H.E. Abdulla Shahid (left), former President of the UN General Assembly, and Collen Kelapile (center), former UN ambassador to Botswana and former vice-president of the UN Economic and Social Council, speak as panelists at the launch event of ICO's flagship report. Credit: John Okyo Nyaku/UN

By Naureen Hossain
UNITED NATIONS, Dec 9 2025 (IPS)

More than one year since its adoption, the UN Pact for the Future is held up as a critical framework for countries to address today’s issues through global cooperation. Its agenda for global governance and sustainable development is ambitious, and it is for this reason the Pact poses implementation challenges when it comes to the direct impact on local communities. It will require the joint efforts of governments, civil society and international organizations to achieve the goals laid out in the Pact.

The efforts of the International Communities Organisation (ICO), a UK-based international NGO, demonstrate what implementing the Pact would look like. Since 2016, ICO has worked to empower minority communities in conflict-affected areas through education and capacity-building opportunities. ICO focuses on directly supporting efforts to build up underrepresented groups’ involvement in community initiatives and diplomatic dialogue and address systemic, societal inequalities.

On December 3, ICO launched its flagship report, For Our Future: Best Practice for the Implementation of the UN Pact for the Future, at the UN Headquarters in New York, presenting a practical framework to support UN member states in advancing the objectives outlined in the Pact for the Future. Several Permanent Missions to the UN, including Bahrain, Guyana, Hungary, Kuwait, Samoa, Singapore, Tajikistan, Tonga, and Uganda, co-sponsored the event.

The UN Pact for the Future represents a shared set of global commitments to sustainable development, peace and security, and redefining global governance for member states. While its adoption marks a decisive moment of global consensus, there remains the challenge of translating the Pact’s guiding principles into meaningful action at the national and regional levels.  Through its ‘Best Practices’ blueprint, the ICO report distills their findings into an adaptable methodology designed to equip policymakers with the tools they need to implement the Pact’s goals effectively.

James Holmes, ICO founder and Secretary General, said, “The Pact reminds us that the strength of nations is measured not only by the power of their armies or the size of their economies, but also by the inclusiveness of their societies and the recognition of all who live within.” “How we treat minority peoples, those who are few in number, vulnerable, or historically marginal, is the true test of our progress and the true test of whether the fact for the future is being successful.”

H.E. Abdulla Shahid, ICO International Ambassador and former President of the 76th United Nations General Assembly, said it was crucial for the world to unite.

“The UN Pact for the Future calls for renewed unity in tackling humanity’s greatest challenges. This report demonstrates that lasting peace is built not only at negotiation tables but also through empowering communities themselves, ensuring that no group is left behind.”

“As UN Secretary-General António Guterres noted at the opening of the ‘Summit of the Future’ in September 2024, ‘21st-century challenges require 21st-century solutions: frameworks that are networked and inclusive and that draw on the expertise of all humanity.’

He added that the ICO’s report embodies this principle, showing how global aspirations can intersect with local action.

Prominent UN diplomats and civil society members were present at the launch event, demonstrating and remarking on their commitment to the Pact for the Future, and specifically to ICO’s work on the ground. Current and former high-ranking UN officials were also in attendance.

“One year after the adoption of the Pact, this discussion is timely,” said Themba Kalua, the UN Director, Pact for the Future Implementation Kalua remarked during the event. “While the world has grown more complex since the adoption of the Pact for the Future, the Pact continues to be central in realizing multilateralism, navigating the current geopolitical complexities and shaping our collective action on the global agenda.”

Kalua noted the efforts made by the UN system towards the Pact, including global panels on the governance of artificial intelligence (AI) and the political declarations that emerged from UN conferences on social development in Qatar and financing for development in Spain. He expressed that the Pact was a “strategic priority” for the UN and its Secretary-General, António Guterres.

“From our side in the UN system and the Secretariat, we are committed to doing our part in supporting the implementation of the Pact,” Kalua told IPS.

Presenting the report, ICO’s UN Programme Manager Mia Sawjani broke down its findings and recommendations. She emphasized that countries would need to empower and promote the agency of local actors. This includes building up their capacity and skills to enact positive change in their communities. Countries must recognize adaptability in assessing situations on the ground, particularly in conflict settings that transform institutions and structures.

“The implementation of the Pact can be tangibly realized for all, but particularly to serve marginalized communities. It’s a transformative opportunity and it is our collective responsibility to follow through,” said Sawjani.

After the event, Holmes was heartened by the outpouring of support for ICO’s work, noting that many more countries had agreed to partner with them for future projects. By maintaining their focus on working with minority communities, ICO can “play a major global role” in implementing the Pact for Future.

“I have a big vision, and I have a lot of ambition for ICO,” Holmes told IPS. “We already have a global team, and I see that growing, and I see us having a bigger and bigger role in helping to implement the Pact.”

The launch event of ICO’s flagship report on the UN Pact for the Future at UNHQ in New York. The event was attended by high-ranking UN diplomats. Credit: John Okyo Nyaku/UN

Local actors and stakeholders, namely governments, academia, the private sector and civil society, would play a key role in implementing the Pact’s agenda. Organizations like ICO could serve as a bridge to translate the issues to the national context.

“The more we are able to bridge communities, the more successful it will be for states to deal with Track I diplomacy,” Shahid said to IPS, referencing the formal channel of diplomacy between governments on international issues.

Implementing the Pact for the Future must also mean recognizing the specific needs and challenges that these countries face. Island states like Samoa and Tonga, for example, are uniquely impacted by climate change, energy, and the global financial structures that need to better serve developing countries.

“For us in the Pacific, progress is measured not by rhetoric, but by real improvements that are felt in our villages, outer islands and vulnerable communities,” said Viliami Va’inga Tōnē, the Permanent Representative of Tonga.

Accountability and transparency will also be crucial to ensure countries follow through on the promises of the Pact. This must be present at all levels. Participants at the event emphasized the need for monitoring mechanisms that would measure progress.

The timing of the report coincides with the ongoing reform negotiations under the UN80 Initiative introduced this year. Discussions around the Pact went hand in hand with recognizing the critical step toward reforming the UN system that will optimize its ability to live up to its founding principles and the Pact’s promises.

If the Pact represents ‘what’ the UN and member states need to achieve in the global agenda, then UN80 represents ‘how’ the UN can implement the agenda.

“The UN80 initiative is really part of the UN response to how it can deliver on the ground,” said Fatumanava-o-Upolu III Dr. Pa’olelei Luteru, the Permanent Representative of Samoa. He said to IPS, “When you look at all the individual actions that need to be taken, these are at the global level, the UN [level], regional level, and national level. They’re all important, because we can’t continue to work in silence. Everything is interconnected now. So we need to make those connections and work together, and you don’t want duplication.”

While New York hosts reform discussions around the UN and its mandates, the organization’s impact will ultimately be felt by local communities across the world.

Dr. Agnes Mary Chimbiri-Molande, Permanent Representative of Malawi, told IPS that the people who serve in multilateral systems like the UN need to “renew or even rebuild trust” with local communities. At a time when people are questioning the UN’s relevance, she said, these discussions must be held and all perspectives need to be respected.

“We need to hear the voices of the local people. Because here we are working for them. We are not working for ourselves,” Chimbiri-Molande said. “So in fact, to be hearing the voices of those peoples, it’s very, very important to inform our work here, whether we are making an impact or we are making differences in the lives of the people in the community.”

Shahid reiterated that the decisions made in the halls of UN Headquarters will affect local communities, adding that the UN’s success is also contingent on its partnerships with civil society and how important it is for civil society to recognize the UN’s relevance.

During his time as President of the General Assembly from 2021-2022, the world was in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. His ‘presidency of hope’ championed the progress made by the international system despite the challenges brought on by the pandemic. He also made efforts to promote inclusivity by opening the General Assembly to more participants, including civil society groups.

Shahid invited young diplomats from underrepresented member states to the President’s office to witness international diplomacy firsthand.

Even after his presidency ended, he told IPS, he wanted to continue to deliver on the ideals that defined his tenure.

“I thought that there’s no need to end the presidency of hope after one year. Let us keep delivering the message of hope through other platforms. And ICO provides me the platform, because it is a platform through which I can actually reach out to communities at [the] household level and inspire them not to give up. Keep working, keep aiming to change the status.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

An amendment to Hungary’s constitution includes the banning and criminalisation of Pride marches and their organisers. Credit: Sara Rampazzo/Unsplash

By Ed Holt
BRATISLAVA, May 13 2025 (IPS)

A controversial amendment to Hungary’s constitution has left the country’s LGBTQI community both defiant and fearful, rights groups have said.

The amendment, passed by parliament on April 14, includes, among others, the banning and criminalisation of Pride marches and their organisers, with penalties including large fines and, in certain cases, imprisonment.

It also allows for the use of real-time facial recognition technologies for the identification of protestors.

It has been condemned by domestic and international rights groups and members of the European Parliament (MEPs) as an assault on not just the LGBTQI community but wider human rights.

And there are now fears it will lead to a rise in violence against LGBTQI people whose rights have been gradually eroded in recent years under populist prime minister Viktor Orban’s authoritarian regime.

“There is serious concern that this legislative package could lead to an increase in threats, harassment, and violence against LGBTI communities in Hungary. When authorities criminalise Pride organisers and create a chilling effect on peaceful assembly, it not only emboldens hostile rhetoric but also signals impunity for those who wish to intimidate or harm LGBTI people,” Katja Štefanec Gärtner, Communications and Media Officer, ILGA-Europe, told IPS.

“The risks are not theoretical. Pride marches have long been a target for extremist groups, and this legal crackdown sends a dangerous message: that state institutions may no longer protect those marching but instead criminalise them. This creates an unsafe and unpredictable environment for all those standing up for human rights and democratic freedoms,” she added.

The amendment codifies legislation already passed in March banning LGBTQI events. It was met with widespread outrage in the LGBTQI community in Hungary. But there was also defiance, with Pride organisers insisting the event would go ahead.

Budapest’s mayor, Gergely Karácsony, also backed the organisers, pledging last month to help them find a way to hold the event despite the new legislation.

But while LGBTQI activists have said they will not give in to the new law, groups working with the community say some LGBTQI people have been shaken by the legislation.

“Depending on who you speak to, the mood now among the LGBTQI community is one of fear and worry or defiance,” Luca Dudits, press spokesperson for the Hatter Society, one of Hungary’s largest LGBTQI NGOs, told IPS.

“We will see how the new provisions [in the amendment] will affect the lives of LGBTQI people in the upcoming months, especially in June, which is Pride month, with the march taking place on the 28^th,” she added, noting that after legislation was passed in 2021 banning the depiction and promotion of “diverse gender identities and sexual orientations” to under 18s, there had been  “a wave of violence and discrimination against LGBTQI people”.

“I’m hoping this will not be the case this time. A lot of people have expressed their solidarity and said that they will attend the Pride March for the first time because of this shameful constitutional amendment,” Dudits said.

Outside Hungary, organisations and politicians have also raised the alarm over the legislation.

In a letter sent to the European Commission (EC) on April 16, dozens of LGBTQI and human rights organisations demanded the EC take immediate action to ensure the event can go ahead and that people can safely attend.

They said the ban on LGBTQI events was an attack on EU fundamental rights of freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of expression and that its provisions marked a significant infringement on privacy and personal freedoms protected under EU law.

Meanwhile, MEPs among a delegation which visited Hungary from April 14-16 attacked the ban and said they were calling on the EC to request the European Court of Justice to suspend the law pending further legal action.

One of the MEPs, Krzysztof Smiszek, of the Polish New Left, said the new law had led to a rise in violent attacks and hate crimes against the LGBTQI community in Hungary.

The government has defended the amendment, with Orban saying after the vote in parliament that it was designed to “protect children’s development, affirming that a person is born either male or female, and standing firm against drugs and foreign interference”.

The amendment also declares that children’s rights take precedence over any other fundamental right (except the right to life) and codifies in the Constitution the recognition of only two sexes – male and female – essentially denying transgender and intersex identities.

It also allows for the suspension of Hungarian citizenship for some dual nationals if they are deemed to pose a threat to Hungary’s security or sovereignty.

Many observers see the ban and the other measures included in the amendment as part of a wider attempt by Orban’s regime to suppress dissent and weaken rights protections as it looks to consolidate its grip on power by scapegoating parts of the population, including not just LGBTQI people but migrants and civil society groups, to appeal to conservative voters.

“Authoritarian governments around the world have discovered a playbook for keeping in power – it involves vilifying certain communities. That’s the logic behind attacks on LGBTQI communities and that’s what’s behind this. I don’t think Orban cares one way or the other about LGBT people; it’s just that they are an easy target,” Neela Ghoshal, Senior Director of Law, Policy, and Research at LGBTQI group Outright International, told IPS.

“Once you prohibit one form of protest or dissent, it becomes easier to prohibit all forms of dissent. I really do think Orban wants to prohibit all forms of dissent. He is seeking absolute power; he is not interested in the traditional architecture of democracy, i.e., checks and balances and accountability,” she added.

Dudits also pointed out the absurdity of the reasoning behind the government’s defence of the amendment.

“It is true that a large majority of society are either male or female. However, there are some people who have sex characteristics (chromosomes, hormones, external and internal sex organs, and body structure) that are common to both sexes. Intersex conditions occur in many different forms and cover a wide range of health conditions. The amendment is therefore even scientifically unsound, contradicting the very biological reality that it claims to be defending so belligerently,” she said.

If picking up voter support is behind the regime’s attacks on its perceived critics, it is unclear to what extent this policy is working.

Parliamentary elections are due to be held in Hungary in April next year and current polls put Orban’s Fidesz party – which has been in power since 2010 – behind the main opposition party, Tisza, amid voter concerns about a struggling economy, a crumbling healthcare system, and alleged government corruption.

Meanwhile, although some MEPs have publicly condemned the amendment, since the parliamentary vote the EC has said only that it needs to analyse the legislative changes to see if they fall foul of EU law but would not hesitate to act if necessary.

Rights groups say EU bodies must take action or risk allowing even greater curbs on freedoms in Hungary under Orban.

“From scapegoating LGBT people to suspending Hungarian citizenship of dual citizens, the Hungarian government is cementing a legal framework that is hostile to the rule of law, equality, and democracy in blatant violation of EU law,” Hugh Williamson, Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch, said in a press release.

“Orban has shown once more his willingness to trample rights and shred protections, and there is no reason to think he won’t continue on this authoritarian path. EU institutions and member states should stand in solidarity with those in Hungary upholding EU values and do everything they can to halt the downward spiral toward authoritarianism,” he added.

Ghoshal said, though, that whatever happens, the LGBTQI community in Hungary would not give up their rights.

“The community has been through cycles of oppression and freedom. The younger members might not be able to remember it, but older members of the community will know what it is like to live under an authoritarian regime; it is in the country’s history. They have also had a taste of freedom too and they will not want to give that up.

“I think there will be a Pride march and I think there could be state violence and arrests there, but the community will remain defiant no matter what,” she said.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Leaders of the centrist Second Reform Era Party hold an anti-corruption rally in central Budapest, Hungary, following the announcement of United States government sanctions against Hungarian Minister Antal Rogan for his involvement in corruption, January 2025. Credit: Catherine Wilson/IPS

By Catherine Wilson
BUDAPEST, Jan 27 2025 (IPS)

The Central European nation of Hungary is officially a democracy. But civil society, the media and democratic norms have increasingly come under threat as the Fidesz-KDNP coalition government, led by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, has entrenched autocratic rule over the past 14 years. Now a new wave of energy and popularity is driving the younger opposition movement into the spotlight ahead of next year’s parliamentary election.

“I believe that no matter how much Fidesz has dismantled the important pillars of democracy and the rule of law and cemented its own reliable cadres in two-thirds of the votes, despite spending hundreds of billions annually on propaganda, it can still be defeated in elections,” 43-year-old Péter Magyar, leader of the Tisza (Respect and Freedom) Party in Hungary, said in a public statement. “Our country says enough is enough.”

Since winning the 2010 national election, the nationalist conservative Fidesz Party has introduced state and legislative measures that have eroded the independence of the judiciary and restricted and censored the media, while there has been greater surveillance and undermining of non-government organizations working on social issues and human rights in the country.

“Hungary is no longer a democracy, not just according to me, not just according to the opposition, but according to independent institutions. And, to be frank, according to most of the voters,” Ferenc Gelencsér, the 34-year-old member of the Hungarian Parliament for the centrist Momentum Movement Party, told IPS in Budapest.

Hungary transitioned to democracy after the end of Communist rule in 1991. Orbán, who was first elected Prime Minister from 1998 to 2002, was a vocal advocate for greater freedom, closer ties with western Europe and supported Hungary joining NATO in 1999. But, after re-election in 2010, his coalition government, which has a two-thirds majority in parliament, has moved toward a model of governance termed ‘illiberal democracy.’

Rising food prices and a struggling economy have contributed to cost of living pressures in Hungary. Credit: Catherine Wilson/IPS

It routinely changes electoral laws and constituency boundaries to its advantage and ensures the country’s major courts, institutions and media are dominated by pro-government figures.

“The rules and regulations that govern the economy, that govern political processes—everything changes depending on what is the current interest of the government party. And there is constant adjustment in a way that constitutional rules don’t really exist anymore in reality, only on paper,” Professor Zsolt Enyedi at the Democracy Institute, Central European University, in Budapest, told IPS. “It is a very uneven playing field… distorted by the fact that the financial resources of the government and pro-government media outnumber the resources of the opposition in a ratio of about 10 to 1.”

They are major factors in Fidesz’s success in the last four consecutive elections. As well, Orbán “speaks the language of average Hungarians” and “alters his rhetoric to changes in the public mood,” Enyedi added. The ruling coalition secured 54.13 percent of votes in the 2022 election, but observers deemed it severely flawed due to media bias and misuse of state resources.

Its right-wing rhetoric has also targeted supporters of human rights and voices critical of its regime. In 2021, civil society organizations, including the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union and Amnesty International, reported to the United Nations that those supporting refugees and vulnerable groups were being vilified by the government, there were frequent denials of freedom of information requests and human rights education programs were being removed from schools.

And while the constitution provides for freedom of expression, “ongoing efforts to sideline voices and perspectives that authorities find unfavourable, including many found at academic institutions, NGOs and media outlets, have discouraged open criticism of the government,” reports Freedom House, which rates Hungary as “partly free” with a score of 65 out of 100.

But Gelencsér says he speaks for the younger generation who want a different future. About 15 percent of Hungary’s population of 9.7 million people are aged 16-29 years and a study of youth published this year by the Foundation for European Progressive Studies reports that two-thirds want to live in a full democracy.

“The core voters of the Momentum [party] are under the age of 49 years and the main two things that matter to these people are democracy, rule of law and the fear of climate change. Most of our voters are looking for an alternative to the government and most of them are youngsters,” Gelencsér said. In another 2021 survey, 51 percent of young Hungarians believed their interests were not represented in national politics, a minority of one in five thought that elections were free and fair and only 19 percent trusted publicly available information.

There is also rising disillusion with the stagnant economy, corruption and poor public services. Hungary’s GDP growth declined from 7.1 percent in 2021 to -0.9 percent last year. And about three quarters of the population earn incomes below the level needed to meet the average cost of living, reports the Hungarian think tank, Equilibrium Institute.

“The atmosphere has changed. There is a general dissatisfaction with the government. In the last couple of years, especially after COVID, the economy is doing rather badly. And there is a general lack of trust in the government to manage these issues,” Enyedi said.

Ferenc Gelencser (Centre), Member of Parliament for the Momentum Movement Party, with MP Akos Hadhazy (Left) and MP Hajnal Miklos (Right), participate in a protest in Budapest in 2023, Hungary. Credit: Momentum Movement

Gelencsér added that “housing is a huge issue for the younger generation; everybody is renting, and our healthcare system and pension system are on the verge of collapse. It would be understandable if we didn’t pay any tax, but there are many different types of tax in this country, and I don’t know where it is going.”

Nepotism is prevalent in government circles and Hungary was ranked the most corrupt nation in the European Union (EU) last year by Transparency International with a score of 42 out of 100.

Increasingly, young people are voting with their feet and the number of citizens emigrating, mostly to western Europe, rose from 19,322 in 2020 to 35,736 in 2023.

But, in the last year, opposition voices have been emboldened by problems facing the government. A major scandal erupted in February 2024 when the government pardoned a man sentenced for obstructing justice in a child abuse case. In January this year, the EU cancelled 1 billion euros in funding to Hungary, which has rising state debt, due to its failure to address corruption and breach of democratic norms. And Antal Rogan, a government official, was subject to sanctions by the United States for his role in state corruption.

The Second Reform Era, a centrist party established in 2023, responded to the news. And on a late January afternoon, with the temperature close to zero, a crowd of several hundred supporters gathered on the bank of the Danube River in Budapest. Muffled in puffa jackets and woollen beanies, some holding flame-lit beacons, they came to hear party leaders call out the scourge of corruption and support for the sanctions.

But the resurgence of the Tisza Party since early last year under the new leadership of Magyar, an energetic and media-savvy lawyer and former member of the government, is galvanising a public shift. After last year’s pardon scandal, he stood to demand a new direction for the country based on transparent governance and rule of law while advocating for people’s grievances, including the neglected rural electorate. In an IDEA Institute public poll this month, Tisza led with public support of 33 percent, compared to 26 percent for the government.

‘We will give back to the country what has been taken away from it: decency, self-respect, justice and hope for a better life,’ Magyar said in a New Year’s message.

The ruling coalition will not miss any tactics to dominate the next parliamentary election in 2026. But, to date, the momentum of Tisza’s rise appears unstoppable.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

By Roberto Savio
ROME, Jan 27 2016 (IPS)

The rich and the powerful, who meet every year at the World Economic Forum (WEF), were in a gloomy mood this time. Not only because the day they met close to eight trillion dollars has been wiped off global equity markets by a “correction”. But because no leader could be in a buoyant mood.

Roberto Savio

German Chancellor Angela Merkel is losing ground because of the way she handled the refugee crisis. French President Francois Hollande is facing decline in the polls that are favoring Marine Le Pen. Spanish president Mariano Rajoy practically lost the elections. Italian President Matteo Renzi is facing a very serious crisis in the Italian banking system, which could shatter the third economy of Europe. And the leaders from China, Brazil, India, Nigeria and other economies from the emerging countries (as they are called in economic jargon), are all going through a serious economic slowdown, which is affecting also the economies of the North. The absence of the presidents of Brazil and China was a telling sign.

However the last Davos (20-23 January) will remain in the history of the WEF, as the best example of the growing disconnection between the elites and the citizens. The theme of the Forum was “how to master the fourth revolution,” a thesis that Klaus Schwab the founder and CEO of Davos exposed in a book published few weeks before. The theory is that we are now facing a fusion of all technologies, that will completely change the system of production and work.

The First Industrial Revolution was to replace, at beginning of the 19th century, human power with machines. Then at the end of that century came the Second Industrial Revolution, which was to combine science with industry, with a total change of the system of production. Then came the era of computers, at the middle of last century, making the Third Industrial Revolution, the digital one. And now, according Schwab, we are entering the fourth revolution, where workers will be substituted by robots and mechanization.

The Swiss Bank UBS released in the conference a study in which it reports that the Fourth Revolution will “benefit those holding more.” In other words, the rich will become richer…it is important for the uninitiated to know that the money that goes to the superrich, is not printed for them. In other words, it is money that is sucked from the pockets of people.

Davos created two notable reactions: the first came with the creation of the World Social Forum (WSF), in 1991, where 40,000 social activists convened to denounce as illegitimate the gathering of the rich and powerful in Davos. They said it gave the elite a platform for decision making, without anything being mandated by citizens, and directed mainly to interests of the rich.

The WSF declared that “another world is possible,” in opposition to the Washington Consensus, formulated by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and the Treasury of the United States. The consensus declared that since capitalism triumphed over Communism, the path to follow was to dismantle the state as much as possible, privatize, slash social costs which are by definition unproductive, and eliminate any barrier to the free markets. The problem was that, to avoid political contagion, the WSF established rules which reduced the Forums to internal debating and sharing among the participants, without the ability to act on the political institutions. In 2001, Davos did consider Porto Alegre a dangerous alternative; soon it went out of its radar.

At the last Davos, the WSF was not any point of reference. But it was the other actor, the international aid organization Oxfam, which has been presenting at every WEF a report on Global Wealth.

Those reports have been documenting how fast the concentration of wealth at an obscene level is creating a world of inequality not known since the First Industrial Revolution. In 2010, 388 individuals owned the same wealth as 3.6 billion people, half of humankind. In 2014, just 80 people owned as much as 3.8 billion people. And in 2015, the number came down to 62 individuals. And the concentration of wealth is accelerating. In its report of 2015, Oxfam predicted that the wealth of the top 1 per cent would overtake the rest of the population by 2016: in fact, that was reached within ten months. Twenty years ago, the superrich 1 per cent had the equivalent of 62 per cent of the world population.

It would have been logical to expect that those who run the world, looking at the unprecedented phenomena of a fast growing inequality, would have connected Oxfam report with that of UBS, and consider the new and immense challenge that the present economic and political system is facing. Also because the Fourth Revolution foresees the phasing out of workers from whatever function can be taken by machines. According to Schwab, the use of robots in production will go from the present 12 per cent to 55 per cent in 2050. This will cause obviously a dramatic unemployment, in a society where the social safety net is already in a steep decline.

Instead, the WEF largely ignored the issue of inequality, echoing the present level of lack of interest in the political institutions. We are well ahead in the American presidential campaign, and if it were not for one candidate, Bernie Sanders, the issue would have been ignored or sidestepped by the other 14 candidates. There is no reference to inequality in the European political debate either, apart from ritual declarations: refugees are now a much more pressing issue. It is a sign of the times that the financial institutions, like IMF and the World Bank, are way ahead of political institutions, releasing a number of studies on how inequality is a drag on economic development, and how its social impact has a very negative impact on the central issue of democracy and participation. The United Nations has done of inequality a central issue. Alicia Barcena, the Executive secretary of CEPAL, the Regional Center for Latin America, has also published in time for Davos a very worrying report on the stagnation in which the region is entering, and indicating the issue of inequality as an urgent problem.

But beside inequality, also the very central issue of climate change was largely ignored. All this despite the participants in the Paris Conference on Climate, recognized that the engagements taken by all countries will bring down the temperature of no more than 3.7 degrees, when a safe target would be 1.5 degrees. In spite of this very dangerous failure, the leaders in Paris gave lot of hopeful declarations, stating that the solution will come from the technological development, driven by the markets. It would have been logical to think, that in a large gathering of technological titans, with political leaders, the issue of climate change would have been a clear priority.

So, let us agree on the lesson from Davos. The rich and powerful had all the necessary data for focusing on existential issues for the planet and its inhabitants. Yet they failed to do so. This is a powerful example of the disconnection between the concern of citizens and their elite. The political and financial system is more and more self reverent: but is also fast losing legitimacy in the eyes of many people. Alternative candidates like Donald Trump or Matteo Salvini in Italy, or governments like those of Hungary and Poland, would have never been possible without a massive discontent. What is increasingly at stage is democracy itself? Are we entering in a Weimar stage of the world?

(End)

Excerpt:

By Roberto Savio
ROME, Jun 9 2015 (IPS)

Only 50 years of Cold War (and the fact that German Chancellor Angela Merkel grew up in East Germany) can possibly explain the strange political power of the United States over Europe.

After a bilateral meeting between Merkel and U.S. President Barack Obama (so much for transparency and participation), the Jun. 7-8 G7 summit opened in Germany and we found out that there had been a trade-off.

Roberto Savio

Merkel agreed that Europe should continue the sanctions against Russia – and so the other members of the G7 duly agreed – and Obama toned down the U.S. position on Greece.

That position had been forcefully expressed by U.S. Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew a few days earlier to European leaders: solve the Greek problem, or this will have a global impact that we cannot afford. This had suddenly accelerated negotiations, with the hope then that everything would be solved before the G7 summit.

But Greece did not accept the plan of the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, which was suspiciously close to International Monetary Fund (IMF) positions.

At the G7 summit, Obama softened the U.S. position on Greece, and even said that “Athens must implement the necessary reforms.”

Obstinacy on sanctions against Russia ignores the fact that, in a very delicate economic moment, Europe has lost a considerable part of its exports because of Russia’s retaliatory block on European imports. It is also difficult to see what advantage there is for Europe in pushing Russia into the arms of China. We will soon be seeing joint naval exercise between the two countries, which will only escalate tensions.

But let us look at Greece given that its tug of war with Europe has now been going on for five years.

Let us recall briefly. Greece had been spending much more than it could by distributing public jobs under any government, by giving easy pensions to everyone, and so on. Then, in 2009, the centre-left Panhellenic Socialist Movement (PASOK) won the elections and we found out that the figures Athens had been giving Brussels were false.

The real deficit stood at almost 12.5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), confirmation of what the European Union and its bodies had long suspected but which it had done nothing about.“Europe is now led by Germany and the Germans are convinced that what they did at home is valid everywhere. Together with the countries of northern Europe, they look on the people of southern Europe as unethical, people who want to enjoy life beyond their means”

To avoid going into the agonising details of the continuous negotiations between Greece and the European Union, I jump to the January elections this year which the left-wing Syriza party won and its leader Alexis Tsipras was named Prime Minister on a clear programme: stop the austerity programme imposed by the “Troika” – IMF, EU and the European Central Bank (ECB) – on behalf of the European countries, led by Germany, Netherlands, Austria and Finland.

Greece is on its knees. Officially, unemployment has gone from 11.9 percent in 2010 to 25.5 percent today, but it is widely considered to be around 30 percent. Among young people, it is close to 60 percent. GDP has gone into a 25 percent decline, Greek citizens have lost about 30 percent of their revenues and public spending has been slashed to the point that hospitals have great difficulty in functioning.

Yet, the request (order) of the “Troika” is simple – cut everything the deficit has been eliminated.

So, for example, cut pensions, which have been already been cut twice. In any case, this would reap a paltry 100 million euros but would cripple people who are living on less than 685 euro a month. Or, raise VAT on tourism, from the present 6.5 percent to 13.6 percent, which would be a deadly blow to Greece’s only important source of income.

This is the plan presented by Juncker, whose arrival as head of the European Commission was accompanied by a grandiose Marshall Plan for Europe, a plan which has since disappeared totally from the scene.

In an article a few days ago titled ‘Europe’s Last Act?”, Joseph E. Stiglitz, Nobel laureate in economics, argues that the idea of austerity as a uniform recipe for Europe is missing reality.

“The troika badly misjudged the macroeconomic effects of the program that they imposed. According to their published forecasts, they believed that, by cutting wages and accepting other austerity measures, Greek exports would increase and the economy would quickly return to growth. They also believed that the first debt restructuring would lead to debt sustainability.

“The troika’s forecasts have been wrong, and repeatedly so. And not by a little, but by an enormous amount. Greece’s voters were right to demand a change in course, and their government is right to refuse to sign on to a deeply flawed program.”

It is on austerity that the paths of the United States and the European Union divide.

The United States has embarked on investing for growth, despite pressure from the Republican party for austerity, and the U.S. economy is picking up again.

But Europe is now led by Germany and the Germans are convinced that what they did at home is valid everywhere. Together with the countries of northern Europe, they look on the people of southern Europe as unethical, people who want to enjoy life beyond their means. As The Economist put it in an article on the Greek crisis: “In German eyes this crisis is all about profligacy”.

It did not help that another very minor crisis – that of Cyprus between 2012 and 2013 – confirmed Germany’s view about the profligacy of the south of Europe. In the case of Cyprus, the “Troika” settled the crisis at a cost of 10 billion euros.

There is widespread agreement that the crisis of Greece, which represents just two percent of the total European budget, could have been settled at the beginning with a 50-60 billion euro loan. But only since Tsipras became prime minister, and with popular support started to refuse to accept the creditors’ plan, has Greece has become a very important issue.

There is now talk of a “Grexit”, or Greece’s exit from the European Union. This would have a cascade effect, and it would mean the end of Europe as a common dream, of a Europe based on solidarity and communality.

In the G7, Obama has insisted on investments and demand as a way out of the crisis. Merkel has again repeated that Europe does not need stimulus financed by debt, but stimulus coming from the reform of inefficient economies. At this point, perhaps “everything is always about something else”, as the late award-winning Sri Lankan journalist Tarzie Vittachi once told me.

An enlightening comment on the Greek situation has come from Hugo Dixon writing in The New York Times of Jun. 7. The Greek prime minister “will have to choose between saving his country and sticking to a bankrupt far-left ideology. If he is smart, he can secure a few more concessions from creditors and a goodish deal for Greece. If not, he will drag the country into the abyss.”

And then, it is interesting to note that one of the main reasons for being so hard with Syriza is that the citizens of Spain, Portugal and Ireland, who were the first to swallow the bitter pill of austerity, would revolt if they saw a different path for Greece, and it just happens that those countries have conservative governments.

The entire European political system reeled with shock at the victory of Syriza, and again a few days ago at the victories of the left-wing anti-establishment Podemos party in municipal elections in Spain.

For some reason, the very authoritarian and conservative government of Viktor Orbán in Hungary, the victory of the very conservative Andrzej Duda as president in Poland, as well as the rise of Matteo Salvini’s anti-European and anti-immigration Lega Nord party in Italy create no panic, not even if Salvini looks to Russian President Vladimir Putin and Marine Le Pen, leader of France’s right-wing Front National, as figures of reference.

So, the real issue now in the case of Greece is to punish an anti-establishment figure like Tsipras and show that the radical left cannot run a country.

Who really believes that there will masses of citizens in Madrid, Lisbon or Dublin taking to the streets to protest if Europe does a somersault of solidarity and idealism, and lowers its requests or dilutes them over more time? (END/COLUMNIST SERVICE)

Edited by Phil Harris   

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, IPS – Inter Press Service. 

Excerpt:

Lobbying is an integral part of democracy, but multiple scandals throughout Europe demonstrate that a select number of voices with more money and insider contacts can come to dominate political decision-making – usually for their own benefit.

In a report titled ‘Lobbying in Europe: Hidden Influence, Privileged Access’ released Apr. 15, Transparency International said that the lack of clear and enforceable rules and regulations is to blame and called for urgent lobbying reform.

The report from the global civil society coalition against corruption found that of 19 European countries assessed, only seven have some form of dedicated lobbying law or regulation, allowing for nearly unfettered influence of business interests on the daily lives of Europeans.

“In the past five years, Europe’s leaders have made difficult economic decisions that have had big consequences for citizens,” said Elena Panfilova, Vice-Chair of Transparency International. “Those citizens need to know that decision-makers were acting in the public interest, not the interest of a few select players.”

Using international standards and emerging best practice, the report examines lobbying practices as well as whether safeguards are in place to ensure transparent and ethical lobbying in Europe and three core European Union institutions – European Commission, European Parliament and Council of the European Union.

Slovenia comes out at the top with a score of 55 percent, owing to the dedicated lobbying regulation in place, which nevertheless suffers from gaps and loopholes. Cyprus and Hungary rank at the bottom with 14 percent, performing poorly in almost every area assessed, especially when it comes to access to information.

Eurozone crisis countries Italy, Portugal and Spain are among the five worst-performing countries, where lobbying practices and close relations between the public and financial sectors are deemed risky.

Noting that the three E.U. institutions on average achieve a score of 36 percent, Transparency International said that “this is particularly worrying, given that Brussels is a hub of lobbying in Europe and decisions made in the Belgian capital affect the entire region and beyond.”

According to the report, none of the European countries or E.U. institutions assessed “adequately control the revolving door between public and private sectors, and members of parliament are mostly exempt from pre- and post-employment restrictions and ‘cooling-off periods’, despite being primary targets of lobbying activities.”

“Unchecked lobbying has resulted in far-reaching consequences for the economy, the environment, human rights and public safety,” said Anne Koch, Transparency International’s Director for Europe and Central Asia. The research highlights problematic lobbying practices across a wide range of sectors and industries in Europe, including alcohol, tobacco, automobiles, energy, finance and pharmaceuticals.

“Unfair and opaque lobbying practices are one of the key corruption risks currently facing Europe,” said Panfilova. “European countries and E.U. institutions must adopt robust lobbying regulations that cover the broad range of lobbyists who influence – directly or indirectly – any political decisions, policies or legislation. Otherwise, the lack of lobby control threatens to undermine democracy across the region.”

Edited by Phil Harris    

Billboard for the referendum called to strengthen a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and same-sex adoption in Slovakia in February. It says: WE ARE DECIDING ABOUT CHILDREN'S FUTURES. LET'S PROTECT THEIR RIGHT TO A MOTHER AND FATHER. Credit: Pavol Stracansky/IPS

By Pavol Stracansky
BRATISLAVA, Mar 15 2015 (IPS)

Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) groups in Central and Eastern Europe, which still faced mixed prospects as they fight for rights and acceptance, are now taking some heart from the “failure” of a referendum in Slovakia, a member of the European Union.

Last month, a referendum called to strengthen a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and same-sex adoption in Slovakia was declared invalid after only just over 20 percent of voters turned out.

The controversial plebiscite was heavily criticised by international rights groups, which said it pandered to homophobic discrimination and was allowing human rights issues affecting a minority group to be decided by a popular majority vote.

The campaigning ahead of the vote had often been bitter and vitriolic, including public homophobic statements by clergy, and a controversial negative commercial about gay adoption, which Slovak TV stations refused to broadcast and eventually only appeared on internet.The reasons behind the relative societal intolerance towards LGBT groups in Central and Eastern Europe vary from entrenched conservative attitudes rooted in countries’ isolation under communism, to local political aims and the influence of the Catholic Church.

The commercial showed a child in an orphanage being told that his new parents were coming to collect him and, after two men appear at the door, asking: “Where’s Mum?”

Activists here say that the referendum’s outcome was a sign that, despite this campaigning, Slovaks know that LGBT people pose “no threat” to society and has positively furthered discussion about allowing registered partnerships in the country.

Martin Macko, head of the Bratislava-based LGBT rights group Inakost, told IPS: “The referendum showed that people consider the family important, but that they do not see same-sex families as a threat to traditional families. The long-term perspective regarding discussions on registered partnerships in Slovakia is positive.”

Importantly, the result has also been welcomed in other parts of Central and Eastern Europe where many LGBT groups still face intolerance and discrimination.

Evelyne Paradis, Executive Director of international LGBT rights group ILGA-Europe told IPS: “LGBT activists across Europe have welcomed the outcome of the Slovak vote … hopefully the referendum will lead to a constructive discussion about equality in Slovakia. At the same time, we know that there is a broad diversity of views in the region which means that much work remains to be done before full equality is realised.”

Compared with Western Europe, attitudes in many countries in Central and Eastern Europe to LGBT people and issues are often much more conservative and in some states actively hostile.

The Czech Republic, whose larger cities have relatively open and vibrant gay communities, is the only country in the region which allows for registered partnerships of same-sex couples.

In other countries, such as Slovakia, Hungary, Croatia and Poland, marriage is defined constitutionally as only between a man and a woman. In January this year, Macedonia’s parliament voted to adopt a similar clause in its constitution.

Adoption by same sex couples is banned in all states in the region while other important legislation relating to LGBT issues is also absent. In Bulgaria, for instance, inadequate legislation means that homophobic crimes are investigated and prosecuted as ‘hooliganism’. This, activists claim, creates a climate of fear for LGBT people.

Poor records on minority rights in general in places like, for instance, Ukraine, mean that while the state may ostensibly be committed to LGBT rights, such communities are in reality extremely vulnerable.

In Russia, legislation actively represses same-sex relationships, with federal laws criminalising promotion of any non-heterosexual lifestyle, while Lithuania has legal provisions banning the promotion of homosexuality.

Deeply negative attitudes towards homosexuals are widespread in some societies. A 2013 survey in Ukraine showed that two-thirds of people thought homosexuality was a perversion, while a study in the same year in Lithuania showed that 61 percent of LGBT people said they had suffered discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Isolated verbal and physical attacks and passive intolerance among more conservative groups are common across the region. But in some countries, specifically Russia, anyone even suspected of being non-heterosexual faces open, organised and sometimes lethally violent persecution.

Natalia Tsymbalova, an LGBT rights activist from St Petersburg, was forced to flee Russia in September last year after receiving death threats. Now claiming asylum in Spain, she was one of at least 12 LGBT activists who left Russia last year.

Speaking from Madrid, she told IPS about the continuing repression of LGBT people in her home country.

She said that although state propaganda campaigns had “switched to ‘Ukrainian fascists’ and the West” being portrayed as the public’s greatest enemy instead of LGBT people since the annexation of Crimea and the start of the Ukraine conflict, “state homophobia has not disappeared”.

“It has just faded into the background,” she added, “no longer making top headlines in the news, but it is still there and it has never left. The number of hate crimes is not falling, and they are being investigated as badly as before.”

The reasons behind the relative societal intolerance towards LGBT groups in Central and Eastern Europe vary from entrenched conservative attitudes rooted in countries’ isolation under communism, to local political aims and the influence of the Catholic Church.

In Slovakia, a strongly Catholic country where the Church’s influence can be extremely strong in many communities, supporters of the referendum welcomed Pope Francis’ personal endorsement of their cause.

It has been speculated that the conservative Alliance for Family movement, which initiated the referendum, is funded by Slovakia’s Catholic Church and that the Church was the driving force behind moves to bring about the vote.

In Lithuania, another strongly Catholic country, Church officials have supported laws restricting LGBT rights and have openly called homosexuality a perversion.

However, some rights activists also say that politicians in countries struggling economically or looking to entrench their own power can often use minorities, including LGBT people, as easy political targets to gain voter support.

ILGA’s Paradis told IPS: “Unfortunately many political leaders use the LGBT community as scapegoats … from activists we often hear that they do this to hide ‘real problems’ in countries, such as youth unemployment, access to education and healthcare. They promote ‘traditional family values’ as the way to rescue society. Sadly, in doing this, political leaders build a climate of intolerance and hatred.”

Saying that Russian politicians are now using homophobia to push wider agendas, Tsymbalova told IPS: “Homophobia plays an important role in the anti-Western rhetoric of President [Vladimir] Putin and his fellows. It is one of the main points of the conservative values that they try to promote and the public still has negative attitudes toward LGBT communities.”

The outcome of the Slovak referendum has left activists there more optimistic about the future for LGBT people in their country.

They are now pushing for discussions with the government about introducing registered partnerships and they hope that LGBT communities in other countries in the region will be heartened by the result or that, at least, people hoping to organise similar referendums will reconsider what they are doing.

Macko of Inakost told IPS: “Religious groups in some Balkan and Baltic countries are considering organising similar referendums and we really hope this will discourage them.”

Paradis told IPS that while the Slovak referendum had already been welcomed by many of its member groups in Central and Eastern Europe, progress on LGBT issues in many countries, including registered partnerships, was unlikely to be swift. “There indeed is more discussion in the region on granting rights to same sex partnerships, but what we see is a very mixed picture.”

However, the outlook for LGBT people in some places remains grim. Tsymbalova told IPS that many LGBT people in her home country have given up hope of any positive changes in the foreseeable future.

“In our community, there is almost no one who believes that the situation for LGBT people in Russia will seriously change for the better any time soon. Under the existing regime, which promotes and exploits homophobia, these changes will not happen and there is almost no hope of a regime change, so expectations are gloomy.”

She added: “Many LGBT activists have either left Russia, like me, or are going to. [As] for same-sex registered partnerships, it would take several decades to be accepted in Russia and I don’t believe I will see this in my lifetime. It is completely out of the question for the next 20 or 30 years.”

Edited by Phil Harris    

Bondok Hassem (left) gets help to mount a mortar inside Zwara´s squat house. Credit: Karlos Zurutuza/IPS

By Karlos Zurutuza
ZWARA, Libya, Dec 5 2014 (IPS)

It could be a squat house anywhere: music is playing non-stop and there is also a radio station and an art exhibition. However, weapons are also on display among the instruments, and most here wear camouflage uniform.

“The house belonged to a former member of the secret services of [Muammar] Gaddafi so we decided to squat it for the local youth in Zwara [an Amazigh enclave 120 km west of Tripoli, on the border with Tunisia],” Fadel Farhad, an electrician who combines his work with the local militia, tells IPS.It could be a squat house anywhere: music is playing non-stop and there is also a radio station and an art exhibition. However, weapons are also on display among the instruments, and most here wear camouflage uniform.

The centre is called “Tifinagh” after the name given to the Amazigh alphabet. Also called Berbers, the Amazigh are native inhabitants of North Africa.

The arrival of the Arabs in the region in the seventh century was the beginning of a slow yet gradual process of Arabisation which was sharply boosted during the four decades in which Muammar Gaddafi (1969-2011) remained in power. Unofficial estimates put the number of Amazighs in this country at around 600,000 – about 10 percent of the total population

Like most of the youngsters at the centre, Farhad knows he can be mobilised at any time. The latest attack on Zwara took place less than a kilometre from here a little over a week ago, when an airstrike hit a warehouse killing two Libyans and six sub-Saharan migrants.

Three years after Gaddafi was toppled, Libya remains in a state of political turmoil that has pushed the country to the brink of civil war. There are two governments and two separate parliaments one based in Tripoli and the other in Tobruk, 1,000 km east of the capital.

Several militias are grouped into two paramilitary alliances: Fajr (“Dawn” in Arabic), led by the Misrata brigades controlling Tripoli, and Karama (“Dignity”) commanded by Khalifa Haftar, a Tobruk-based former army general.

“Here in Zwara we rely on around 5000 men grouped into different militias,” Younis, a militia fighter who prefers not to give his full name, tells IPS. “We never wanted this to happen but the problem is that all our enemies are fighting on Tobruk´s side,” adds the 30-year-old by the pickups lining up at the entrance of the building.

Local militiamen gather outside their squat house in the Amazigh enclave of Zwara. Credit: Karlos Zurutuza/IPS

The polarisation of the conflict in Libya has pushed several Amazigh militias to fight sporadically alongside the coalition led by Misrata, which includes Islamist groups among its ranks.

However, the atmosphere in this squat house seems at odds with religious orthodoxy of any kind, with an unlikely fusion between Amazigh traditional music and death metal blasting from two loudspeakers. This is the work of 30-year-old Bondok Hassem, a well-known local musician who is also an Amazigh language teacher as well as one of the commanders of the Tamazgha militia.

“Both Misrata and Tobruk are striving to become the alpha male in this war. We are all fully aware that, whoever wins this war, they will attack us immediately afterwards so we are forced to defend our land by any means necessary,” laments Hassem between sips of boja, the local firewater.

But can it be international partnerships that hamper an already difficult agreement between both sides?

Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and France are backing Tobruk and Misrata relies mainly on Qatar and Turkey. Meanwhile, NATO officials are seemingly torn between wanting to stay out of the war, and watching anxiously as the violence goes out of control. Today, most of the diplomatic missions have left Tripoli, except for those of Italy and Hungary.

A fragile balance

Moussa Harim is among the Amazigh who seem to feel not too uncomfortable siding with the government in Tripoli. Born in Jadu, in the Amazigh stronghold of the Nafusa mountain range – 100 km south of Tripoli – Harim was exiled in France during Gaddafi’s time but he became Deputy Minister of Culture in March 2012.

Although he admits that Islamists pose a real threat, he clarifies that in Misrata there are also people “from all walks of life and very diverse affiliations, communists included.”

It is the geographical location itself which, according to Harim, inexorably pushes the Libyan Amazigh towards Misrata.

“Except for a small enclave in the east, our people live in the west of the country, and a majority of them here, in Tripoli,” the senior official tells IPS.

But there are discordant voices, like that of Fathi Ben Khalifa. A native of Zwara and a political dissident for decades, Ben Khalifa was the president of the World Amazigh Congress between 2011 and 2013.

The Congress is an international organisation based in Paris since 1995 that aims to protect the Amazigh identity. Today Ben Khalifa remains as an executive member of this umbrella organisation for this North African people.

“This is not our war, it’s just a conflict between Arab nationalists and Islamists, none of which will ever recognise our rights,” Ben Khalifa tells IPS over the phone from Morocco. Although the senior political activist defends the right of his people to defend themselves from outside aggressions, he gives a deadline to take a clearer position:

“If Libya´s Constitution – to be released on December 24 – does not grant our legitimate rights, then it will be the time to take up arms,” Ben Khalifa bluntly claims.

At dusk, and after another day marked by exhausting shifts at checkpoints and patrols around the city, the local militiamen cool down after swapping their rifles for a harmonica and a guitar at the squat house. This time they play the songs of Matloub Lounes, a singer from Kabylia, Algeria´s Amazigh stronghold.

“I can´t hardly wait for the war to end. I´ll burn my uniform and get back to my work,” says Anwar Darir, an Amazigh language teacher since 2011. That was the year in which Gaddafi was killed, yet a solution to the conflict among Libyans is still nowhere near.

(Edited by Phil Harris)

By Judith Niehues
COLOGNE, Sep 20 2014 (IPS)

Thomas Piketty, a French economist who works on wealth and income inequality, has triggered a debate on the distribution of income and wealth in many countries. This is no small issue because views on income inequality and concomitant redistributive preferences are crucial to the design of tax and transfer systems.

Particularly in many European countries, society is concerned about distributional issues, reflected in recurring debates on redistributive policies. However, a study presenting international survey data on subjective perceptions of inequality and redistributive preferences reveals that perceived and actual inequality diverge quite substantially in many of these countries.

Dr Judith Niehues

According to the 2009 Social Inequality Module of the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP), more than 50 percent of Germans strongly agree that differences in income are too large.

Correspondingly, a similar portion of Germans thinks that it is “the responsibility of the government to reduce the differences in income between people with high incomes and those with low incomes” – a questionnaire item which is commonly used to capture subjective preferences for redistribution.

Regarding this majority of critical views on inequality, social justice and redistribution are topics for debate that continually feature on the political agenda in Germany – reflected in the current introduction of redistributive policies, such as a minimum wage and additional pension benefits for mothers.

On the other hand, in the United States – which is characterised by a far higher degree of actual income inequality – people are less concerned about income differences, and they do not see any reason for redistributive state intervention. There is virtually no empirical relationship between the actual size of inequality within a country and how critical people view these income differences to be.

The missing link between inequality and its assessment is not specific to these two countries. In a sample of 23 European countries and the United States, there is virtually no empirical relationship between the actual size of inequality within a country and how critical people view these income differences to be.

Obviously, there might be a range of individual and national factors which may explain cross-country differences in critical views on income differences and related redistributive preferences.

For example, in line with the argument of the “American exceptionalism”, people in the United States might just accept certain inequalities as incentives because they believe in the chance of upward mobility.

On the other hand, Germans may be more convinced that income positions arise from luck or other exogenous circumstances, thus regarding inequality as more unfair, and therefore they might demand more state redistribution.

However, current research on mobility reveals that there is a tendency for countries with higher inequality to also be associated with less income mobility.

Looking instead at how types of societies are perceived – a questionnaire item also included by the ISSP – gives some clues: 54.2 percent of Germans believe that the bulk of the German population lives rather at the bottom of society.

To what extent does this perceived type of society match with actual income distribution in Germany? Although there are different ways of demarcating society into a “bottom”, a “middle” and a “top”, studies generally reveal that the middle class represents by far the largest group in German society.

In particular, independently from the chosen definition of income groups, people on middle incomes are far more numerous than those at the bottom of the income distribution scale. This rather pessimistic view on income equality is typical of the European countries studied.

In most countries, the population significantly overestimates the degree of inequality. This is particularly true for former socialist countries such as Hungary, Slovenia as well as the Czech and Slovak republics.

In Hungary, for example, 56.6 percent of the population views Hungarian society as “a small elite at the top, very few people in the middle and the great mass of people at the bottom”, although the country is characterised by one of the lowest income inequalities in the European Union.

Thus, it is not that former socialist countries view already small income differences as much more critical, but that the population is just not aware of the small level of income inequality.

The situation is different in the Scandinavian countries. Here the various populations are much more realistic about the low levels of inequality and truly identify their societies as “typical middle class models”.

In contrast to the European countries, the United States reveals a completely different picture: U.S. citizens substantially underestimate the extent of inequality in their country. The lower income group in the United States is considerably larger than Americans suppose

This varnished view on inequality in the United States is not new – but it is rather new that in European countries it tends to be the other way round.

These results provide an explanation of why redistributive policies find more support in some countries than in others.

Although results from previous ISSP surveys suggest that cross-country differences in views on inequalities and redistributive preferences tend to change slowly, it would nevertheless be interesting to see if critical views on income differences and redistributive preferences would change if citizens were aware of the actual degree of inequality in their countries.

Interestingly, the overestimation of inequality is adversely related to the absolute level of living standards in corresponding countries. Thus, it might also be the case that the perceived structuring of the society is more associated with absolute levels of living standards than commonly suggested.

(Edited by Phil Harris)

Excerpt:

During recent flooding in Budapest, the Danube rose to 8.9 metres. Credit: Zoltán Dujisin/IPS

By Zoltán Dujisin
BUDAPEST, Jun 15 2013 (IPS)

Record floods in Central and Eastern Europe have highlighted some of the challenges of climate change for the continent, as well as the floods’ potential to spur populist politics.

An extraordinarily long winter followed by weeks of intense rains has saturated soils and caused large rivers, such as the Danube and the Elbe, to overflow. The floods have wreaked havoc in the region, killing 21 people and forcing the evacuation of several tens of thousands.

In Halle, Germany, 30,000 people were forced to leave their homes, after the Elbe reached its highest levels in 400 years. In Austria, mudslides brought about the closure of roads and train lines. The Polish capital of Warsaw was partially flooded, and in the Czech Republic, 20,000 people were evacuated from 700 different localities.

Most of the flood victims – 10 out of 21 – are Czech, having been hit by heavy rains that at one point brought down hail stones of the size of ping-pong balls.

Czechs feared for the fate of their medieval capital Prague, as authorities mobilised heavy machinery to sustain one of the city’s oldest symbols, the Charles Bridge, dating from the 14th century. Hospitals and even the city’s zoo were evacuated.

The Czech government has estimated the damage at 800 million Euros, promising to waive the income tax for companies affected by the catastrophe.

None of this drama was apparent in the Hungarian capital Budapest, where the Danube rose to 8.9 metres, the highest water level ever recorded.

In contrast to the chaos and fear seen elsewhere in the region, the floods became a hotspot for what authorities call “catastrophe tourism”, in reference to the masses of locals and foreign visitors who gather around the riverside, taking pictures and often obstructing authorities’ efforts to contain the flood.

In a city whose bridges are usually a prime location for suicide attempts, many were surprised to see a few daring tourists using them to dive into the flooded river. Citizens appeared equally unconcerned; youths drove skim boards into the water while the wealthiest water skied.

The calm and surreal atmosphere in Budapest nevertheless reflected a situation firmly under control, in the capital as well as in the countryside.

Testing governments

The differences in responses to the floods have highlighted the need for comprehensive and preventive strategies in a region where extreme weather phenomena are likely to increase as a result of climate change.

“Floods such as these put to test the ability of affected societies to adapt,” Sergio Tirado, a researcher at the Centre for Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Policy in Budapest, told IPS.

“The impact of climate change will be more or less severe depending on the region’s response, namely in terms of developing early warning systems or improving physical protection barriers against water rises,” he said.

Yet while many activists have directly blamed global warming for the recent events, Tirado was cautious about making direct causal links. “It is likely that as a result of climate change, the frequency of such extreme weather events is increasing, and this problem may grow in future decades.”

The smooth handling of the floods by Hungarian authorities has been hailed as a victory by its prime minister, Viktor Orbán, which in the last few years has become the European Union’s (EU) most controversial politician due to his authoritarian tendencies.

Orbán has been criticised by European officials for his heavy-handed approach to governance. He has been accused of challenging the independence of the judiciary, conducting widespread purges in the public administration and endangering freedom of expression.

As a result, the conservative prime minister, under attack at home and abroad, saw the floods as an opportunity to stoke citizens’ patriotic feelings and regain lost popularity.

Orbán capitalised on the efforts of the 10,000 soldiers, volunteers and even prisoners that were involved in placing some 10 million sandbags along the 700 kilometres of Danube riverside located in Hungarian territory.

During the floods, TV and online coverage constantly showed the prime minister in action: Orbán was always at the site of events, wearing rubber boots and a vest, walking against the river current, flying in helicopters, discussing hydrographic maps with experts and cracking jokes with workers.

Looking extremely tired, the prime minister made frequent live updates on the spot to keep citizens informed on what he called “the worst floods ever”.

Opposition politicians, alarmed by Orban’s successful show off of his leadership abilities, rushed to imitate the prime minister and were seen setting up dikes along flooded areas. Pro-government media were quick to show one of these dikes breaking.

While Hungarians were relieved that only 1,500 people required evacuation and that not a single victim was reported, many of Orban’s opponents will be concerned that his stunts against the forces of nature will convince many that he is strong enough to endure another onslaught of criticism from the European Union.

As the European Union accuses Hungary of shifting towards authoritarianism, a spike in emigration from the country has led many to speak of a politically motivated exodus. Others suggest that economic conditions play a role in the westward flow of brainpower that is leaving Hungary’s future uncertain.

Passengers wait at Nyugati (“Western”) train station in Budapest, Hungary. Credit: Zoltán Dujisin/IPS

Observers agree that ever since the conservative party Fidesz won a two-thirds majority in parliament in 2010, the government has taken many steps to concentrate power, including by limiting the independence of the judiciary as well as freedom of speech.

The government also approved a new constitution that enshrines the values of Christianity, family and patriotism, having drafted it without consulting other parties or civil society groups.

“We are thinking of leaving the country,” says Sára, a young mother in her thirties who lives in Újlipotváros, one of Budapest’s preferred districts among the liberal intelligentsia and middle classes. “My partner, my fourteen-month-old child and I are no longer considered a family under the new constitution,” she explains.

“It’s not just that we can’t pay taxes together. The feeling also makes us mad – with what right does this government say we are not a family? While the rest of Europe is enlarging the definition of family to even include homosexuals, we are going in the opposite direction.”

Many have already made the decision Sára is now considering, but the real reasons behind the emigration phenomenon remain the object of a heated political debate.

While official estimates state that 300,000 Hungarians live abroad, Gyorgy Matolcsy, governor of the Central Bank, recently spoke of half a million Hungarians leaving their homeland in recent years, which would constitute 5 percent of Hungary’s population of 10 million.

Currently about 250,000 Hungarians are registered abroad, although real numbers are likely higher because many migrants do not want authorities to know they left in order not to preclude current or future state benefits.

Austria, Germany and the United Kingdom are the preferred destinations for these immigrants. London may be home to up to 200,000 Hungarians, so many that it is popularly referred to as the second largest Hungarian city."My partner, my fourteen-month-old child and I are no longer considered a family under the new constitution."
-- Sára, a young mother

Yet unlike other countries in the post-communist region, Hungarians have traditionally resisted migrating, partly due to the strength of Hungary’s social safety net, but also for cultural reasons.

Politicians are struggling to explain why this tendency has suddenly changed. The debate has erupted around the worrisome 56 percent of students who consider leaving Hungary, a group that has often participated in international programs and can easily integrate in Western European labour markets.

“The issue has become politicised, but it is underlined by economic and structural factors,” Béla Soltész, a migration researcher at Corvinus University in Budapest, told IPS.

“There is an opposition discourse which blames the phenomenon on bad management by the government, particularly in the education sector, whereas the government pushes the view that those leaving the country are becoming unfaithful to it, putting their individualistic and materialistic needs in front of the good of the country,” Soltész says.

“Both are simplifying the issue,” he adds. “This is a 10-year phenomenon that began gradually with the opening of the European Union’s labour market. In some ways Hungary is catching up with the region.”

Although reliable data on them are lacking, many of the emigrants are well-educated opposition sympathisers with access to social media, which gives greater visibility to the “best and brightest” in the debate.

Some in this group have been affected by recent educational reforms – especially since students now have to sign contracts in order to benefit from state support as they go through their education and must pay back this support if they move abroad.

But in a country where doctors make an average of 700 euros per month, the role of high unemployment and a lack of economic and professional prospects may be more significant than political discontent.

Hungary’s gross domestic product decreased by 1.7 percent in 2012 and no growth is expected in 2013. Unemployment now exceeds 10 percent and is three times higher in the case of the younger generation.

“People with technical formation can nowadays very easily compare their salary with that of their peers in Norway, the UK or Holland, where pay can be ten times higher. And then they may blame the government for these differences,” Soltész told IPS.

While recent youth migration may be short-term, the growth in Hungarian professional networks abroad might turn it into a more permanent phenomenon in the future, Soltész warned. “The most skilled and bright are leaving and the remittances are not that high.”

“Reinsertion could be difficult because the labor market is very informally structured,” Soltész noted. “Qualifications obtained abroad are less important or understood than personal contacts.”

“And we don’t know what will happen to the people who do their whole education abroad and build their professional contacts there.”

“Give gas” was the original name for the Goj motorbikers parade intended for Apr. 21, a day when Hungary’s large Jewish community commemorates the Holocaust in the Peace March.

The Gojs (which means gentile – non-Jew – in Hebrew) planned to ride in front of Budapest’s largest synagogue. Only energetic protests from Jewish leaders prompted authorities to prohibit the event, which took place after changes to the original route and name.

Hungary, a country of 10 million now governed by the conservative Fidesz party of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, had not seen such overt expressions of far-right ideas since the infamous 1940s.

Last November, the ultranationalist Jobbik deputy Márton Gyöngyösi, whose party obtained 17 percent of the vote in the 2010 legislative elections, suggested that the names of Hungarians of Jewish origin should be kept on a registry as they constitute “a national security risk.” He later corrected his statement to mean dual Israeli-Hungarian citizens.

The are more parallels with the 1940s: during the last few years paramilitary militias have marched in Hungarian villages with large gypsy communities in order to intimidate them and bring a message of law and order. Several instances of physical aggression, gunshot wounds and fires have been linked to these marches.

In the case of the marginalised gypsy community, representing up to 7 percent of the population, authorities have done little to protect them from abuse, as was noted in a report published last year by Amnesty International.

Moreover, high-profile supporters of the government have contributed to the atmosphere of hate prevailing in the country: Zsolt Bayer, one of Fidesz’s founders and a close friend of Orbán, wrote last January in the pro-government paper Magyar Hirlap that gypsies “ought not to exist” and called for an immediate solution to the ‘problem’ “regardless of the method.”

Bayer added that running over a gypsy child is correct as long as one “does not think about stopping and steps hard on the accelerator.”

Orbán failed to publicly condemn any of these incidents. Critics claim the Prime Minister fears alienating the most extremist sections of his electorate, which may join the ranks of the far-right Jobbik.

Instead, Orbán has been more preoccupied with purging the various political, judicial, cultural and media institutions of dissenting elements, empowered by Fidesz’s spectacular electoral victory in 2010, which gave it a two-third constitutional majority in parliament.

The overhaul of the country’s institutions has been justified with an alleged need to cleanse public life of the lingering influence of communism.

The government’s actions have also alienated the country from the EU: this month saw Fidesz officials involved in verbal disputes with Viviane Reding, vice-president of the European Commission, over the country’s constitutional reforms, which were also the subject of fresh debates in the European Parliament.

The latest constitutional reform has been criticised for criminalising the homeless and favouring the government during electoral campaigns. These same laws had been presented separately in parliament and rejected by the Constitutional Court, leading the government to include them in the country’s fundamental law.

Moreover, the Court has lost its power to revise future constitutional amendments, severely weakening the formal separation of powers in Hungary and leading the European Commission to ring the alarm bell.

Yet analysts claim that talk of Hungary turning into a dictatorship is misplaced: “What we have is a narrow political elite riding mass waves of disenchantment with liberal democracy and economic neoliberalism that manages to establish a rule by decree where there is no space for dissent, for participatory decision-making or consensus-building,” Gábor Halmai, a sociologist and human rights activist told IPS.

“However, this strong-handed politics is supported by a very large and mobilised part of society.”

András Deák, an analyst at the Budapest-based Hungarian Institute of International Affairs, similarly claims the Orbán government “has clearly authoritarian features and obviously tests the limits of democratic governance,” but points out that “all these measures were legitimate in terms of domestic legislation.”

Deák moreover notes the uniqueness of the Hungarian case. “It is difficult to find any post-World War II government in Europe, at which the wish to shake up the country’s political system coincided with such an overwhelming electoral legitimation,” he told IPS.

This may be one of the reasons why Brussels has refrained from going beyond public criticism and infringement procedures which, while common to many other European states, are accumulating at an alarming pace in the case of Hungary.

Moreover, anti-EU sentiments are on the rise in Hungary, with large swaths of the population feeling “their interests are at odds with those of Brussels,” says Deák.

This was made particularly clear by some of the government’s economic measures, namely the taxing of banks and multinational corporations to benefit the middle-class and the national bourgeoise.

The measures were criticised by the EU but enjoyed substantial popular support.

With the EU angered, Orbán’s latest strategy involves attracting more Chinese and Russian investment, coupled by statements criticising the “decadence” of the Western capitalist model. As long as the EU remains merged in a financial crisis, many Hungarians will follow his lead.