#spinthis

Sicco Mansholt’s European project

 One of the most prominent figures featured in Frank Westerman’s tour de force De Graanrepubliek -  and in Groninger history - is that of Sicco Mansholt: president of the European Commission, minister of agriculture, mayor of Wieringermeer, resistance fighter and last but not least, Groninger farmer. Mansholt, who promised to be the Groninger golden boy, the one to bring the north closer to The Hague, still remains a controversial figure, twenty-three years after his passing. Mansholt, the red farmer, the evergreen contrarian who saved the Dutch farms from falling prices and international competition, had to see in 1971 a black coffin with his name painted on, carried by farmers protesting in the wake of his European agricultural plan. An excellent character for a Spin This dilemma, then. The main questions: are principles universal? Can one as a politician expect mercy from a disfavored constituency? 

Minister of agriculture: nooit meer honger

Post-war Netherlands was far from being a happy place. Apart from the misery of war, it was of paramount importance to restore economic stability and boost production for a growing population that had too little for too long. A content volk was key to avoiding another European war, a central concern. As minister of agriculture, Mansholt saw the need to protect farmers and provide them with certainty. This, he envisioned in a classically socialist way: he established a minimum price for grain, which reassured farmers, providing them with the ability to plan ahead and, in turn, greatly encouraged them to invest more and mechanise. Part of this policy was protectionist, imposing heavy levies to protect the sector from the growing foreign industry that produced at a considerable lower cost. Mansholt’s recipe was a resounding success. Partly thanks to the broader economic bonanza, production soared and large scale farms mechanised at great speeds. He went on to serve as minister of agriculture from the end of the war until 1958, when he was appointed European Commissioner.

Mansholt Plan: the European years

The experience during his time as minister of agriculture made Mansholt the perfect candidate for EU common agricultural policy. Prime Minister Drees, when told of his appointment, famously cried ‘Finally we are rid of him’. Dutch politicians could finally go about their business without the pig-headed, stalwart socialist Mansholt. 

As vice-president of the Commission, Sicco had to tackle an existential threat to the future of European integration: the over-supply of produce, partly a consequence of his previous policies on the national level. The solution he brought to the Commission rested on three pillars: old school socialist central planning, protection of large scale, efficient farmers, and an elimination of five million small scale farmers. Early retirement plans, ample vacations and subsidized education for farmers that were to change professions were all encompassed in the Mansholt plan. When the European farmers took it to the streets in 1971 to protest the plan, a sign held by a protester read ‘Hitler exterminated the Jews, Mansholt exterminated the farmers’. In a way, they were being robbed of their livelihood and their tradition.

The upheaval created by this plan made the Commission reject it in its original state and only pass it after heavy editing. Concretely, the systematic favouring of large scale, mechanised farms meant that though many of the European farmers did retire early or changed professions, the surplus problem remained: technological innovation and economies of scale exponentially increased production of the remaining farmers in the long run. A truly mixed bag.

Could the German electorate end the reign of the most powerful woman in the world?

Angela Merkel has been in power since 2005. She is seen by many as the evergreen, strong leader of the massive economic and cultural power that is Germany. Merkel is the widely-respected champion of the EU, and after the election of Donald Trump as US president, some even claim she is the new leader of the free world. In September, she will face yet another federal election.

This week’s dilemma is thus, is it worth it to fix something that isn’t broken? Will progressive Germans opt for an alternative to Merkel? How well can the country cope with the uncertainty that comes with new leadership?

Germans are used to very long terms which allow leadership to pursue long-term strategies. Before Merkel, Schröder served as chancellor for 7 years and before him, the giant of German reunification, the late Helmut Kohl, served for 16 years. The past 12 years of CDU government have brought economic prosperity, an almost absolute control of EU economic affairs and a centre stage position in world affairs. Younger voters cannot even remember a Germany without Merkel. It brought too, an ever closer European Union. With a GDP of 48839 USD per capita and an unemployment rate of 4%, the economic performance of Merkel’s Germany is beyond any doubt.

On the other hand, Merkel is perceived by the left wing as the antiquated, conservative face of an EU that has much to improve. Last week’s vote on the proposal for the legalisation of same sex marriages shows precisely this other side of the coin. Although it is an often forgotten fact, Merkel is the head of the Christian Democratic Union, and holds traditional values dear. Her negative vote on the proposal disappointed many, including other EU members. This suggests that perhaps Merkel’s views are not entirely fit for modern times or younger, liberal voters. The surge of Eurosceptical populism, though tamed by electoral defeats in the Netherlands and France, still poses a threat to Merkel. For most Europeans, Merkel is the unofficial head of the Union, and the critique to the immigration and refugee policy, democratic deficit and lack of accountability is all attributable to her. Even after Macron’s big win, the mainstream EU project is a hard sell for a national campaign and could bring problems for the CDU’s aspirations.  

The contender: Schulz and the Social Democrats

Martin Schulz, chairman of the Social Democrats, has had a bit of a rollercoaster in the build-up to this election. In February, the ex-president of the European Parliament had a spectacular surge in the polls, even surpassing favourite Merkel; something that hadn’t happened in more than ten years. Schulz lost his lead lately, with the status quo gaining terrain and placing Mutti comfortably ahead. With his momentum lost, Schulz is attempting to present himself as similar to Merkel but ostensibly more 2017: staunchly pro-EU, socially liberal and closer to the German youth. His chances, though, don’t look as promising as they once did.

Popular opinion barometer for Mauricio Macri’s Cambiemos

Since 2009, Argentina’s primary elections are held openly, simultaneously, and obligatorily, in a new sort of electoral contest called the PASO. This new contest brings more participation to the usually obscure, undemocratic way in which candidates are chosen within some parties in Argentina. The PASO affects disproportionately traditional parties with larger bases than newer ones. The latter ones have smaller bases that depend more on the personal appeal of their leaders and are likely to present only one candidate, assuring their election. At their best, the PASO offer transparency and a bigger role for the electorate, which is now able to not only vote for/against the ruling party but to give feedback for parties to which individual voters might be sympathetic towards but not necessarily a member thereof. Party membership is not necessary for participation in the PASO. At their worst, the PASO create an irrelevant election which produces low turnouts, is costly, and does not stop any candidate at risk of losing an election from breaking away from party lines into a new organisation, ensuring their participation in the general elections.

Cambiemos

Led by President Macri, wide government coalition Cambiemos has mainly presented one candidate for the most important spots, rendering the PASO internally irrelevant. For Cambiemos, this election is a first indication of how things are going for the Macri administration. Given the strong polatisation of the Argentine society, divided into kirchneristas and anti-kirchneristas, Macri can still count with a big portion of society which dreads a possible return of Cristina Fernández to power for support. Essentially, the biggest problem Cambiemos faces is one of economic performance. Macri’s plan of trade liberalisation and re-inclusion into the global arena is taking longer than expected to bear tangible fruits and the people are growing impatient. Long standing conflicts with trade unions are compromising the day-to-day operation of the country. Thankfully for Macri, ex-president Cristina Fernández decided to make a grand comeback, running for senator in her own political space. This gives Macri considerable leeway, given he can present Cambiemos once again as the opposition to Fernández’s politics, surely galvanising more votes his way.

On the other hand, fissures have emerged within the ruling coalition. Patricio Lousteau, once rising star of the UCR and former ambassador to the US for Cambiemos, has rebelled and set up his own political organisation to run against veteran Elisa Carrió for deputy for the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires, with decent chances of winning.

CFK & the Partido Justicialista

Ex-president Cristina Fernández opted to run outside of her party, the Partido Justicialista, to avoid a costly leadership showdown. Opposition Partido Justicialista now has to open up their primaries to the public, while still hurting from the presidential defeat of 2015 and facing leadership challenges for many key positions. Their ace is Florencio Randazzo, frustrated presidential candidate in 2015. Cristina running proves again the fact that popular candidates can avert potentially embarrassing campaigns by, basically, flying solo.

The PJ’s position is increasingly precarious, still licking their wounds and not being able to show themselves as a mature, more progressive alternative to Cambiemos. Cristina’s candidacy effectively killed most of its general appeal and a rude awakening is in order for them, as their image of the party for the people is increasingly in jeopardy.

Massa’s 1País is another force to reckon, with Margarita Stolbizer’s backing, providing Argentinean Peronists with an alternative outside of their own party that is proving to be significant in the polls.