Yanis Varoufakis on "Technofeudalism"

Democracy in Question? is brought to you by:

• Central European University: CEU

• The Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy in Geneva: AHCD

• The Podcast Company: scopeaudio

Follow us on social media!

• Central European University: @CEU

• Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy in Geneva: @AHDCentre

Subscribe to the show. If you enjoyed what you listened to, you can support us by leaving a review and sharing our podcast in your networks! 

Glossary

Euromaidan and the Revolution of Dignity

(05:36 or p.2 in the transcript)

On November 21, 2013, one and a half thousand people rallied through social networks. They took to the Independence Square (Maidan Nezalezhnosti) to express their protest against pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych’s refusal to sign the association agreement between Ukraine and the European Union. At the same time, people in different cities of Ukraine gathered every day and organized events in support of European integration. On the night of November 29-30, about 400 activists, mostly students, remained on the streets of Kyiv. Armed fighters of the former police unit of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine called “Berkut” forced people out of the square. They used explosive packages, beating people with batons and stomping them with their feet. Hundreds of thousands of people gathered in the center of Kyiv on December 1, 2013, to protest the forceful dispersal of peaceful protesters. Due to the European integration slogans, the events were called Euromaidan. This turned into a struggle for the renewal of the state system, the defense of democratic ideas, and the refusal to submit to the pro-Russian regime. The struggle became known as the Revolution of Dignity. Protesters occupied the building of the Kyiv City State Administration (KMDA) and the House of Trade Unions, where the Headquarters of the National Resistance were located. Independence Square and nearby streets were filled with protesters. Euromaidan activists began to set up tent cities, surrounded by barricades and several roadblocks. On December 8, 2013, the “March of Millions” took place in Kyiv, a public event with over a million participants. Activists decided to block the Presidential Administration and Government buildings. On the night of December 10-11, “Berkut” and units of internal forces launched an assault to disperse peaceful protesters. The impetus for the escalation of the confrontation was the adoption of “dictatorship laws” by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on January 16, 2014. They limited the rights of citizens and expanded the powers of special officers to punish participants in protest actions. On January 19, Euromaidan started a move to prepare an open-ended picket of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. The march met with units of internal troops and special units of “Berkut” on Hrushevsky Street — clashes began that lasted all night. Armed security forces used stun grenades and rubber bullets, as well as a water cannon, against the demonstrators. Euromaidan activists wore construction helmets, and they threw cobblestones and Molotov cocktails at the police. On January 22, 2014, another illegal decision was made to extend the powers of the security forces that acted against Euromaidan participants. They were allowed to use light noise and smoke grenades delivered from the Russian Federation. On this day, for the first time during the Revolution of Dignity, two activists – Armenian Serhii Nigoyan and Belarusian Mykhailo Zhiznevskyi – died from gunshot wounds on Hrushevsky Street in Kyiv. Hundreds were injured by rubber bullets, debris, and chemical burns. At the end of January, the uprising spread to other regions of Ukraine. Protesters occupied administrative buildings, and they removed pro-Russian heads of state administrations from their positions. On February 18, 2014, activists marched to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, where deputies were supposed to consider changes to the Constitution of Ukraine. Activists called on the parliament to return the Constitution of 2004, according to which the political system of Ukraine was supposed to become parliamentary-presidential again, which reduced the possibilities for usurpation of power. The peaceful offensive turned into mass clashes between the Euromaidan and security forces. The Berkut police special unit dispersed the demonstrators on the approaches to the parliament and began an assault on the Maidan. On this day, more than 20 Euromaidans were killed with firearms. The events of February 20, 2014, on Instytutska Street in Kyiv entered the modern history of Ukraine as “Bloody Thursday”. On this day, snipers killed 48 Euromaidans. On the same day in 2014, Russia began the occupation of Crimea, and in the spring they invaded Eastern Ukraine. Eight years later, in 2022, the Russian Federation launched a full-scale invasion. source

Democracy in Question? is brought to you by:

• Central European University: CEU

• The Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy in Geneva: AHCD

• The Podcast Company: scopeaudio

Follow us on social media!

• Central European University: @CEU

• Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy in Geneva: @AHDCentre

Subscribe to the show. If you enjoyed what you listened to, you can support us by leaving a review and sharing our podcast in your networks! 

Glossary

Nation-state

(07:01 or p.2 in the transcript)

Nation-state is a territorially bounded sovereign polity—i.e., a state—that is ruled in the name of a community of citizens who identify themselves as a nation. The legitimacy of a nation-state’s rule over a territory and over the population inhabiting it stems from the right of a core national group within the state (which may include all or only some of its citizens) to self-determination. Members of the core national group see the state as belonging to them and consider the approximate territory of the state to be their homeland. Accordingly, they demand that other groups, both within and outside the state, recognize and respect their control over the state. As a political model, the nation-state fuses two principles: the principle of state sovereignty, first articulated in the Peace of Westphalia (1648), which recognizes the right of states to govern their territories without external interference; and the principle of national sovereignty, which recognizes the right of national communities to govern themselves. National sovereignty in turn is based on the moral-philosophical principle of popular sovereignty, according to which states belong to their peoples. The latter principle implies that legitimate rule of a state requires some sort of consent by the people. That requirement does not mean, however, that all nation-states are democratic. Indeed, many authoritarian rulers have presented themselves—both to the outside world of states and internally to the people under their rule—as ruling in the name of a sovereign nation. source

The Yellow Vests Protests

(37:51 or p.10 in the transcript)

In France, in November 2018, the gilets jaunes started as a movement directed against what was considered to beexcessive taxation, especially on fuel. Protesters wearing gilets jaunes – yellow high visibility vests which motorists are legally obliged to have in their car and wear in case of accident or breakdown – blocked major roads as a sign of protest. This thus led to the collective name of the movement: the gilets jaunes (or yellow vests in English). Beyond the sustained blocking of some roads, the movement developed into regular demonstrations on Saturdays across the country blocking roads and city centers. At their peak in November 2018, the movement mobilized between 300,000 and 1.3 million people, depending on sources. Not unsurprisingly, considering the fractured, spontaneous and leaderless nature of the protests, the demands of the protesters spread to include the resignation of the French president, a general reduction in taxes, increases in public services and state pensions, and so on. Some gilets jaunes even called for revolution and said the movement was the start of a civil war. The polymorphous, uncontrolled and uncontrollable nature of the movement also provided an opportunity for some of its supporters to engage in violence against the police and symbols of the state such as motorway tollbooths, police speed cameras (over 50% of which were destroyed), government buildings, locations associated with the elite (such as Fouquet’s restaurant on the Champs-Elysées) and so on. This violence is said to have cost the French economy an estimated at €200 million according to the French insurance industry and has resulted directly or indirectly in 12 deaths and 4000 injured. source

Democracy in Question? is brought to you by:

• Central European University: CEU

• The Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy in Geneva: AHCD

• The Podcast Company: scopeaudio

Follow us on social media!

• Central European University: @CEU

• Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy in Geneva: @AHDCentre

Subscribe to the show. If you enjoyed what you listened to, you can support us by leaving a review and sharing our podcast in your networks! 

Glossary

Feudalism

(03:10 or p.1 in the transcript)

Feudalism as a historiographic construct designated the social, economic, and political conditions in western Europe during the early Middle Ages between the 5th and 12th centuries. Feudalism and the related term feudal system are labels invented long after the period to which they were applied. They refer to what those who invented them perceived as the most significant and distinctive characteristics of the early and central Middle Ages. The expressions féodalité and feudal system were coined by the beginning of the 17th century, and the English words feudality and feudalism (as well as feudal pyramid) were in use by the end of the 18th century. They were derived from the Latin words feudum (“fief”) and feodalitas (services connected with the fief), both of which were used during the Middle Ages and later to refer to a form of property holding. Use of the terms associated with feudum to denote the essential characteristics of the early Middle Ages has invested the fief with exaggerated prominence and placed undue emphasis on the importance of a special mode of land tenure to the detriment of other, more significant aspects of social, economic, and political life. source

The Great Depression (1929)

(19:44 or p.5 in the transcript)

Great Depression was the worldwide economic downturn that began in 1929 and lasted until about 1939. It was the longest and most severe depression ever experienced by the industrialized Western world, sparking fundamental changes in economic institutions, macroeconomic policy, and economic theory. Although it originated in the United States, the Great Depression caused drastic declines in output, severe unemployment, and acute deflation in almost every country of the world. Its social and cultural effects were no less staggering, especially in the United States, where the Great Depression represented the harshest adversity faced by Americans since the Civil War. The timing and severity of the Great Depression varied substantially across countries. The Depression was particularly long and severe in the United States and Europe; it was milder in Japan and much of Latin America. Perhaps not surprisingly, the worst depression ever experienced by the world economy stemmed from a multitude of causes. Declines in consumer demand, financial panics, and misguided government policies caused economic output to fall in the United States, while the gold standard, which linked nearly all the countries of the world in a network of fixed currency exchange rates, played a key role in transmitting the American downturn to other countries. The recovery from the Great Depression was spurred largely by the abandonment of the gold standard and the ensuing monetary expansion. The economic impact of the Great Depression was enormous, including both extreme human suffering and profound changes in economic policy. source

Democracy in Question? is brought to you by:

• Central European University: CEU

• The Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy in Geneva: AHCD

• The Podcast Company: scopeaudio

Follow us on social media!

• Central European University: @CEU

• Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy in Geneva: @AHDCentre

Subscribe to the show. If you enjoyed what you listened to, you can support us by leaving a review and sharing our podcast in your networks! 

Democracy in Question? is brought to you by:

• Central European University: CEU

• The Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy in Geneva: AHCD

• The Podcast Company: scopeaudio

Follow us on social media!

• Central European University: @CEU

• Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy in Geneva: @AHDCentre

Subscribe to the show. If you enjoyed what you listened to, you can support us by leaving a review and sharing our podcast in your networks! 

Glossary

Bruno Kreisky

(01:53 or p.1 in the transcript)

Bruno Kreisky, (born January 22, 1911, Vienna, Austria—died July 29, 1990, Vienna), leader of the Social Democratic Party of Austria and chancellor of Austria (1970–83). Kreisky joined the Social Democratic Party in 1926; he was active in the party until it was outlawed in 1934. In 1935 he was arrested for political reasons and imprisoned for 18 months. He was imprisoned again in 1938, shortly after graduating as Doctor of Law from the University of Vienna. Persecuted by the Gestapo because of his political beliefs and Jewish birth, he fled to Sweden, where he engaged in journalism and business during World War II. From 1946 to 1950 he served at the Austrian legation in Stockholm and then returned to Vienna to serve at the foreign ministry. From 1956 he was a member of the Austrian Parliament, and in 1959 he was elected deputy chairman of the Social Democrats and became foreign minister. After the party’s decisive defeat in the 1966 general election, he took the lead in an intraparty reform movement. He was narrowly elected chairman of the Social Democrats in 1967, and he became chancellor of Austria when the Social Democrats emerged from the 1970 elections as the strongest party; in 1971 they acquired an absolute majority. Kreisky was credited with successfully pursuing a policy of “active neutrality,” smoothing relations with neighboring Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia and seeking cooperation with other nonaligned nations. Under his leadership, the Social Democrats preserved their parliamentary majority in elections in 1975 and 1979. He resigned in 1983. source

Occupation of Austria by the Allied Forces (1945-1955)

(07:54 or p.2 in the transcript)

At the Potsdam Conference in 1945, the Allies agreed that they would jointly occupy Austria in the postwar period, dividing the country and its capital Vienna into four zones as they planned to do with Germany and Berlin. The Soviets also demanded reparations from Austria, a request that was dropped due to the country's nonbelligerent status, but the United States did agree that the Soviet Union would be entitled to any German assets in the Soviet occupation zone. In contrast to Germany, the Austrian government continued to exist in the postwar period and govern, although the Four Powers could veto any new legislation if they unanimously agreed to do so. This arrangement was maintained until the withdrawal of the occupying powers upon the completion of the Austrian State Treaty. The breakdown of the wartime "Grand Alliance" and the emergence of the Cold War led to the Austrian occupation lasting far longer than anyone anticipated. Only on May 15, 1955, representatives of the governments of the Soviet Union, Great Britain, the United States, and France signed a treaty that granted Austria independence and arranged for the withdrawal of all occupation forces. These governments signed the agreement with the understanding that the newly independent state of Austria would declare its neutrality, creating a buffer zone between the East and the West. The Austrian State Treaty was the only treaty signed by both the Soviet Union and United States in the decade after the 1947 Paris Peace Treaties, and it marked the only Cold War era withdrawal by the Soviet Union from a territory it occupied. The Austrian situation was unique in postwar Europe. In 1938, it had been the only nation to be annexed in its entirety by Nazi Germany, a fact that raised consistent questions during the war about the extent to which the country was a victim of Nazi aggression or whether it had been a collaborator. source

Freedom Party of Austria

(10:37 or p.3 in the transcript)

The Freedom Party of Austria (German: Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs, FPÖ) is a right-wing populist and national-conservative political party in Austria. It was led by Norbert Hofer from September 2019 to 1 June 2021 and is currently led by Herbert Kickl. On a European level, the FPÖ is a founding member of the Identity and Democracy Party and its three Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) sit with the Identity and Democracy (ID) group. The FPÖ was founded in 1956 as the successor to the short-lived Federation of Independents (VdU), representing pan-Germanists and national liberals opposed to socialism, represented by the Social Democratic Party of Austria (SPÖ), and Catholic clericalism represented by the Austrian People's Party (ÖVP). Its first leader, Anton Reinthaller, was a former Nazi functionary and SS officer, though the party did not advocate extreme right policies and presented itself as residing in the political centre. During this time, the FPÖ was the third largest party in Austria and had modest support. Under the leadership of Norbert Steger in the early 1980s, it sought to style itself on the German Free Democratic Party. It supported the first government of SPÖ Chancellor Bruno Kreisky after the 1970 election, as well as that of Fred Sinowatz from 1983 to 1986. Jörg Haider became leader of the party in 1986, after which it began an ideological turn towards right-wing populism. This resulted in a strong surge in electoral support, but also led the SPÖ to break ties, and a splinter in the form of the Liberal Forum in 1993. In the 1999 election, the FPÖ won 26.9% of the vote, becoming the second most popular party, ahead of the ÖVP by around 500 votes. The two parties eventually reached a coalition agreement in which ÖVP retained the office of Chancellor. The FPÖ soon lost most of its popularity, falling to 10% in the 2002 election, but the government was renewed. Internal tensions led Haider and much of the party leadership to leave in 2005, forming the Alliance for the Future of Austria (BZÖ), which replaced the FPÖ as governing partner. Heinz-Christian Strache then became leader, and the party gradually regained its popularity, peaking at 26.0% in the 2017 election. The FPÖ once again became junior partner in government with the ÖVP. In May 2019, the Ibiza affair led to the collapse of the government and the resignation of Strache from both the offices of Vice-Chancellor and party leader. The resulting snap election saw the FPÖ fall to 16.2% and return to opposition. source

Austrian People’s Party

(13:09 or p.3 in the transcript)

The Austrian People's Party (German: Österreichische Volkspartei, ÖVP) is a Christian-democratic and liberal-conservative political party in Austria. Since December 2021, the party has been led provisionally by Karl Nehammer. The ÖVP is a member of the International Democrat Union and the European People's Party. It sits with the EPP group in the European Parliament; of Austria's 19 MEPs, 7 are members of the ÖVP. An unofficial successor to the Christian Social Party of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the ÖVP was founded immediately following the re-establishment of the Republic of Austria in 1945. Since then, it has been one of the two traditional major parties in Austria, alongside the Social Democratic Party of Austria (SPÖ). It was the most popular party until 1970, and has traditionally governed in a grand coalition with the SPÖ. It was the senior partner in grand coalitions from 1945 to 1966 and the junior partner from 1986 to 2000 and 2007–2017. The ÖVP also briefly governed alone from 1966 to 1970. After the 1999 election, the party formed a coalition with the Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ) until 2003, when a coalition with the FPÖ splinter Alliance for the Future of Austria was formed, which lasted until 2007. The party underwent a change in its image after Sebastian Kurz became chairman, changing its colour from the traditional black to turquoise, and adopting the alternate name The New People's Party (German: Die neue Volkspartei). It became the largest party after the 2017 election, and formed a coalition government with the FPÖ. This collapsed eighteen months later, leading to the 2019 election, after which the ÖVP formed a new coalition with The Greens. source

Social Democratic Party of Austria

(30:27 or p.6 in the transcript)

The Social Democratic Party of Austria (German: Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs, SPÖ), founded and known as the Social Democratic Workers' Party of Austria (German: Sozialdemokratische Arbeiterpartei Österreichs, SDAPÖ) until 1945 and later the Socialist Party of Austria (German: Sozialistische Partei Österreichs) until 1991, is a social-democratic political party in Austria. Founded in 1889, it is the oldest extant political party in Austria. Along with the Austrian People's Party (ÖVP), it is one of the country's two traditional major parties. It is positioned on the centre-left on the political spectrum. The SPÖ is supportive of Austria's membership in the European Union, and it is a member of the Socialist International, Progressive Alliance, and Party of European Socialists. It sits with the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament; of Austria's 19 MEPs, five are members of the SPÖ. The party has close ties to the Austrian Trade Union Federation (ÖGB) and the Austrian Chamber of Labour (AK). The SDAPÖ was the second largest party in the Imperial Council of the Austro-Hungarian Empire from the 1890s through 1910s. After the First World War, it briefly governed the First Austrian Republic, but thereafter returned to opposition. The party was banned in 1934 following the Austrian Civil War, and was suppressed throughout Austrofascism and the Nazi period. The party was refounded as the Socialist Party of Austria in 1945 and governed as a junior partner of the ÖVP until 1966. In 1970, the SPÖ became the largest party for the first time in post-war history, and Bruno Kreisky became Chancellor, winning three consecutive majorities (1971, 1975, and 1979). From 1987 to 2000 the SPÖ led a grand coalition with the ÖVP before returning to opposition for the first time in 30 years. The party governed again from 2007 to 2017. Since 2017, the SPÖ have been the primary opposition to the ÖVP governments of Sebastian Kurz, Alexander Schallenberg, and Karl Nehammer. source

Democracy in Question? is brought to you by:

• Central European University: CEU

• The Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy in Geneva: AHCD

• The Podcast Company: scopeaudio

Follow us on social media!

• Central European University: @CEU

• Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy in Geneva: @AHDCentre

Subscribe to the show. If you enjoyed what you listened to, you can support us by leaving a review and sharing our podcast in your networks! 

Glossary

Polish population transfer

(11:20 or p.3 in the transcript)

Shortly after the Red Army entered western Ukraine and eastern Poland in the summer of 1944, representatives of Soviet Ukraine and Poland, meeting in Lublin, agreed to the reciprocal transfer of Poles from the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and of ethnic Ukrainians from Poland. The implementation of the Lublin accord on ‘evacuation’ took place against a background of extreme violence which had already induced ‘spontaneous’ migration. The evacuation took much longer than expected, and only came to an end in 1946, by which time some 483,000 Ukrainians had been moved from Poland to Ukraine, while 790,000 Poles were transported from Ukraine to Poland. It represented one of the largest such transfers undertaken in postwar Europe. Nor did Ukrainians and Poles escape the consequences of further intervention. In 1947 the ‘Vistula action’ affected a further 150,000 Ukrainians who had not already resettled. Another phase of transfers took place following the final series of territorial adjustments under the Polish-Soviet Agreement of 15 February 1951, as a result of which some 40,000 Ukrainians were expelled from territory annexed to Poland. Finally, more than 10,000 Poles from among the Soviet deportees and prisoners, who had been unable hitherto to exercise their right to return, were repatriated to Poland in 1955–56. source

Democracy in Question? is brought to you by:

• Central European University: CEU

• The Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy in Geneva: AHCD

• The Podcast Company: scopeaudio

Follow us on social media!

• Central European University: @CEU

• Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy in Geneva: @AHDCentre

Subscribe to the show. If you enjoyed what you listened to, you can support us by leaving a review and sharing our podcast in your networks! 

Glossary

Democratic Odyssey 

(02:19 or p.1 in the transcript)

The Democratic Odyssey is a decentralized, collaborative, and transparent exercise of crowdsourcing and co-creation kicked-off by a core consortium composed of The European University Institute’s School of Transnational Governance, Particip-Action, European Alternatives, Citizens Take Over Europe, The Democracy and Culture Foundation, Democracy Next, Mehr Demokratie, Eliamep, The Real Deal, Phoenix, The European Capital of Democracy, as well as the Berggruen and Salvia Foundations. This community is open to all who want to be involved. Threatened from within and outside by the rise of partisan hyper-polarization, authoritarian buy-in, disinformation and electoral interference, European democracy is under attack on all sides. As Europe needs to address citizens’ sense of disenfranchisement, pathways to renewal are necessary. For the Democratic Odyssey consortium, part of the solution lies in creating a standing European People’s Assembly that will become a core part of the institutional landscape of the European Union, made of citizens selected by lot, serving on a rotating basis. This project comes at an opportune moment. In the past five years, in Europe, there have been ten national assemblies and around 70 local assemblies on the topic of climate change alone. The EU itself took a huge leap with the Conference on the Future of Europe which integrated transnational, multi-lingual, sortition-based deliberation into the policy making process. The Conference planted a seed which the Democratic Odyssey wants to make flourish. As James Mackay, the project’s coordinator, declared in a recent interview with European Alternatives: “we are not aiming at making a ‘perfect’ assembly (whatever that would even mean). Our hope is more modest: to offer a “proof of concept” that, in the window between the EP elections but before the new Commissions convenes, can bring grassroots and institutional actors together to consider how citizens’ participation can be institutionalized in the longer term.” source

Democracy in Question? is brought to you by:

• Central European University: CEU

• The Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy in Geneva: AHCD

• The Podcast Company: scopeaudio

Follow us on social media!

• Central European University: @CEU

• Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy in Geneva: @AHDCentre

Subscribe to the show. If you enjoyed what you listened to, you can support us by leaving a review and sharing our podcast in your networks! 

Glossary

Panopticon

(11:53 or p.3 in the transcript)

Jeremy Bentham, an English philosopher and social theorist in the mid-1700s, invented a social control mechanism that would become a comprehensive symbol for modern authority and discipline in the western world: a prison system called the Panopticon. The basic principle for the design, which Bentham first completed in 1785, was to monitor the maximum number of prisoners with the fewest possible guards and other security costs. The layout consists of a central tower for the guards, surrounded by a ring-shaped building of prison cells. The building with the prisoners is only one cell thick, and every cell has one open side facing the central tower. This open side has bars over it but is otherwise entirely exposed to the tower. The guards can thus see the entirety of any cell at any time, and the prisoners are always vulnerable and visible. Conversely, the tower is far enough from the cells and has sufficiently small windows that the prisoners cannot see the guards inside of it. The sociological effect is that the prisoners are aware of the presence of authority at all times, even though they never know exactly when they are being observed. The authority changes from being a limited physical entity to being an internalized omniscience- the prisoners discipline themselves simply because someone might be watching, eliminating the need for more physical power to accomplish the same task. Just a few guards are able to maintain a very large number of prisoners this way. Arguably, there wouldn't even need to be any guards in the tower at all. Michel Foucault, a French intellectual and critic, expanded the idea of the panopticon into a symbol of social control that extends into everyday life for all citizens, not just those in the prison system. He argues that social citizens always internalize authority, which is one source of power for prevailing norms and institutions. A driver, for example, might stop at a red light even when there are no other cars or police present. Even though there are not necessarily any repercussions, the police are an internalized authority- people tend to obey laws because those rules become self-imposed. source

Conference on the Future of Europe

(19:42 or p.5 in the transcript)

The Conference on the future of Europe officially started on 9 May 2021. Over the next year this citizen led series of discussions and debates will allow citizens from all over the European Union to make their voices heard on key priorities. Through a myriad of Conference events and debates held all across the European Union, aided by an interactive multilingual digital platform, the conference will place European citizens at the centre of the debate. The Conference on the Future of Europe is jointly chaired by the Council, the European Parliament and the European Commission. During the plenary session of the European Parliament in Brussels (10 March 2021), António Costa, Prime Minister of Portugal and President of the rotating Presidency of the Council, David Sassoli, President of the European Parliament, Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, participated in the signing ceremony of the joint declaration for the Conference of the Future of Europe. On 19 April 2021, the multilingual digital platform was launched to ensure that citizens can start contributing to the conference. During the closing event on 9 May 2022, the three Co-Chairs of the Conference’s Executive Board did present the final report to the presidents of the EU institutions. President Metsola, President Macron, and President von der Leyen delivered speeches alongside contributions from citizens representing the European and National Panels, and by the Conference Co-Chairs. source

Democracy in Question? is brought to you by:

• Central European University: CEU

• The Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy in Geneva: AHCD

• The Podcast Company: scopeaudio

Follow us on social media!

• Central European University: @CEU

• Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy in Geneva: @AHDCentre

Subscribe to the show. If you enjoyed what you listened to, you can support us by leaving a review and sharing our podcast in your networks! 

Glossary

Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)

(04:10 or p.1 in the transcript)

China’s Belt and Road Initiative is a strategy initiated by the People’s Republic of China that seeks to connect Asia with Africa and Europe via land and maritime networks with the aim of improving regional integration, increasing trade and stimulating economic growth. The name was coined in 2013 by China’s President Xi Jinping, who drew inspiration from the concept of the Silk Road established during the Han Dynasty 2,000 years ago – an ancient network of trade routes that connected China to the Mediterranean via Eurasia for centuries. The BRI has also been referred to in the past as 'One Belt One Road'. The BRI comprises a Silk Road Economic Belt – a trans-continental passage that links China with southeast Asia, south Asia, Central Asia, Russia and Europe by land – and a 21st century Maritime Silk Road, a sea route connecting China’s coastal regions with south east and south Asia, the South Pacific, the Middle East and Eastern Africa, all the way to Europe. The initiative defines five major priorities: policy coordination; infrastructure connectivity; unimpeded trade; financial integration; and connecting people. The BRI has been associated with a very large programme of investments in infrastructure development for ports, roads, railways and airports, as well as power plants and telecommunications networks. Since 2019, Chinese state-led BRI lending volumes have been in decline. The BRI now places increasing emphasis on “high quality investment”, including through greater use of project finance, risk mitigation tools, and green finance. The BRI is an increasingly important umbrella mechanism for China’s bilateral trade with BRI partners: as of March 2020, the number of countries that have joined the Belt and Road Initiative by signing a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with China is 138. source

BRICS

(04:41 or p.2 in the transcript)

"BRICS" is the acronym denoting the emerging national economies of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. The term was originally coined in 2001 as "BRIC" by the Goldman Sachs economist Jim O'Neill in his report, Building Better Global Economic BRICs (Global Economics Paper No: 66). At that time, the economies of Brazil, Russia, India and China experienced significant growth, raising concerns regarding their impact on the global economy. Foreign ministers of these countries began meeting informally in 2006, which led to more formal annual summits beginning in 2009. Generally speaking, these meetings are held to improve economic conditions within BRICS countries and give their leaders the opportunity to work in collaboration regarding these efforts. In December of 2010, South Africa joined the informal group and changed the acronym to BRICS. Together these emerging markets represent 42% of the world population and account for over 31% of the world's GDP according to the World Factbook. According to the 2023 summit chair South Africa, over 40 nations were interested in joining the economic forum for the benefits membership would provide including development finance and increase in trade and investment. At the conclusion of the summit, it was announced that Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates will become new members of BRICS starting in 2024. source

Global Gateway 

(25:52 or p.7 in the transcript)

Global Gateway is a new European strategy to boost smart, clean and secure links in digital, energy and transport sectors and to strengthen health, education and research systems across the world. The European Commission and the EU High Representative launched it in 2021. Global Gateway aims to mobilise up to €300 billion in investments through a Team Europe approach, bringing together the EU, its Member States and their financial and development institutions. It seeks a transformational impact in the digital, climate and energy, transport, health, and education and research sectors. The focus is on smart investments in quality infrastructure, respecting the highest social and environmental standards, in line with the EU’s interests and values: rule of law, human rights and international norms and standards. 6 core principles are at the heart of Global Gateway, guiding the investments: democratic values and high standards; good governance and transparency; equal partnerships; green and clean; security focused; catalysing the private sector. Global Gateway is the EU’s contribution to narrowing the global investment gap worldwide. It is in line with the commitment of the G7 leaders from June 2021 to launch a values-driven, high-standard and transparent infrastructure partnership to meet global infrastructure development needs. Global Gateway is also fully aligned with the UN’s Agenda 2030 and its Sustainable Development Goals, as well as the Paris Agreement on climate change. source

Democracy in Question? is brought to you by:

• Central European University: CEU

• The Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy in Geneva: AHCD

• The Podcast Company: scopeaudio

Follow us on social media!

• Central European University: @CEU

• Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy in Geneva: @AHDCentre

Subscribe to the show. If you enjoyed what you listened to, you can support us by leaving a review and sharing our podcast in your networks! 

Glossary

Capital gains taxation

(17:00 or p.4 in the transcript)

The capital gains tax is the levy on the profit that an investor makes when an investment is sold. It is owed for the tax year during which the investment is sold. The long-term capital gains tax rates for the 2022 and 2023 tax years [in the US] are 0%, 15%, or 20% of the profit, depending on the income of the filer. The income brackets are adjusted annually. An investor will owe long-term capital gains tax on the profits of any investment owned for at least one year. If the investor owns the investment for one year or less, short-term capital gains tax applies. The short-term rate is determined by the taxpayer's ordinary income bracket. For all but the highest-paid taxpayers, that is a higher tax rate than the capital gains rate. When stock shares or any other taxable investment assets are sold, the capital gains, or profits, are referred to as having been realized. The tax doesn't apply to unsold investments or unrealized capital gains. Stock shares will not incur taxes until they are sold, no matter how long the shares are held or how much they increase in value. source

Tax havens

(17:07 or p.4 in the transcript)

A tax haven is a country that offers foreign businesses and individuals minimal or no tax liability for their bank deposits in a politically and economically stable environment. They have tax advantages for corporations and for the very wealthy, and obvious potential for misuse in illegal tax avoidance schemes. Companies and wealthy individuals may use tax havens legally as a means of stashing money earned abroad while avoiding higher taxes in the U.S. and other nations. Tax havens may also be used illegally to hide money from tax authorities at home. The tax haven can make this work by being uncooperative with foreign tax authorities. In recent times, tax havens are under increasing international political pressure to cooperate with foreign tax fraud inquiries. Broadly speaking, tax havens are jurisdictions that have very low taxes and no residency requirements for foreign entities and individuals willing to park money in their financial institutions. A combination of lax regulation and secrecy laws enable corporations and individuals to screen some of their income from tax authorities in other nations. The Tax Justice Network maintains a Corporate Tax Haven Index that tracks the jurisdictions that it says are "most complicit" in helping multinational corporations evade taxes. As of 2021, the worst offenders were the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, and Bermuda. Tax havens may be found in another country or merely in a separate jurisdiction. source

Trickle-down economics

(21:19 or p.5 in the transcript)

Trickle-down economics and its policies employ the theory that tax breaks and benefits for corporations and the wealthy will trickle down and eventually benefit everyone. Tools like reduced income tax and capital gains tax breaks are offered to large businesses, investors, and entrepreneurs to stimulate economic growth. The trickle-down theory states that tax breaks and benefits for corporations and the wealthy will trickle down to everyone else. Trickle-down economics involves less regulation and tax cuts for those in high-income tax brackets as well as corporations. While there is no single comprehensive economic policy identified as trickle-down economics, a policy is considered “trickle-down” if it disproportionately benefits wealthy businesses and individuals in the short run but is designed to boost standards of living for all individuals in the long run. Both President Herbert Hoover’s stimulus efforts during the Great Depression and President Ronald Reagan's use of income tax cuts were described as "trickle-down." Critics argue that the added benefits the wealthy receive can distort the economic structure as lower-income earners without an equal tax cut adds to income inequality. Many economists counter that cutting taxes for the poor and working families boosts the economy by increasing spending on goods and services whereas a tax cut for a corporation may go to stock buybacks or increased savings for the wealthy. In December 2020, a London School of Economics report by David Hope and Julian Limberg was released which examined five decades of tax cuts in 18 wealthy nations and found they consistently benefited the wealthy but had no meaningful effect on unemployment or economic growth. source