the opportunity to follow one of our board members for a day. Keep following our Facebook-page and our weekly newsletter for more information.

During the next General Assembly we will also select the Board Selection Committee and the Financial Control Committee. Interested in joining one of these committees, or do you want more information? Again, these issues can easily be solved by contacting one of the board members. Information can also be found on the committee page of our new website: http://www.ses-uva.nl/committees/.

9

The weak remnants of our revolutions

When conjuring up Western values, as we so often do these days, we often forget their very foundations. The real danger to our way of life is not terrorism, but our own indifference to the values we invoke so passionately, Mats Licht thinks.

I

t is a time of luxury that we live in. A time when everything, whether it be edible, constructible, imaginary or illegal, will be delivered to our doors with the push of an equally imaginary button. For most, it is paradise. For some, it is hell. But what does it matter, really? After all the subjectivity of the world is widely accepted and should be no cause for concern. What are a few men’s whims against the progress of humanity, of prosperity, freedom and capitalism? Nobody would conceive of the idea to limit our access to delivery foods because some people find it offensive that the kitchens of this country are deserted. There are certainly some who object to the profanation of Chicken Tikka by unmotivated white people and chips. But we would never let these naggers limit our freedom of dinner. So why do we let them limit our Civil Rights?

10

In this time, when liberty is facing off against security on more than one arena, civil rights awareness is seemingly at an all-time low in Europe. Granted, Europe does not have as strong a connection to the concept as, say, America. The memory of disenfranchised masses peacefully marching on the nation’s capital despite bombings, assassinations and further violent threats is still fresh in the minds of people facing a minimum of four years of Trump – if he actually manages to stick with the job for that long, that is.

Regardless of political affiliation, many Americans are imbued with a staunch sense of civic awareness, a feeling that not only explains the country’s obsession for flags and other patriotic expressions that seem borderline totalitarian to the patronising European. It also explains the flood of constitutional lawsuits shaping the American

political reality, the fact that Americans tend to have more opinions on political issues and tend to identify more strongly as political beings than Europeans do, and the stubborn refusal to have any rights granted by the constitution limited, even if that right allows anyone to shoot up preschools. American history and its mantric narrative of liberty, freedom and the pursuit of happiness has instilled in Americans a pride of civil rights and an insistence on treating state authority with more than a grain of suspicion. While this civic individualism may have facilitated the rise of the recently inaugurated Orange Wonder, it is nevertheless an admirable quality. If anything, it will be defiance of the state, based on an inalienable sense of entitlement to civil rights and liberties that will stop him in his fascist tracks. America is not a country that rolls over to authority,

whether it is the federal government or the police kicking down doors without warrants.

Regardless on one’s view on Americans, one must acknowledge their civic selfdetermination.

Maybe it is our differing narratives that make the Western European comparably servile to any authority thrown at him. Our countries were not made by fearless exploits of individual adventurers and, save for the example of France, our civil rights have been given to us graciously from above after long centuries of feudal exploitation. But it would be wrong to assume that Europe does not have a narrative of struggle against authority, that Europeans did not fight the man for freedom and rights for everyone. At the same time when Mason and Madison established the rights that shape the foundations of

liberal democracy until this day, the French people led the largest uprising against oppressive power in history. As many as five million people died during and immediately following the revolution that ended the rule of absolutism in Europe. By far most of them, despite especially German and British textbooks emphasising the victims of the so-called Rule of Terror, died defending the ideals of the revolution: liberty, equality and freedom for all. One must remember that even Napoleon’s wars were sparked by the need for French self-defence against antirevolutionary foreign incursion.

But examples for Europeans revolting against their own oppressors are not confined to the 18th century. One only needs to go back a short 25 years to find half of today’s Europe shedding the chains of totalitarianism and overthrowing the man. From Berlin to Sofia,

the people freed themselves from the postWar bloc system. They are recognised until this day by the Western story of winning the Cold War. Their contributions fade next to Reagan’s rhetoric and SALT II. These competing narratives are still grounds for disagreement between the historic East and West of Europe. What should have been overcome with the fall of the Iron Curtain has morphed into a new kind of divide, one along the fault lines of international politics.

The West needs the glory of “winning” the war of ideologies to justify the madness that is Neoliberalism. It is, after all, much easier to defend a faulty economic system if it is credited with bringing down the Evil Empire. The East, on the other hand, rightfully demands some recognition of its own victory. It is this refusal of recognition that drives the people into the arms of the

11

pied pipers of Jobbik and PEGIDA. Amongst other factors, of course.

In Western Europe, the last time people went on the streets to protest for change in masses was in 1968, so it has been almost 50 years by now. We have settled comfortably into the bosom of benevolent leaders, graciously granting us such things as women’s suffrage, equality of the sexes, gay rights and European unification. We have been spoiled by our leaders into trusting the state. All in all not a negative characteristic of a people, after all a successful society needs trust in the organs of the state, ideally because everyone agrees they are legitimised by the people. But the categories into which we have traditionally segmented our societies – state, people, executive, legislation, citizens, to name but a few – have not sufficiently adapted to modern realities. Questions of security haunt the collective minds; politicians tell us of no-go

“it would be wrong to assume that Europe does not have a narrative of struggle against authority”

areas right outside our own front doors! If anyone were to actually verify these claims they would most likely quickly crumble, but fear precludes such bold forays into the unknown. And for the first time, rather than concretising our collective rights and freedoms, they have become more vague, less comprehensive, less clear. In Germany, homosexuals still cannot marry. A small issue in the face of global terrorism, say most, including most of the affected. But

12

should we not be outraged at this apparent violation of civil rights? European analogues to the Patriot Act have served to dilute habeas corpus, have legitimised ethnic profiling, have made everyone okay with having to wait in line for four hours before boarding a flight. Our constitutions are all meant to be universal, applying to everyone within the confines of our state borders, yet many advocate a softening of constitutional rights for refugees. Most frighteningly, the answer to these multitudinous challenges of modernity has not been clarity, not a return to undiluted Western values like individual freedom, liberty, equality or, more generally, clearly formulated human and civil rights.

Instead, we are content now to base our progress on the worst basis of a legal order: emotions.

The rise of sentimental politics is difficult to pinpoint. ‘Hate-crime’ legislation in the late 90s could be considered one starting point. Then again, any sort of political influencing by the state, in Europe particularly visible during the 1950s, could be considered another starting point.

Sentimental politics describes legislation that is not based on clear principles, rules and reasoning, but on emotions. Blasphemy laws are prime examples. But so are many non-discrimination initiatives. While the former have gradually disappeared, in this country as recently as 2014, the latter tend to rise to replace them. Discrimination is an ugly and inhuman act. It violates the equality of all. Yet one cannot reasonably base legislation on individual perception.

When France introduced its short-lived Burkini ban, the most pressing problem was not that a bit of clothing was banned, it was that a regulation aimed at only one group was created. If one wants to ban the Burkini, wetsuits have to be banned, too.

There cannot be double standards to rights in the public sphere. Burka bans that do not include balaclavas, masks and KKKuniforms are likewise simple discrimination.

Similarly, the shechita cannot be banned on anything but animal welfare reasons without creating a problematic, sentimental law. These principles cannot simply be discarded just because we feel threatened by any one group of society. Democracy is, in essence, not about everyone taking part, it is about the inalienability of rights.

Regardless of the majority, we cannot take certain groups’ rights away just because we feel like it. To do so is to open the path to fascism. For emotion is fleeting, individual and therefore a terrible basis for universal legislation. The state has an obligation to safeguard everyone’s rights and freedoms.

That is its fundamental purpose, to maintain the equality of rights. But there has to be a degree of freedom to interactions in the public sphere as well. Germany, for example, is the only country in Europe to penalise the act of insulting someone else by

“Democracy is, in essence, not about everyone taking part, it is about the inalienability of rights”

imprisonment. Importantly, there is no statewide list of illegal expressions, for that would be silly. It is instead the intention that counts.

A perfect example of Orwell’s dreaded thought-crime, is it not? What harm is there to a fleeting expression of anger in traffic? Is it not more dangerous to let everyone believe they are immune to criticism because the state protects their precious little feelings from meanies?

Our civil and political rights are one of the great achievements of mankind. They are universal, they are rational, and they are inalienable, except for good reasons. They are also in peril. Endangered by the West’s headless reaction to the global terrorist threat, by demagogues seizing power all over Europe and building sentimental legislation for their support base – Poland’s Christian Right government, for example, uses the country’s blasphemy law to protect catholic feelings exclusively - and most importantly by our own indifference towards them. The freedoms we enjoy are not a matter of course, they are the result of thousands of years of suffering, of struggle, of victory. To let them slip away would be stupid, to let them be taken away, an outrage, to forget them – shameful.

Supply-Side Solidarity A Short History of (Non-)Solidarity in the European Union

Dion Kramer

Dion Kramer is a PhD candidate at Amsterdam’s Vrije Universiteit and taught seminars in Economic and Legal Integration of Europe

L

ast month, my Facebook timeline was apparently considered a key target for promoting the launch of a ‘European Solidarity Corps’. This ‘corps’, the newest initiative of the European Commission, promised, in the words of Jean-Claude Juncker, to ‘offer opportunities for young people willing to make a meaningful contribution to society and help show solidarity – something the world and our European Union needs more of.’

Despite the military and sometimes totalitarian associations one might have with any type of corps, be they fascist, communist or liberal internationalist, the idea of a European Solidarity Corps certainly stimulates fantasy. One imagines a band of avant-garde European youths of different nationalities roaming our continent.

Unselfishly they devote their time and

energy to help those in dire poverty, offer aid to regions hit by natural disasters and relieve the humanitarian burden for both refugees and the Member States struggling with their arrival. Ideally, these efforts are truly informed by the principle of solidarity, reflecting the social cohesion based on the interdependence of members of our European society.

Phantasms aside, the value of solidarity is listed among the founding principles of the European Union. With some imagination one could trace the history of the solidarity principle back to the Schumann plan, where the text spoke of a ‘de facto solidarity’ that would not be created through grotesque masterplans, but would be built through concrete achievements. As a guiding principle for the government of

redistribution, however, solidarity entered the debate later and did so in an increasingly legal discourse. How can we place the establishment of a ‘corps’ dedicated to this value in its own conceptual history and could it actually deliver in substantiating this value?

Three Types of Solidarity in the European Union The emergence of solidarity in the European Union can be distinguished in roughly three forms: national, transnational and international solidarity.

Legend has it that the notion of solidary officially entered EU discourse through the European Court of Justice in a case that set the principle of national solidarity against the economic freedoms of the European

13

internal market. In a case from 1993 (Poucet, C-159/91 and C-160/91), two French selfemployed workers sought to escape from the obligation of paying contributions to the French national sickness insurance scheme by relying on EU competition law.

Solidarity, according to the Court, entailed ‘the redistribution of income between those who are better off and those who, in view of their resources and state of health, would be deprived of the necessary social cover.’ As compulsory contribution was indispensable for the application of the ‘principle of national solidarity’, the Court decided that the two Frenchmen could not opt-out of such national schemes. National solidarity defeated the economic freedoms of the European internal market.

An implicit notion of transnational solidarity has always governed the free movement of workers in the European Community.

The earliest legislation in this field already granted the migrant qualified as ‘worker’ equal access to the national solidarity arrangements of his host Member State.

In a euphoric celebration of a prospective Constitutional Treaty, the Court of Justice declared at the beginning of this millennium that Union citizenship was ‘destined to be the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States’ and therefore required equal treatment in equal cases irrespective of nationality or economic activity (Grzelczyk, C-184/99). The fact that the protagonist was a French student, had always been financially self-sufficient and only applied for social assistance in his final year of studies, led the Court to conclude that Mr. Grzelczyk deserved a ‘certain degree of financial solidarity’ from his host member state Belgium, just like his Belgian fellow-students would in his situation.

When a Romanian gypsy woman moved to Germany, briefly lived off the pocket money provided by her sister and then applied for social assistance for herself and her son, both the fundamental status of Union citizenship and the principle of solidarity did not do much to help her (Dano, C-333/13). It was obvious that her individual conduct, demonstrating reluctant behaviour to (find) work and integrate into German society, could not pass the threshold of deserving a ‘certain degree’ of solidarity to which Member States are obliged. Or, in other words, the Court encountered and constructed – perhaps unwillingly Grzelczyk’s antichrist: the Union citizen who is undeserving of entering the national solidarity arrangements of other Member States. Without a doubt, in 2014, the year

14

of the judgment, questions of transnational solidarity were put in a different context by a thoroughly altered economic and political climate and vast migrations from the new to the old Member States. Also judges read the morning papers.

The next question is obviously whether there exists something that might be called international solidarity, that is to say, between Member States. Despite the fact that any beginner’s course to ‘optimum currency areas’ would tell you that a degree of solidarity in the form of fiscal transfers is one of the criteria for a successful monetary union, such transfers were initially constitutionally prohibited in the Euro Area.

The Court of Justice, however, considered the bail-out programmes for Member States suffering from fiscal crises not in breach with the so-called ‘no bail-out clause’ of article 125 of the Functioning Treaty. By attaching

“At the end of the day, European solidarity remains a highly solitary form of solidarity” ‘strict conditionality’ to the financial assistance, the bail-out programmes were still in line with the original purpose behind the no-bail out clause, namely to ‘maintain budgetary discipline’ and conduct ‘sound budgetary policies’ (Pringle, C370/12).

For the time being, Member States simply took over the role of the ‘market’, which had clearly failed to exert such disciplinary force, and the Northern European banks and pension funds could quickly withdraw from the Southern European bond market.

A policy field in which the issue of solidarity between Member States is explicitly laid down in the Treaty concerns a common migration policy and the fair treatment of third-country-nationals. Article 80 of the Functioning Treaty mentions in this context the ‘principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility, including its financial implications, between the Member States’. For questions about the ‘fair sharing of responsibility with respect to refugees

arriving on Europe’s soil, I can only refer to the experiences of European Commission vice-president Frans Timmermans.

‘Investing in Europe’s Youth’?

On closer inspection, the European Solidarity Corps does not seem to fully fit any of the aforementioned forms of solidary.

In a press release issued by the Commission, the launch of the Corps was presented in the context of a broader policy agenda entitled ‘investing in Europe’s youth’, targeted at fighting youth unemployment. In the words of Juncker: ‘I cannot and will not accept that Europe is and remains the continent of youth unemployment. I cannot and will not accept that the millennials, Generation Y, might be the first generation in 70 years to be poorer than their parents.’

Rather than a true expression of reciprocal bonding ties between different European communities and citizens, the Corps hence appears an expression of solidarity between generations - transgenerational solidarity. This allows for an unfortunate and tragic observation: the golden postwar baby boom EU elite seems to be aware that it needs its younger citizens, who are more pro-European than their older counterparts, for its own survival and spreading the European message in a disintegrating European Union. Mass youth unemployment, mostly in Southern Europe, is fuelled however, by persistent gaps in all types – national, transnational, international and transgenerational – of solidarity in European societies the older generation is mostly responsible for. What is more, instead of a cosmopolitan avant-garde of youngsters spreading the European message, which might be food for satire in itself, the European Solidarity Corps also expresses a solidarity nested in supply-side labour market policies; it promises investments in yet another skill, another addition to one’s CV and another ‘stepping stone into employment’. Instead of creating jobs through New Deal type of investment plans – one would say there is enough to invest with the absolute necessity of a Europe wide Energiewende - or job sharing arrangements between younger and older generations, the only form of solidarity the EU therefore has to offer is what I call supply-side solidarity. It is a form of social policy that only ‘helps young people to help themselves’, leaving both the burden and the ultimate responsibility to find employment with the younger generation itself. At the end of the day, European solidarity, even when sold in corporate terminology, remains a highly solitary form of solidarity.

SES Career Dinner 2017 Jasmina HegerovĂĄ Are you unsure about your future? Does the list of possible fields and career paths you could choose from make you feel mildly uncomfortable and very unprepared? Do you feel overwhelmed by the possibilities out there? Are you a first year that is notquite sure about which Major to pick? Or, are you one of the lucky ones already sure about which field you are interested in, but unable to picture any career opportunities that do not bring you below the poverty line?

Now, we’re not saying that we have the solution to all of these problems, but we do offer a chance for you to figure it out for yourself while enjoying some wonderful food and wine. Sounds interesting?

The seventh annual Career Dinner will take place on the 6th of March at Razmataz, a lovely restaurant in Amsterdam West. Attending it will be guests from six different categories - Economy, Law, Culture and Literature, Politics, Eastern Europe, and the new and exciting one, Refugees. The students attending the dinner will have the chance to sit with both of the guests from the categories of their choice, and after the dinner there will be a borrel during which all the guests will have a chance to mingle.

Interested? For the measly price of 30 euros, this could be you. Send your motivation to careerdinner@ses-uva.nl from the 6th of February 2017 for a chance to get a taste of your future!

15

En marché! or how we should fight for optimism In this opinion piece Daan Leseman argues why current events are no cause of pessimism but rather optimism with the rise of new, charismatic and young politicians with fresh ideas.

T

he unthinkable has happened.

Donald J. Trump has been elected, has been inaugurated and, surprise, surprise, immediately has started dismantling one of Obama’s biggest accomplishments during his eight-year reign.

Now more than ever, populist parties around the world see their chance at winning the elections. This year, in Europe alone there are three very important elections in some of the more important member states of the European Union. And while parties such as the Front National (FR) and the PVV (NL) are higher in the election polls than ever before, I wonder if I should feel a certain misery or rather some anguish for the possible era to come. Is it impossible for the left-wing political parties to find a leader that could unite us all?

For once I can say with pride that no such thing is guaranteed to happen. While the

16

Front National does unsurprisingly well in the pre-election polls, a new star is on the rise. Emmanuel Macron, former Minister of Treasury in the cabinet of president Hollande, was an inexperienced little brat, many believed. He has a liberal message, a political point of view that still cannot count on much support from the people in today’s mostly conservative France. While left candidates for the French presidency hardly get any voters to come to their rallies, Macron’s rallies count attendants ranging from 2.500 to as much as 12.000 people.

What is his secret? What does he do so well by being different compared to the other left presidential candidates in France and perhaps the rest of the world?

Young? New ideas? It sounds an awful lot like the formal president Barack Obama. The one trait that did win Obama his election was his charisma. And Macron, and also

other liberal leaders, have adopted that same charisma. It is a trait that is hard to fake, but when sincere (or at least seemingly) can surmount event the biggest obstacles. What left parties seem to have forgotten is that making right decisions is not always popular, especially when doing it in a condescending way. Themes such as climate change, the refugee crisis, the European Union, these are complex issues. Populist parties have gathered much support by questioning the actions of the governments in place, tweeting in 140 characters how the little man gets screwed by politicians. No, rather than adapting to their strategy, left parties are shocked and utterly baffled by the audacity of people like Wilders or Trump. And now one of the two afore mentioned persons has taken the highest and most important seat of his country.

As I said before, Macron is like Obama

“What left parties seem to have forgotten is that making right decisions is not always popular, especially when doing it in a condescending way.” in a way. Rather than rehashing the same political points of view liberals have had for the past ten years, he allures to voters with a new story. Eloquently he speaks of France as it is now. Instead of memberberrying the ‘golden’ past of France under De Gaulle, he looks forward to the France he wants to accomplish with the voter. It is the same exact strategy that Obama used in his 2008 Yes We Can campaign. Macron’s slogan, En Marché (translates as ‘Forwards’) grasps that same spirit with the voters.

Instead of focussing on the negative now and romanticising the past, the politician should focus on the future. Instead of being a nay-sayer, contribute to the public and political debate by expressing constructive arguments. Instead of focussing on getting those votes, focus on being a leader. And though it might sound hypocritical, giving priority to expressing leadership pays out in the long run. It shows the commitment you

and your party are willing to make. It creates trust with your voters. A trust that has been gone for long.

So are there any other prodigal young politicians in Europe that could save the western world from populism? Well, yes.

Jesse Klaver, faction leader of the GroenLinks party here in the Netherlands, has adopted the same style that both Obama and Macron have and do use in their respective campaigns. His speeches are very eloquent, most of the time held without teleprompters, not unlike a certain angry Oompa Loompa in a certain White House.

I’m not telling you to vote for or support these specific politicians I just mentioned.

On the contrary, inform yourself, learn what these guys stand for, but also learn to make compromises. The way our democratic system has been set up, it is very rare that

Image: Jesse Klaver speaks at one of his party’s yearly congresses. He calls it a ‘Meetup’. one party does have a majority, a good thing by the way. A political leader should commit him- or herself to every single voter. Therefore, do not punish a party for sometimes having compromised their ideals when they were in the seat of power. What we, you, and I should do, however, is make it impossible for single issue political parties to get the most votes and have those singleissue parties elected to lead us. For the Dutch people who might have read this article, the elections are closing in, though the same principle goes for every nationality that reads this magazine. Do the right thing, inform yourself, involve yourself, help building our future.

17

Will Putin instigate a ‘European Spring’?

Michelle Kooiman

2017 will be an exciting year for Europe.

Elections in influential countries of the European Union will take place. It will be a battle between eurosceptics and Europhiles, between right and left. But this may not be the only battle that will be fought. Elections in Europe could be a target for Russian cyber soldiers.

18

S

ince the election of Donald Trump as 45th president of the United States, American intelligence agencies claim Russian hackers sabotaged the elections and thus influenced the results. The FBI and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security published a report on December 29 in which this conclusion is presented. The Kremlin would have ordered to hack email accounts of prominent members of the Democratic Party of Hillary Clinton. For example, the email account of the Clinton campaign manager was not safe for digital intruders.

By hacking accounts intruders might collect compromising information which, when published, might affect public opinion.

Russia denies these accusations, despite evidence from intelligence agencies of the US and Germany. Most rapports say that it is not possible that a ‘nerd in a garret’ is capable of hacking well protected digital domains of influential countries. On the contrary, nothing is more true. Behind these diplomatic hacks lies a big system of professionals. Information needs to be collected, inventoried and used in the right way. Then strategic decisions must be made which concerns the way the information can be used.

Despite the evidence the intelligence agencies presented, it will be difficult to address and punish Russia. The digital intrusions are difficult to trace back because of a ‘smokescreen’. A hacker or hacking group which is not linked to the Russian regime, is traced as the intruder. This hacker or hacking group is located in another country. There are no ties that will lead to the Kremlin. It appears to be an attack performed by individuals, which is not imposed by the government.

Almost every country added a cyber domain to their military strategy, since cybersecurity becomes more and more important.

Diplomatically hacking is thus not typically Russian. Even befriended countries try to intercept confidential files. In 2013 Germany discovered American intelligence agencies hacked Angela Merkel’s phone. Hundreds of phone calls were monitored. Former president Barack Obama had to grovel to restore trust with the German Chancellor.

Countries who maintain good relationships are less likely to leak confidential information, because the relationship is at stake and there are many interests at stake.

Russia’s cyber-strategy is unpredictable because of the growing tensions between the West and Russia. Putin can decide to reveal

compromising information as a response to the anti-European sentiment in the run-up to the elections.

‘Russia wants to claim backyard’ Eurovisie asked Russia-expert Helga Salemon why Putin would want to mingle in the elections in western countries and what he wants to achieve.

Salemon states that Putin wants to expand its sphere of influence in regions that once belonged to the Russian territory. Based on historic claims, Russia sees Eastern Europe as its ‘backyard’. The US and Europe hinder these aspirations. ‘Russia cares only about spreading their influence in former territories and does not want the US or Europe to interfere with Russia’s aspirations.’

Putin benefits if right, Eurosceptic parties lead Germany, France and the Netherlands.

The election of Trump as president is also advantageous for Russia. ‘The election of Trump as president of the US is grist to the mill of Russia.’ Multiple times Trump said that he wants Europe to take more responsibility concerning the security on the European continent. The US is the biggest financier of NATO and Trump wants to change that. ‘This is exactly what Putin wants, since NATO’s influence has grown in Eastern Europe ever since the Soviet Union collapsed.’ NATO did not resolve after the

“The election of Trump as president of the US is grist to the mill of Russia” Cold War ended. The military alliance just grew stronger since the 1990’s. When NATO and the EU started flirting with Ukraine, Russia was not amused. If the influence of NATO crumbles, Russia will try to spread their influence in Eastern-Europe.

Right sets the tone At the moment Europe struggles with heated topics like the refugee crisis and the terrorist threat. The EU and the current political climate of multiple member states are under pressure. Right-oriented and eurosceptic politicians such as Marine Le Pen, Frauke Petry and Geert Wilders are critical of current policies. Russia could anticipate to the current anti-EU sentiment by the rightwing candidates by giving them a little push in the elections. The scenario that Russian cyber soldiers will influence the elections to further divide Europe is realistic, according Salemon.

In France, the Russian cyber army might not even have to pull out all the stops. Marine Le Pen, a big contender for the French presidency, is very friendly towards Russia.

She also signed loaned many millions from a Russian bank for her campaign. This makes her, according to critics, too dependent on Russia. Francois Fillon, a more moderate right-wing politician, is a candidate to reckon with. If a right party wins the election, France probably adopt a friendlier attitude towards Russia.

In the Netherlands polls show that Geert Wilders lies far ahead of the competition in the race for winning the elections. Wilders is not very outspoken about the Russian president, but his anti-European stance has strong similarities to that of Putin.

Historical awareness Russia might have more difficulties with Germany. Despite the quick rise of the rightpopulist party Alternative für Deutschland, Putin has to deal with, maybe the biggest advocate of the EU, chancellor Merkel. Hanco Jürgen, scientific assistant at the German Institute does not think Merkel will lose the elections. Although Merkel struggles with public discontent about her policies concerning refugees and asylum seekers, Merkel still has many loyal supporters left.

Hacking is also a sensitive issue in Germany.

Espionage and bugging were controversial methods of the former GDR to collect information. This sensitive past makes Germany vigilant when it comes to cyberattacks, says Jürgen. Germany will therefore try to ‘arm’ themselves to the teeth.

If Russia manages to influence the elections in Germany, France and the Netherlands, it will have consequences for European cooperation. Especially France and Germany have the biggest influence on European policy. If these countries embark on a rightwing, eurosceptic course, this will affect the influence of the EU and NATO. Russia could benefit by gaining influence in Eastern Europe.

Not only the outcome of the election will be exciting. The way to the voting booth will be just as exciting. Time will tell what the consequences are if Russia interferes with the democratic process of Western European countries. Putin has the ‘weapons’ and a motive. The question is what will unleash if he decides to use them.

19

Give automation to the people?

Contributing article by second year European Studies student

Alexandra Staudinger

O

n my flight back to Amsterdam following the Christmas holidays, I had an unpleasant experience at the check-in. Instead of friendly and helpful AUA (Austrian Airlines) staff, I was greeted with a new range of machines, great in both size and number, who were awaiting the flight’s passengers. Unfortunately I had seen this sign of daily automation already: the worse the airline, the more frequently they employ self-check-in machines in front of their waiting queues. Of course this cost-cutting measure cannot stand alone, with it usually comes at least one staff member, advising confused airport frequenters to interact with the machine instead of the airline employee talking to them. So as I reluctantly worked through the already familiar processes of selfcheck-in (scan passport, type in last name, the usual requirements) and walked over to the counter to submit my suitcase to a friendly airline staffer, another measure of automation destroyed my illusion of living in a world that does not systemically hinder human interaction.

The first obstacle was not a machine, but a human (at least), a tall, slim, overburdened staff member, advising twenty people at once

20

on how to handle the airline’s new approach to check-in. After this busy man assigned me to a specific counter, it was the machine’s fast pace which annoyed me the most. According to the instructions given on the screen, I was supposed to scan my boarding pass and then heave my suitcase onto the conveyor belt for weighing and subsequent immersion into the airport’s baggage delivery system.

Not expecting the machine to give me so little time to lift up my heavily loaded pack, I had to repeat that procedure various times.

Up until then, there would have been the usual airline staffer helping me in my efforts to move the suitcase and wishing me a safe flight afterwards. That morning, however, the only interaction was between me, voicing criticism about the new procedure, and an equally frustrated (because job-fearing) airline staffer who told me to write an email of complaint to AUA. This slightly disturbing experience led to thoughts and research about automation in a broader sense.

Therefore, I am kickstarting it with: What is automation, anyway?

Automation is the process of delegating tasks formerly done by humans to machines, so that less human labour is needed to produce a certain good or service. Besides the great

amount of automation in the industries of food production and metal industries, to name two, we are used to some degree of automation in our daily lives already, speaking of washing machines, dishwashers, refrigerators, not to forget the literally dearly held phones and laptops. Now it seems that a new wave of automation is about to arrive, revolutionizing our means of transport and our daily chores once again. Examples are the aforementioned airport self-check-in, but also the self-check-out in supermarkets and petrol stations, self-driving cars, metro lines and planes. The reduction of such usually monotonous, low-paid jobs is supposed to create time for more pleasurable aspects of life, for leisure time. In an ideal world, all manual labor would be done by robots so that all people could pursue their truest passions, advocates of automation would say.

However, there is also the flip side of the coin, which is what this article focuses on: first of all, it costs jobs. Though the perception that automation allows people to pursue their dreams is a nice idea, it remains exactly that: an idea and an illusion. Though almost everyone wishes they were richer and more influential, only the minority of people employed in the workforce are actually

actively working to make their dreams come true. For many people, work is nothing more or less than a way to make ends meet.

Thus the prospect of heartfelt occupation is not particularly enticing for someone who simply wants to earn a decent salary, to live life once the door to their workplace closes. Another part of the population are low-educated people, oftentimes in lack of social and economic resources, who are in need of an everyday job to pay their bills, nonetheless. Oftentimes, these are the people behind the cash desk. Likewise, these are the people losing their jobs to machines, due to their employers’ cost-cutting measures.

The low-skilled, under-educated part of the population is the one who first feels the changes in the workforce caused by automation.

Furthermore, the promise holds that automation gives people the opportunity to pursue more creative occupational tasks. But what does the blue-collar worker do amidst a wide array of machines around them? Push buttons. Push buttons to monitor, to stop, to re-start, you name it. Not only industrial workers are facing this shift, also the whitecollar sector feels the change. Doctors have medical algorithms at their disposal

which allow them to simply enter a patient’s symptoms and the computer will find the right diagnosis, so the story goes. But in hospitals already testing this new method of treatment, a decrease in quality is actually reported, where doctors overlook important aspects of a patient’s illness narrative. In the worst case, this leads to a false diagnosis.

Also, pilots, who are in charge of the safety of hundreds of people at once, feel that high degrees of automation in their work actually diminish the quality of the job they are doing. Especially on long-haul flights, there are periods of longer inactivity, where the pilot’s sole job is to monitor the machines. In effect, this leads to a lack of constant training and a slowing of their reflexes, which could potentially become dangerous in moments of unexpected turmoil. These are all examples of what is called technology-centered automation. A proposed solution would be the shift to human-centered automation, where instead of delegating everything to the machine, thereby effectively rendering the person to a mere position of monitoring and observation, the more challenging aspects of the task in question are still done by humans.

jobs than it costs. A study by the University of Oxford predicts that by 2025, more than 40 per cent of jobs will have disappeared due to wide-scale introduction of intelligent machines into the work force. Of course there will be new jobs created which we cannot imagine now, but that prospect still leaves a sour note.

How is all of this relevant to the average European Studies student? Well, take it into consideration for your career choices: though it might be unlikely for you to switch to medical or flight school, language for example is a big part of European Studies, and we have already seen the birth of devices which allow you to communicate in unknown languages. Then again, we do not know what the future holds, which means we only have a couple of options at hand: listen to the sometimes scarily accurate predictions of the likes of Michael Moore, Bill Gates, and Stephen Hawking, follow your passion as the masters of automation promise will be possible or write a letter of complaint to your preferred airline. Just to be sure.

Another important question is whether automation in the future will produce more

21

Redbaiting in the 21st century Hanna Blom

22

M

aking wild assumptions about the lives of teenagers, based on snippets of information or misunderstood tweets, may just be conservative media’s favourite pastime.

Teenagers are violent, overly sexual and self-destructive, and parents need to be informed of what their thirteen year-old train wreck is doing behind their backs.

Everyday minors are finding a new drug, or a different way of consuming alcohol, using every orifice but the mouth. If your parents have ever tried to subtly inquire about meeting strangers from the internet or sniffing glue, you know who to blame.

Besides trying to reach that sweet age of 21 and then collapsing immediately after, people feel that adolescents have some dumb-ass political opinions. Actual people of my age went out to vote for meme related “candidates” Harambe and Deez Nuts, and Kanye 2020 will probably have a pretty decent turn out. If you want to feel bad, there are tons of articles and news stories of a variety of media outlets about the

disappointing political attitude of Generation Y. Usually these pieces are written by people young enough for them to think they can still capitalise on their own youth, but too old or alienated from their own peers to actually write something true. When talking about young, Western political views, overreacting and oversimplifying are usually the go-to tactics to explain them. Either we do not care at all or we care heavily about all the wrong things. The fact that Millennials ironically care for things at the same time as they raise their voice about real issues that bother them is just a 29 year-old reporters hell, as he has to navigate his way through our Tumblr posts and Periscope streaming sessions.

When Western Millennials collectively wept for Fidel Castro’s death on November 25th, it was the easiest cause for outrage.

How in Pete’s name could anyone ever cry for the death of such a violent and oppressive leader? What was wrong with these youngsters? Were they joking? There is sadly no straight answer for this question.

Yes, a lot of people were joking. A lot of people sat behind their computers singing praise songs for the oppressive revolutionary, just for the sake of pissing off others. On the other hand, can the mourning young left be completely ignored, when they took the time on a day of celebrations for many, many Cubans? Tomi Lahren, blonde headache and conservative host of her own TV-show Tomi, just completely ran with the story, calling it ‘hypocrite Leftist snowflakes cry for Fidel Castro’. Crying Leftist snowflakes, besides maybe Black Lives Matter, are her favourite targets. They voted or would have voted for Bernie Sanders and that infuriates her.

They did not want to fully back democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and this was fine by her, but now they do not support the new president and she is livid.

The 74 year-old socialist from Vermont may have driven the same platform as ubercapitalist and current president Donald Trump – no more politics as usual – his interpretation differed wildly.

Sanders’ campaign saw a completely new

23

interest in socialism in the generation of future leaders.

In October 2016 the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation (VOC) published a report which showed an important contradiction: (Northern American) Millennials are way more open to the idea of communism than baby-boomers or the elderly, but at the same time have a lot less understanding of what socialism and communism means and especially what it has meant in the past. A quarter of the Millennials they tested had favourable impressions of leaders like Guevara, Marx and Lenin. They underestimate the impact communism has had, estimating the deaths less than under George W. Bush’s reign or that of Adolf Hitler. Millennials, Generation Z and X seem to think, more than babyboomers and the elderly, that calling someone a capitalist is an insult. The older generation seems to think that being referred to as a communist is the highest dishonour, but this does not seem to feel accurate anymore. What role does red-baiting still have when the ones you would usually call socialists or communists not only distance themselves from the earlier oppression that socialism and the pursuit of communism has meant, but also do not really seem to know much about it?

Red-baiting, the act of accusing someone of following the ideology of communism, had its glory day during the Second Red Scare which was around the 1950s, but it isan old tradition which has been carried through political debate since the 1870s.

People favoured this tactic during the 2016 elections, by denouncing Sanders’ policies and beliefs all with one catchy phrase. Redbaiting separates the real politicians from the crazy fascists, similar to how we love to see links between Hitler and other minority attackers. Proposing to rethink how we care for the poor, old and sick has become a oneway ticket to Stalin town, when it should not be.

Interest in the kind of socialism that Sanders was preaching is often explained as a soft, Scandinavian approach to the ideology, orientating from a part of the world where the people are the happiest and the children the smartest, instead of all that scary stuff that happened in the East of the continent.

It is stated that people should be like the Nordic citizens, willing to sacrifice their own interests to help their neighbours, while in reality Nordic people have made their decisions out of self-interest. Nordic nations offer their citizens – all of their citizens, but

24

especially the middle class – high-quality services that save people a lot of money, time, and trouble. The Nordic model relies on a combination of free-market capitalism with a working welfare state and collective bargaining at the national level.

What is very clear is that Millennials do not like capitalism. Which makes sense, because capitalism does not seem to work for the younger generation. A poll done

by Harvard University showed that 51 per cent of the group between 18 and 29 did not support it. Initiators of the poll explain that for a generation that went through the Cold War, capitalism meant freedom from an oppressive regime. For people who were born far after this war, capitalism means a financial crisis from which the global economy still hasn’t completely recovered.

Capitalism is the reason why one of your parents lost their job, why you could not go to college or why you will maybe never be able to buy a house. Simultaneously, communism and socialism do not mean the same thing to the younger generation anymore either. It may still mean Marx for a lot of people who start to get interested in the ideology, but it definitely does not mean gulags, purges or collectivisation anymore.

Does red-baiting then still carry the same weight as it did in a time when calling yourself a communist meant associating yourself with the Communist Party?

The line is blurred when a lot of young people do take an interest in the Soviet Union and its leaders. The first time I made a friend who would talk openly about his fascination with the Soviet Union, Lenin specifically, I chalked it up to him trying to be controversial. I would get drunken voicemails of him singing along to the State Anthem of the Soviet Union and an invite to his big annual party on Labour Day. His fun facts were appalling bits of information of what Soviet leaders had done and said.

His friends shared his humour and it all just seemed like something normal. Except he did not really make those jokes around a friend who had come from a former satellite state. He would make Nazi jokes instead.

Nothing is sacred.

Socialism is not what it used to be, Communism is not what it used to, teens are not what they used to be. Red-baiting should not stay behind. If someone’s ideology does not resemble what it has meant in the past, using it as an insult will do nothing for a maybe otherwise productive debate. And for the love of God, stop trying to demonise youth culture.

“Millennials are way more open to the idea of communism, but have a lot less understanding of what socialism and communism means”

Kinderen Ontleden

over politiek incorrecte VARA-liedjes in de jaren tachtig

De PVV stelde in 2009 al kamervragen over ‘Baklava of Rijstevla’ (1993), omdat er ‘Allahu akbar’ in gezongen wordt. Levente Vervoort ontdekt dat het kinderkoor zich vaker heeft begeven op de rand van het politiek correcte.

N

ederlandse kinderen hebben het globaal gezien betrekkelijk goed. Dat is nu zo, maar dat was in 1980 ook al zo, toen arbeidersomroep VARA voor het eerst Kinderen voor Kinderen presenteerde. Het beroemdste kinderkoor van Nederland begon als een liefdadigheidsactie om speelgoed te doneren aan ziekenhuizen in de ‘Derde Wereld’.

VARA-volwassene Willem Nijholt legde het de zingende kids in de titelsong, die ik zelf ook dikwijls achteloos heb meegezongen, nog even haarfijn uit:

lijkt een kind, zo hulpeloos, zo kwetsbaar en zo klein te zijn.”

“Kinderen voor kinderen; een kind is hier zo rijk. Kinderen voor kinderen; het is zo ongelijk. Een kind onder de evenaar is meestal maar een bedelaar.”

Kinderen in Nederland mochten thema’s voor de lyrics insturen, die de musici van de VARA dan tot tekst en muziek zouden maken – de formule ‘de-dag-die-je-wistdat-zou-komen’. Die producenten waren allicht op de hoogte van de rol die Nederland als kolonisator speelde in het veroorzaken van de reeds genoemde armoede, want bij het opnemen van de televisieshow zingt helemaal aan de linkerzijde van de bovenste rij – één zwart kind mee in hetzelfde bordeauxrode uniform als haar 24 witte zanggenoten van tussen de acht en de twaalf.

Feitje: eerst mochten alleen maar scholieren

Het kinderkoor nomineert de jeugd in heel het zuidelijk halfrond als bedelaar, maar dat zij het niet hebben over de Kruimeltjes van Sydney en Melbourne wordt wel duidelijk als we verder luisteren: “Als een kind in zo’n land arm en vuil van honger vergaat, als het slaapt op straat, als een kind niet eens weet wie z’n ouders zijn, dan

Politieke correctheid bij de VARA?! Niet in de jaren tachtig dus; de toon is gezet.

Kinderen in ‘derdewereldlanden’ zijn hulpeloos en kwetsbaar. Armoede heeft hen ontheemd, bevuild en uitgehongerd, maar in het ergste geval kennen ze zelfs hun ouders niet! Nederlandse kinderen daarentegen zijn volwaardige mensen, die zo rijk zijn, dat ze zelfs op de televisie komen en dan een liedje met Willem Nijholt mogen zingen.

uit het Gooi meedoen, die dichtbij de studio’s in Hilversum woonden. Daarom hoor je de Gooise ‘r’ in de vroege liedjes. Later kregen de zangers les om hun ‘r’ af te leren.

De dertien liedjes op het eerste album geven een mooie kenschets van het mentale landschap van een kind in Nederland in 1980. Een aantal nummers getuigt van een jeugdig escapisme; de één vlucht in zijn verbeelding (‘Ik heb zo waanzinnig gedroomd’), een ander verplaatst zich in de ruimte en verlangt naar een ‘Hoekje’, waar niemand kan komen. Weer een kind vlucht liever naar de ‘Schuilplaats’ van vroeger tijden, want “Waar kan je nog spelen? Waar heb je nog plek? Voor het scheppen een zandbak, voor het klimmen een rek”.

In het hier en nu daarentegen worstelen sommige kinderen met hun veranderende uiterlijk (‘De Wrat, ‘Beugelbekkie, Pestbril’, ‘Puberteitsballade’). Ook huiswerk krijgt te toorn van KvK, want ‘spelen blijft het mooiste feest’, ook al zijn de zandbakken en rekken lang verdwenen. Anderen zoeken liefde en vriendschap, de één bij haar of zijn eerste crush (Rikkie), de ander bij een

25

dier (‘Ik en m’n beessie’), terwijl een derde kiest voor de garantie van ‘Kom je strakjes bij me spelen?’. Sinds 1980 heeft Kinderen voor Kinderen telkens één album per jaar uitgebracht. Keer op keer probeerden de schrijvers teksten te maken, die aansluiten op de belevingswereld van het kind. Je hoeft maar naar het vierde nummer op Kinderen voor Kinderen 37 (2016) te kijken om te zien hoe goed dat lukt: ‘Mijn oma die vlogt’.

In de traditie van casual humanities heb ik de liederen ingedeeld op een aantal thema’s.

De tekst moet tonen hoe kind-zijn en de jeugd gearticuleerd worden in de liedjes – al wil ik natuurlijk eigenlijk de volwassenen aan de tand voelen, over hoe ze met sociaaldemocratische propagandakoren al die jonge, liberale geesten indoctrineren; ik ben ook in de jaren negentig opgegroeid.

Neem nu het gezin: er zijn enkele songs over de steeds vaker veranderende gezinssituaties!

Soms aandoenlijk kinderachtig, zoals bij een middelste kind dat zijn beklag doet over zijn gemarginaliseerde middenpositie in één van de mooiste KvK-neologismes, ‘Sandwichkind’. Echter, na een pak liedjes over scheidingen, zoals ‘Vier Ouders’ (1985) volgde in 2005 ‘Twee Vaders’. In het nummer zingt het kind over zijn vaders, Diederik en Bas. Volgens hem zijn die vaders ‘échte vaders, die als het moet, ook mijn moeder kunnen zijn.’ Als één van de papa’s dan de rol van moeder op zich neemt, dan ziet dat er zo uit: “En Bas die doet de vaat, of hij strijkt de schone was en als ik ziek of koortsig ben, dan is er niemand die ik ken, die zo lief voor mij zal zijn als Diederik of Bas.” Als het kind geconfronteerd wordt met homofobie, legt hij dat het “niet zoals bij anderen [is], maar heel gewoon.” Toch weet KvK in een nummer over vaders niet de rol van de vrouw in het gezin onbesproken te laten; de kinderen leren dat moeders huishoudelijke taken doen, lief en zorgzaam zijn; Bas en Diederik zijn geen huisvader, want “Bas werkt bij de krant, en Diederik is laborant.” Voilà, dubbel modaal bij de VARA.

De VARA (en de hele publieke omroep in haar verlengde) zijn in onze dagen volgens sommigen exemplarisch voor hoe cultureel marxisme de vrije, fladderende geest wil opsluiten in het vogelkooitje van de politieke correctheid. In de jaren tachtig was daar echter nog weinig van te merken. Liedjes over discriminatie (pesten voor grote mensen) hadden misschien een

26

licht activistische boodschap, maar als we ze in 2017 luisteren, tonen ze de rauwe werkelijkheid van tienerterreur veertig jaar geleden. In ‘LOM-kind’ (1986) (leeren opvoedingsmoeilijkheden) hoort het slachtoffer eerst een reeks meedogenloze verwensingen: Jij bent een achterlijk en oliedom kind. Jij bent te lui dat je een antwoord op een som vindt. Je bent een gek en een mongool. […] Sta je wachten tot het busje komt, kind. Van de debielenschool, de imbecielenschool.”

Pas op het einde komt het verweer: wie scheldt, is zelf stom. Dat kan je zelfs van een LOM-kind leren en ‘wie had dat ooit gedacht.’ Ook etnisch pesten, i.e. racisme,

draait de VARA op een zelfde manier handig om in de jaren tachtig. In het liedje ‘Bruin’ (1984) zingt een zwarte jongen over hoe hij ‘liever wat bleker [zou] zijn’, omdat de ‘blanken’ zeggen: ‘hij moet maar weg, doe wat ik zeg, lelijk jong.’ De oplossing voor dit probleem is volgens de VARA heel simpel; ‘blanke’ mensen moeten ‘gaan sparen voor de zonnebank’, want ‘wanneer ze bruin of bruin-achtig zijn, kon [je] op niemand meer schelden.”

Ik interpreteer de zonnebankmetafoor als een tamelijk onsuccesvolle manier om raciaal denken te ontmaskeren als het sociaal construct dat het is. Ook ‘Gastarbeider’ komt uit de Reagan-Thatcherdagen (1981). In dit lied komt de Nederlandse Karin aan het

de baas van het journaal zou zijn’: ‘De hele wereld werd meteen een beetje liever, want ik negeerde alle narigheid totaal.’ De NOS is er niks bij, Gutmenschen.

Toch is de politieke correctheid ook langzaam in de Kinderen voor Kinderenliedjes geslopen, en wel op de volgende manier: bijna alle liedjes uit het nieuwe millennium gaan enkel nog over de kinderplatitudes van uiterlijk, spelen, vakantie etc. (vgl. ‘Wie liet ‘m’, over scheten laten, 2014). De diepere onderwerpen zijn bijna beperkt tot de dood en milieubewustzijn.

woord. Karin rebelleert tegen haar ouders, vernieuwend met ‘Bruin’ (eerste liedje omdat die haar verbieden met ‘Yannis’ van gezonden door een zwarte Nederlander). het Griekse restaurant op het plein om te Maar ook het kerstliedje ‘Als de lichtjes gaan. Zij zijn misschien wel keurig nette doven’ stelt de nu obsolete vragen: ‘Turk mensen (Nederlandse auto-imago), maar en Griek en Marrokkaan, mogen die hier nog altijd ‘gastarbeiders, buitenlanders, blijven? Mogen die hier ook bestaan, of zal vreemden, vreemde eenden én ontheemden.’ men hen verdrijven?”. Dat Kinderen voor

Kinderen lange tijd een prullenmand van Als het liedje verdergaat blijkt echter dat obsceen neoliberalisme was, wordt duidelijk het eigenlijk helemaal niet om Yannis en uit deze teksten uit de jaren tachtig. Het ene zijn medemigranten draait, maar om die na het andere blijkapitalistische liedje komt arme Karin. Zij, als nette Hollander, wordt voorbij; ‘Mijn eerste miljoen’, ‘Alles is te koop’, immers niet vertrouwd door de Griekse ‘Zakgeld’ (twee keer), ‘Pretpakket’ etc. ouders. Nederlanders zijn namelijk ‘losse sloddervossen’ (conflicterend Nederlands Zo nu en dan staan de hoge stemmetjes even auto-imago). stil bij de keerzijde van de welvaart, maar

ook in het album uit 1984 horen we hoe Het vijfde album uit 1984 was al erg een kinderjournaal eruit zou zien, in ‘Als ik

Onderwerpen over racisme, discriminatie en de heterogene samenleving worden gemeden. In de jaren tachtig werden zij dan wel besproken op een manier die we nu eerder bij het POWNED-koor ‘Hardwerkende Nederlandse Kinderen voor Hardwerkende Nederlandse Kinderen’ zouden verwachten, maar het is naar mijn mening spijtig dat deze thema’s kennelijk uit de collectieve kinderbeleving van de VARA zijn verdampt. Daarnaast klinken de liedjes nu alsof ze zijn gemaakt met het een gratis DJ-programma uit 2003; niet om aan te horen.

Ook nu nog is Kinderen voor Kinderen razend populair, vooral op YouTube, maar ook op de TV. Wij volwassen mensen weten als geen anders hoe muziek in staat is om de belangrijke zaken van de Grote Boze Wereld in woorden en geluiden te vatten, die we mooi vinden, die uitleg geven, maar bovenal zich diep in ons geheugen nestelen. Daarom is het jammer dat KvK dat collectieve geheugen liever links lijkt te laten liggen.

Hoe mooi zou het wel niet zijn, als er een generatie kinderen opgroeide, die uit volle borst kan meezingen met teksten over de belangrijke zaken van nu – zoals jij en ik dat kunnen met ‘Help! Ik krijg tieten!’? De VARA gaat met haar tijd mee, dus waarom geen liedje ‘Help! Ik krijg zeggenschap over mijn eigen lichaam!’ of ‘Help! Mijn vaders zijn alt-right’. Dat is mijn waanzinnige droom. De titelsong hebben ze – gelukkig – al aangepast: “Kinderen voor kinderen, voor jou en iedereen, kinderen voor kinderen, dat zing je nooit alleen, al spreek je niet dezelfde taal, muziek verstaan we allemaal, kinderen voor kinderen een eindeloos verhaal.”

27

Pub Lecture - 15 February It’s pre-election season in the Netherlands, which inspired SES to organise a first ever Pub Lecture around the subject of politics in the Netherlands. The informal living room-atmosphere of Café Kostverloren in Oud-West will be the location of this evening, on which European Studies professors Matthijs Lok and David Hollanders will speak about populist conservatism and post-democracy in Our Beautiful Country. Sign up online, as there’s limited spots available.

The Hague Day - 21 February TSES is heading to the political capital of our country: The Hague! During this one-day trip, we’ll be visiting the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, as well as the Polish Embassy.

After our visit to the Embassy of the Republic of Poland, there will also be plenty of time to discover the city of The Hague. Unfortunately it is not possible to sign up for this event anymore, as all places have already been taken.

Career Dinner - 6 March Even though student life can be quite entertaining, SES advises you to always keep thinking about the future as well. To help you with that, we are organising an annual career dinner, for which we invite specialists from different working fields that represent the majors of the European Studies Bachelor Program. See page 15 for more information on this event.

SES Conference - 7 April On Friday 7 April, SES will organise its annual conference. Keep an eye on our Facebook page for the announcing of the theme and information regarding ticket sale. Also make sure to read the March issue of Eurovisie, as it will be centred around the theme of the conference.

Hitchhike Competition - 1 July For the third year in a row, SES will organise a hitchhike competition. Please save the date and note 1-3 July in your agendas! More information regarding the weekend and the sign up procedure will be available soon.

(c) studievereniging europese studies 2017 (c) studievereniging europese studies 2016