AreaS

De siste 20 årene har Skottland gjennomgått store politiske endringer, noe som har ført til at skotsk nasjonal identitet og Skottlands framtid som nasjon har kommet i fokus. Skotsk nasjonal identitet har blitt et relevant spørsmål for både politikere og vanlige skotter som i økende grad utforsker sin identitet og tilhørighet. I denne søken etter tilhørighet utenfor Storbritannia, har Norden kommet i fokus som et alternativ, og dermed som en rollemodell for Skottland. Hva er grunnlaget til ideen om skottenes nordiske identitet og hvilke elementer kjennetegner den? I hvilken grad er den kultur- og historie basert, eller politisk konstruert? AreaS-medlem Laila Berg (Institutt for språk, litteratur og kultur) levert nylig sin doktoravhandling om hvordan skotsk nasjonal identitet er i ferd med å bli redefinert og finpusset til å understreke sin nordiske dimensjon. 30. november presenterte hun sine funn på et AreaS seminar ved biblioteket/Remmen hvor hun snakket sammen med AreaS leder Franck Orban. Videoopptaket fra seminaret kan hentes her

I forbindelse med det franske presidentvalget neste år, tar vi for oss  den franske skribenten, forfatteren og politiske provokatøren på ytre høyre i fransk politikk – som 30. november kunngjorde at han stiller til valg som Frankrikes neste president. Han har blitt kalt en fransk Donald Trump, men stemmer dette? Hvilken bakgrunn har han og hva gjør han til en konkurrent av Marine Le Pen og av den franske høyreside? Elin Strand Larsen, nesteleder i AreaS, samtaler med Franck Orban, førsteamanuensis i fransk kultur og samfunn ved HiØ og leder i AreaS. Opptaket er lagd 25. november 2021 og kan hentes her.

Kansler Angela Merkel takker for seg etter 16 år ved makten. Hvilket Tyskland etterlater hun seg og hvilket land får vi etter forbundsdagsvalget som ble holdt 26. september 2021? Forskergruppen ved HiØ AreaS tok imot Kai Hanno Schwind 27. oktober 2021 med stor glede for å diskutere veien videre for Europas og EUs  sentralmakt. Kai er førsteamanuensis ved Høyskolen Kristiania.

Kai leder Kristianias forskergruppe kunstfag og er bl.a. medprogramleder for podkasten “Tyskerne.”

Videoopptaket fra seminaret kan hentes her.

It has been a couple of hard weeks for President Joe Biden. Even before the astonishing collapse of the American supported government in Afghanistan, his approval rating among American voters had slipped below 50% for the first time since he became President in January. This marked the end of the “honeymoon” period of his administration – a period in which Americans traditionally give a new president their support to see what he or she can do. The swift victory of the Taliban and the chaos that followed brought this period to a brutal end. In the first months of his presidency Biden had famously proclaimed to the world that “America is back!” on the world stage. But America’s swift and chaotic retreat from Kabul have led some commentators to ask if America hasn’t rather “Turned its back” on the world, rather than returned to it.

This article will concentrate on three of the great challenges Biden faced when he took office in January – taming the COVID epidemic, getting America’s economy up and running, and re-establishing America’s leading role in the world community. It will then briefly look to the future.

Taming COVID

When Joe Biden came to power his first priority was to get COVID under control. He promised to get 100 million American vaccinated in his first 100 days in office. He met that goal in only 58 days and went on to vaccinate 200 million before that same deadline Then he set goal of getting 70% of all American’s vaccinated with at least one dose of a vaccine by the 4^th of July, America’s national holiday.

And that proved to be too much.

The campaign faltered and stalled because of widespread skepticism of vaccination among Americans. In part, this was because of misinformation spread through the social media. But it also mirrored the deep-seated political division in the US between the Republicans and the Democrats. COVID had become “politicized” during the Trump years. At heart lay an inbuilt skepticism of “experts” and “science” among many Republicans (See graph below). This skepticism was reflected on the ground. Where the Republicans were strongest – in the South and West of the country – numbers of vaccinated were lowest. In the Northeast, Midwest and West Coast where Democrats were strongest, numbers were highest.

Source : https://news.gallup.com/poll/352397/democratic-republican-confidence-science-diverges.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication

Eventually Biden did reach his goal of getting 70% of the population vaccinated in early August. Meanwhile, however, the new Delta variant of COVID had begun to spread quickly through the unvaccinated population of the South and West, causing a surge in infections and deaths. Although the vaccination program has picked up speed again, the difference in numbers between Republicans and Democrats and between different regions of the country continues, undermining the containment of COVID nationally. (1)

Getting America Back on Track

Like countries all over the world, COVID dealt a devastating blow to the American economy in 2020. Although the Trump administration passed several large relief bills, it was too little, too late in the view of many Democrats. They wanted major government spending like that found during the New Deal. That is why Biden’s campaign slogan had been “Build Back Better!” He wanted to spend up to $2 trillion rebuilding much of America’s crumbling infrastructure of roads, bridges, ports and railways.

That would be an enormous stimulus for the economy, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs. But he needed the cooperation of the Republicans to get the money. The election of 2020 had split the Senate 50/50 between the two parties, giving the Democrats the slimmest possible majority, using Vice President Kamala Harris’ one vote in case of a deadlock. For the infrastructure bill to pass the Senate Biden needed at least a 2/3s majority (in practice 67 of 100 votes). That meant gaining the support of 17 Republican Senators. In the poisonous and divided atmosphere of Washington, it did not seem likely that Biden would have much luck.

But Biden had spent decades as a Senator himself and knew the system well. Much to the surprise of his critics, he announced in June he had gotten the support of the necessary 17 Republican Senators for a $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill. In part, this was because the program was very popular among Americans in general and the Republicans did not want to be left behind. But it was also a testament to the persuasive power of Biden. He had promised to try to bring Republicans and Democrats together to find “bipartisan” solutions to Americans problems and this seemed to be a successful example of just that.

But Biden is not out of the woods yet. As this is written, the Senate’s infrastructure bill has been sent on to House of Representatives where it will undoubtedly be changed before it is sent back to the Senate to be passed once more (both the House and the Senate must agree on major bills before they are sent on to the President to be signed into law. This leaves room for lots more pushing and shoving.

It has been said that politics is “the art of the possible.” (2)  It still remains to be seen what is possible for Biden in today’s divided Washington.

The Forever War

Within his first months in power, Biden reversed many of the foreign policies of his predecessor, Donald Trump. He stopped the US from pulling out of the World Health Organization. He rejoined the Paris climate change agreement. He reestablished close relation with his NATO allies. He rallied the forces of democracy around the world to stand up to the growing power of autocratic governments, particularly in Russia and China. This is what he meant with “America is back!”

But there was one Trump policy that he did not reverse – ending America’s war in Afghanistan. Trump had made an agreement with the Taliban to withdraw US troops by May 1, 2021. Biden decided to honor that agreement, changing the deadline to the symbolic date of September 11, 2021. That date would mark the end of 20 years of continuous warfare – the longest war in American history, the “The Forever War.” Despite two decades of effort, $2 trillion dollars and more than 2500 American casualties (not to speak of the more than 100.000 Afghan casualties), it had proved impossible to crush the Taliban or create a strong pro-Western government in Kabul. The American public had grown tired of this never-ending effort. 70% favored getting out of Afghanistan. (3) That was why they had supported Trump’s agreement and that is why Biden decided to honor it.

Defeat and debacle  

But having an agreement and actually putting it into practice proved to be two very different things. Instead of an orderly withdrawal, when NATO troops started to leave in August the Taliban quickly overran the country. This created chaos. Tens of thousands of Afghan civilians who had worked with America and its NATO allies rushed to get out. Pictures of desperate Afghanis storming the airport in Kabul and clinging to American airplanes as they took off flashed around the world. The defeat of America and its allies in Afghanistan was swift, humiliating and complete. It sent shock waves around the world.

For many Europeans, it confirmed what former Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundland had said years before – they could “no longer take for granted that they can trust the U.S., even on basic things.” (4)  German Chancellor Angela Merkel remarked that, “This is a particularly bitter development. Bitter, dramatic and terrible.” (5) Within the EU, there were renewed calls for a separate military force to make it less dependent on America in the future. Meanwhile, as one American commentator put it, “China and Russia are having a field day saying: This is your partner?” This was not the image of America Biden had been hoping for with the words, “America is back.” (6)

The impact was serious at home, as well.  Fully 69% felt Biden had failed to handle the  withdrawal successfully. The Republicans were particularly critical, with 82% saying they strongly disapproved of him. (7)  Biden’s general approval rating among Americans fell from just under 50% in early August to only 43% by early September. His disapproval rate rose to 51%. (8)

Looking ahead

As noted, it is not unusual for a president to lose support after the first “honeymoon” period. But the drop in support for Biden over the past weeks has been severe. It remains to be seen if this will have long-term effects. That will depend on a number of factors.

Will the COVID cases go on increasing? If so, what measures will he have to take to handle the situation and how popular (or unpopular) will they be?

Will Democrats and Republicans in the Senate continue to support his infrastructure bill (much less his more expensive plans)? One Democratic Senator has already hinted that he will not vote for anything that costly. (9)

Most importantly, what will happen in Afghanistan? If the country reverts to the brutal and repressive dictatorship the Taliban imposed in the 1990s, Afghanistan may haunt Biden for the rest of his four years in office. The worst case would be if the country again became a breeding ground for terrorist attacks worldwide. Both Biden’s and America’s international reputation hang in the balance.

At home, it is now a little over one year before the next “mid-term” election is held. All of the seats in the House of Representatives and one third of the seats Senate will be up for grabs (see Access to English: Social Studies, Congress – legislative powers, pp. 186-187). If the Democrats lose a majority in either chamber, it will give the Republicans the power to block most of Biden’s plans for the following two years, greatly weakening his presidency.

Therefore, Biden needs to quickly repair the damage to himself and the Democratic Party caused by Afghanistan. He has come out swinging, strongly defending his decision to withdraw from the war in a speech on August 31;

“I was not going to extend this forever war,..I simply do not believe that the safety and security of America is enhanced by continuing to deploy thousands of American troops and spending billions of dollars a year in Afghanistan…I give you my word: With all of my heart, I believe this is the right decision, a wise decision, and the best decision for America.” (10)

The American people will have one year to make up their minds if they agree with him. Meanwhile the rest of the world will watch developments in Afghanistan anxiously.

NOTES ON SOURCES

1. “The US has reached Biden’s July 4 goal to vaccinate 70% of adults — about a month late,” August 2, 2021
   https://edition.cnn.com/us/live-news/coronavirus-pandemic-vaccine-updates-08-02-21/h_dd5447ed2fbe61869b93df78e85bbcc5

2.  “Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best.” – Otto von Bismarck

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/424187-politics-is-the-art-of-the-possible-the-attainable

3. “US Public Supports Withdrawal From Afghanistan,” August 9, 2021

https://www.thechicagocouncil.org/commentary-and-analysis/blogs/us-public-supports-withdrawal-afghanistan

4.  “America is Back – but for How Long?” June 14, 2021

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/world/2021-06-14/america-back-how-long

5/6. “Biden promised allies ‘America is back.’ Chaotic Afghanistan withdrawal is making them fear it’s still ‘America First.’” August 19, 2021

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/18/politics/america-is-back-joe-biden-afghanistan/index.html

7. “Majority of U.S. public favors Afghanistan troop withdrawal; Biden criticized for his handling of situation,” August 31, 2021

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/08/31/majority-of-u-s-public-favors-afghanistan-troop-withdrawal-biden-criticized-for-his-handling-of-situation/

8. “This poll number will send Democrats into a panic,” September 2, 2021

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/09/02/politics/biden-approval-midterms-democrats/index.html

9.  “Joe Manchin voted to advance the $3.5 trillion budget bill — now he says Democrats should press pause,” September 2, 2021

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/02/joe-manchin-opposes-3point5-trillion-biden-democratic-spending-bill.html

10. “Remarks by President Biden on the End of the War in Afghanistan,” August 31, 2021

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/08/31/remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-end-of-the-war-in-afghanistan/

This article is written by AreaS member Robert Lewis Mikkelsen and was published by Cappelen Damm Updates in September 2021.

Kansler Angela Merkel takker for seg etter 16 år ved makten. Hvilket Tyskland etterlater hun seg og hvilket land får vi etter forbundsdagsvalget som ble holdt 26. september 2021? Forskergruppen ved HiØ AreaS tar imot Kai Hanno Schwind for å diskutere veien videre for Europas og EUs  sentralmakt. Kai er førsteamanuensis ved Høyskolen Kristiania.

Han leder Kristianias forskergruppe kunstfag og er bl.a. medprogramleder for podkasten “Tyskerne.”

Sted: HiØs bibliotek ved Remmen
Tid: 27. oktober 2021, kl. 11.30-12.30

skrotet 15. september brått en avtale fra 2016 inngått med Frankrike om å kjøpe 12 dieseldrevne ubåter av Attack-klassen mellom 2030 og 2040. Den ble avløst av en ny avtale inngått med USA og Storbritannia om leveransen av 12 atomdrevne ubåter. Avtalebruddet går langt utover et giganttap for franske Naval Group. Det kompliserer en langsiktig strategi om å styrke Frankrikes rolle i Det indopasifiske området – et uttrykk som ble brukt for første gang i 2007 av den japanske statsministeren Shinzo Abe -, som strekker seg fra Afrikas østkyst til øynasjonene i Stillehavet.

To dimensjoner kan trekkes fram i ubåtskandalen. Den ene handler om hvordan bruddet skjedde og om hvilke reaksjoner som kom fra Paris. Den andre handler om hvilket handlingsrom franskmennene sitter igjen med etter dette.

For franskmenn er avtalebruddet et surt eple å bite i. Franske medier beskrev hendelsen som en ydmykelse og et «australsk Trafalgar», og trakk også paralleller til Fashoda-krisen i Sør-Sudan i 1898. Franske myndigheter fikk beskjed om avtalebruddet kort tid før nyheten ble kunngjort 15. september av Joe Biden, Scott Morrison og Boris Johnson. De involverte partene holdt kortene tett til brystet i måneder.

Kritikken mot president Macron og Castex-regjeringen går ut på at man har vært naiv overfor det som stod på spill. I september 1958 sendte de Gaulle – som nettopp hadde kommet tilbake til makten – et memorandum til Eisenhower og Macmillan, der han krevde en reform av NATO og foreslo et triumvirat hvor briter, amerikanere og franskmenn ville fordele seg imellom ansvaret for forsvaret at den frie verden. Forslaget møtte da en kald skulder, noe som førte til at Frankrike trakk seg gradvis ut av NATOs integrerte strukturer.

Når britene, australierne og amerikanerne nå danner AUKUS, samtidig som Frankrike forsøkes vraket fra et område med strategisk betydning, puster det nytt liv i oppfatningen om at «angelsakserne» slår til igjen. Det skjer til tross for tiår med aktive bidrag til NATO-operasjoner og andre eksterne operasjoner sammen med amerikanerne og britene, og franskmennenes gjeninntreden i NATOs militære struktur i april 2009.

Frankrike kalte straks hjem sine ambassadører i Canberra og Washington (men ikke London). En sint utenriksminister Le Drian anklagde Australia for bevisst å ha ført Frankrike bak lyset og kalte USAs oppførsel «en dolk i ryggen» fra en alliert. I et Frankrike som i 2019 kritiserte NATO for manglende strategisk dialog – ref. Macrons berømte tirade om at NATO var «hjernedød» –, kan NATO- og USA-skepsisen reaktiveres på kort varsel. Flere opposisjonsledere gikk ut for å si at Frankrike bør trekke seg ut av en allianse som har blitt mer irrelevant.

At det radikale venstre og det radikale høyre går inn for dette vil ikke overraske noen (Jean-Luc Mélenchon for LFI, Fabien Roussel for PCF, Jordan Bardella for RN). Antiamerikanismen er en viktig markør av deres identitet. Men at en presidentkandidat og mulig president i 2022 som Xavier Bertrand også er villig til å revurdere Frankrikes forhold til NATO sier en del om irritasjonsnivået i Paris. Slike reaksjoner vekker en gammel frustrasjon over systematisk å bli holdt utenfor det gode engelsktalende selskapet når det virkelig gjelder, og en reell frykt for at Frankrike har blitt en annenrangsnasjon i det globale hierarkiet.

Ingen oppførte seg irrasjonelt i denne saken. Det er logisk at Australia skifter ut en fjern alliert mot USAs nærhet og militære paraply for å sikre sine nærområder. Man kunne bare ha gjort det på en mer elegant måte. En følge av dette valget kan være et økt spenningsnivå med Kina, noe Australias tidligere statsminister Kevin Ruud påpekte i Le Monde.

Sett fra et amerikansk perspektiv er det ikke ulogisk at Australia inngår i en USA-ledet regional containment av Kinas ekspansjon ved siden av andre land som India, Vietnam, Japan og Sør-Korea. Det er heller ikke så overraskende at franskmenn vil spille en rolle i et verdenshjørne hvor de har strategiske interesser i form av landterritorier (Réunion, Mayotte, fransk Polynesia, Wallis og Futuna, Ny-Caledonia, samt franske sørterritorier), eksklusive økonomiske soner som tilsvarer 9 millioner km² og 1,5 million franske statsborgere.

Derfor har det indopasifiske området fått stadig mer betydning for franskmenn de siste årene. Det ble gjort til en nasjonal prioritet av president Macron i mai 2018. Australia var i den forstand et viktig ledd i den nye satsingen og en avgjørende regional partner i forsøket på å få en bedre sikring av franske interesser og på å motarbeide et bipolært system dominert av USA og Kina. Nå må andre opsjoner vurderes.

Australia-krisen er nå avblåst etter en telefonsamtale mellom Biden og Macron. Amerikanerne ba pent om unnskyldning, lovet at noe slikt ikke skulle gjentas og gikk med på flere bilaterale konsultasjoner med franskmenn i forkant av viktige beslutninger. Det koster lite. Det gjør også erkjennelsen om at et mer bærekraftig EU-forsvar kan styrke NATO og det transatlantiske samarbeidet så lenge spørsmålet om europeernes strategiske autonomi forblir tabubelagt i Europa.

Å lege sår med australierne vil også ta tid, men er nødvendig i lys av felles interesser. For franskmenn representerer ubåtsaken uansett en realitetsorientering som neppe demper mistanken om at de anses som «juniorpartner». De står foran flere valgmuligheter. En av dem er fortsatt å prioritere en nasjonal strategi i det indopasifiske området med enda større vekt på støttespillere som India. De kan også «europeisere» sin indopasifiske agenda i større grad enn tidligere – slik de prøver å gjøre med terrorbekjempelsen i Mali-regionen –, for å redusere kostnadsnivået og øke gjennomslagskraften.

Da må flere EU-land være med. Begge alternativene er krevende – men ikke umulige – veier å gå.

For over a year the world is in a bizarre virus-caused disorder, which our generation have not experienced in the entire life, so no authorities possess routines how to react on such an unexpected flow. Decisions on pandemic treatment were made in emergency, and the exposed countries responded in a different way. To find out what worked well-thought-of or what not, the main questions of concern ought to be contemplated: Which decision-making authority managed the crisis? What preventive measures against infection spread have been applied? Was health care system prepared? How information for citizen have been procured? How the vaccine supply and roll-out was organized? What support the harmed business- and social activity received? How citizens reacted? 

Standard solution does not exist, but shared experience may help to learn. In Bloomberg’s report, April 2021, Covid-19 resilience ranking was presented, with relevant collected data, placing Singapore as the world`s best, followed by Australia, New Zealand and Asian countries. Among the top 20 there are only 3 European countries: Finland as number 9, Denmark 14 and Norway 15 (some weeks earlier Norway was best as number 10, Finland 13; www.bloomberg.com/ graphics/covid-resilience-ranking/). WHOs declared pandemic threat 30.01.2020, national actions have started afterwards. 

In Norway The Government Corona Board (RCU) discuss solutions and actions, where The Norwegian Health Directorate and Norwegian Institute of Public Health present their professional recommendations, and government makes decisions on imposing national rules. Local authorities add local rules and manage implementation. The Corona Law of 18.03.20, allows government to enforce obligatory restrictions, if Parliament did not reject these with 1/3 of the votes. Information on enforced rules is presented on press conferences by Prime minister, Minister of Health, with presence and comments of General Director of Health Directorate, Director of Institute of Public Health and relevant Ministers, depending on subject. Corona testing centres were opened in all municipalities and tests are free of charge, available after accepted request. The lockdown 12th of March 2020 was more restrictive than health professionals advised, but partly released in April, as primary schools started to open from 20.04.20 for small- and later for older children. Children and youth were considered as the core group to be shield against consequences of lockdowns, to avoid increase of social disparities. Digital learning, facilitated in Norway, where all pupils have iPad from school, does not bring the same outcomes for all children, therefore open schools and after-school activities are of high importance for learning progress. 

The important factor for pandemic management is correct information. Information on Corona facts and rules are published on webpages of central- and local authorities and health institutions`, also in foreign languages of minority groups (The coronavirus situation – regjeringen.no). Central and local phone info is also available, as the rules and restrictions differed between regions, depending on infection spreading, with green, yellow and red zones warnings. Municipal authorities in consultation with chief municipal doctor decide and administrate the local rules. Warnings are also sent by sms. Norwegian health system worked efficiently, all inhabitants have access to free health care, and numbers of infected patients who required intensive care were not very high. 

Geography helped – both Norway and Finland have few big cities, where infection spreading is high. Vaccination program have started at the end of 2020, with priority order: 1. residents in nursing homes 2. age 85 years and above 3. Age 75-84 years, so following younger age groups. On 12th of May the Institute of Public Health suggested change in priority, to vaccinate the group 18-24 together with 40 – 44, to breakdown spreading more efficient. Economic consequences of pandemic are extensive. Already 7th of April 2020 the expert group led by prof. Steinar Holden from University of Oslo, presented the report “Socio-economic evaluation of infection control measures – covid-19”, later two new reports were published, where strategies, consequences, and long-term effects of pandemic have been presented and solutions suggested. Government started to pay out compensation for activity stop, extra health-care expenses, unemployment prevention, and more, summarize to 252 billion NOK in 2020 and 229 billion NOK this year (Revised National Budget 2021) GDP in 2020 fell -0.8 % and is expected to grow 3.7% this year. 

Summing up – what did contribute to place Norway among the top-ranking countries in contesting pandemic? I think that the crucial factor is a non-pandemic one – citizens trust to public institutions, so people accept and follow up inconvenient restrictions, as they trust that government acts for their best. 

This analysis is written by AreaS member Danuta Aniela Tomczak and is published in Baltic Rim Economies, Special issue, nr 3, June 2021

 

Fra 1989 feirer Polen sin nasjonal dag den 3.mai, for å minne den første grunnloven som ble vedtatt denne maidagen i 1791, etter turbulente forhandlingene i parlamentet, på kongens slott i Warszawa. Det var den siste polske kongen, Stanislaw August Poniatowski, med samarbeidende adelsrepresentanter, som fikk det gjennom, men ikke med støtte fra alle representantene.

Begrensning av adelens rettigheter ble mot med motstand fra flere mektige aristokrater.  Grunnloven, kalt konstitusjon, ble jo en seir for nye trender i Europa etter den franske revolusjon. Makt tilhørende kongen ble tredelt – til lovgivende makt, gitt til 2-kammers parlamentet – Sejm og Senat, utøvende makt – Kongens Råd, med kongen, 5 statsråder, katolske kirkens overhodet og representanter uten stemmerett, og så dømmende makt, med tre typer domstoler for ulike folkeslag, med ulike rettigheter.

Selv om aristokrati, adel, arbeidere og bønder hadde ikke samme rettigheter, så ble de ikke rettsløse og kun underlagt sin herre. Katolsk religion ble anerkjent som dominerende i kongerike, og det ble bestemt å opprette forsvaret med 100.000 soldater.  Det ble også innført skatt for å finansiere statens utgifter – 10% for adelsmenn og 20% for presteskapet, mens vanlige folk ble ikke skattlagt.

Dessverre, fikk ikke dette fremskrittet mot demokratiet langt liv, siden opposisjon – kalt for «Targowica forrædere», forente seg med Russiske tsarina, angrep Polen i april 1792, og deretter ble Polen delt opp mellom Russland, Preussen og Østerrike, og forsvant fra Europa-kartet i 1795. Det ble en lang kamp om frihet deretter, helt til 1918, da Republikk Polen, med nye grenser, ble igjen en selvstendig stat. Dette med Polens første grunnloven i Europa, andre i verden, etter USAs sitt, har en symbolsk verdi, som viser at også i tider med store motsetninger mellom folkegrupper med ulik tilhørighet, ulike meninger og interesser, var det mulig å få en fremtidsrettede resultat.

Er det noe å lære av det i dag? Paradoksalt nok, den regjerende partikoalisjon i Polen fra 2015 respekterer ikke den gjeldende grunnloven (av 1997), bryter mange grunnleggende prinsipper, både når det gjelder tredeling av makten og uavhengigheten mellom disse. Opposisjon protesterer, borgere protesterer, EU-domstol (TSUE) reagerer, men den regjerende parti Lov & Rettferdighet (PiS) gjenvinner valget i 2019. Demokrati er i fare, ikke kun i Polen, men i flere land, hvor populisme har fått mange supportere. Skal vi feire grunnlovsdagen som nasjonaldag mens grunnloven ikke respekteres? Bryr folk seg ikke om grunnloven nå??

Det finnes ikke entydig svar på dette spørsmålet, fordi ikke kun fakta og fremstilling av sakene teller, med sammenheng mellom disse, som forklarer hvordan folk lever og hva de opplever i sine liv. Hva leser de, hvordan kommuniserer de med hverandre, hvor de treffes? Har de jobb og inntekter til hushold, kontakt med andre enn familie/naboer, har de tillit til myndigheter og medborgere? Bosted, utdanning, inntekt, kontaktnettverk m.m., viser økende ulikheter, som fremmer konflikter og protester fremfor dialog og samarbeid.

Det blir interessant å se hvordan den første grunnlovens 230-års jubileumsdagen blir feiret i Polen – med glede – protester – politi oppstilling – arrestasjoner?

Hvis grunnloven er like viktig nå som før – hvordan demokrati kan gjenvinnes når den utfordres i flere land?

Innlegget er skrevet 3. mai 2021 av Danuta A. Tomczak, AreaS-medlem og førsteamanuensis i økonomi ved HiØ.