‘Some of the elite seem to want a democracy without voters’: sociologist Mark Elchardus is critical of globalization

“A polycrisis,” is how sociologists describe it The morningcolumnist Mark Elchardus the current era. The economic crisis of 2008, the corona pandemic, the energy crisis after the Russian invasion of Ukraine: in the past decade and a half, the West has repeatedly hit its head against the wall. “We are dependent on countries over which we have no control for essential products. We have learned that this strong interconnection of the world, which we have thought so positively about for so long, also entails dangers.

“We are at a pivotal moment: the transition between a period of hyper-globalization – starting in the 1970s – to a period of relative de-globalization. Or at least the search for a more moderate globalization. For a long time the idea was that boundaries were outdated. The elite saw the Schengen zone as a foreshadowing of what was to happen to the entire world. Capital, goods and people had to be able to cross borders as smoothly as possible. Now the idea is growing again that we need boundaries. Although I prefer to talk about community demarcation. That is the feeling that many people have rediscovered.”

How do we see this evolution?

“We see it, for example, in the policy of the European Union, which is increasingly taking protectionist measures while still trying to get the migration problem under control.

“But we also see it very clearly in population research. There has been a major shift among the population. Just over 50 percent of the people – I call them nationalists – want us to better protect borders and defend our national identity. About a quarter are ‘cosmopolitans’: they do not consider borders very important and do not adhere to national identity. Another quarter floats between them.”

One of the conclusions you draw in your book: the era of mass migration must be over. You almost sound like Tom Van Grieken.

“I don’t think so. My position on migration is very clear. I have never advocated against migration. I do believe that the right of asylum is currently being abused as a channel to enable migration to a country of choice. We must correct that, we must return the right of asylum to what it is intended for. That is a completely different position than Vlaams Belang’s migration stop. We need regular migration, but my point is: let’s approach it a little more sensibly than we do today.”

In your book you say that only two parties take the concerns about migration seriously: Vlaams Belang and N-VA.

“I have the impression that other parties are now also adjusting their migration positions. This is even very strikingly the case with CD&V. But until recently, those were indeed the only two parties discussing that theme. I think that is also an important reason for their success. Research has long shown that migration is one of the most important concerns of Belgians, usually even the most important. So I don’t understand why some parties reason: let’s not talk about that too much.”

Under Conner Rousseau, Vooruit has also started to speak out more strongly about migration and integration.

“Conner, yes. He set a tone in the party’s communications that indeed seemed to be more towards community demarcation. The question is how far that tone has penetrated into the positions the party takes. That’s another matter. Especially now that Conner is a bit out of play for the time being.”

Do you think that is a shame?

“I’m sorry about what happened to him. But I do think that the party is now making the right choice. Conner is at the bottom of the list as the list pusher, which puts the judgment in the hands of the voter. In a democracy that is the right approach. We’ll see what the voter decides. If he forgives him for his slip and gives him confidence, I think Vooruit will benefit greatly from that.”

Over the years you had lost affinity with the socialist party. Had that changed under Conner Rousseau?

“I felt the party better with his communication, yes. The tone seemed much more reasonable to me, and I think it also fits in much better with the base of the party – not with the cadres, but the people who vote for the party. That also explains Conner’s popularity. His tone is much closer to the people who need the party as a vehicle for their aspirations.

“That being said, there are still some positions I disagree with. I have done all the voting tests, and Vooruit is never at the top.”

I suspect that Groen is consistently at the bottom of your list.

“(laughs) I’m not going to tell you the full ranking, but Green is indeed at the bottom.”

Globalization has led to enormous growth in prosperity in the West. As globalization approaches its end, we will have to learn to live with the fact that this growth in prosperity also has limits.

“I’m not convinced of what you’re saying. More wealth has been created in the decades since the Second World War than in the period of hyper-globalization since the 1970s. Second, we made a very big mistake by having our products made in low-wage countries.

“The idea was: we are the creative people on this planet, we will design – production can then be done in those other countries. That is based on the strange idea that we are smarter than the rest of the world. But what happens if those countries catch up with us? Then they design and innovate just as well or even better than us, and we have lost our manufacturing industry in the meantime.”

We have made ourselves vulnerable?

“Indeed, very vulnerable. Europe is currently lagging behind technologically in the production of chips, solar panels and electric cars. There is a growing idea that we need to become a little more independent from the rest of the world. We need reindustrialization, and the manufacturing industry needs to be brought back. The West faces enormous challenges.”

Your book sounds very ominous at times. For example, you draw a parallel with Germany in the 1920s and 1930s. As if to say: be careful, it won’t be pleasant.

“I would like to formulate that warning, yes. There are many similarities between then and now. Democracy was in crisis then, and it is in crisis today. We continually find in research that a majority of people no longer see the point of elections: ‘They don’t listen to us anyway’. Six to seven out of ten people, including in our country, yearn for a strong leader who does not have to take elections and parliament into account. That was also the mood a hundred years ago. But I remain optimistic. I don’t see fascism returning. When people ask for a strong leader, they are not saying they want a dictatorship.”

They didn’t want that in the 1920s either, but it happened.

“Of course, things can go wrong. But the difference is that people now know that history. They know what horror that resulted in, and that awareness is still alive in society. People do not want a dictator, but a government that is willing to listen and decisive enough to solve a number of problems that continue to persist.”

At times you paint a picture of a society in disarray: democracy is in crisis and society is falling apart due to individualism.

“I don’t think I paint it that darkly. But there are indeed problems with democracy. One of the leftovers of hyper-globalization is that governments have been weakened. Large companies have been given free rein, with the result that big tech has a greater influence on people’s thoughts and feelings than, for example, our education. The government is much weaker than a few with billions in their pockets.”

Like Elon Musk who determines the course of the war in Ukraine with his satellites?

“That is an extreme but a real example. There you see private individuals and companies entering territory that used to be reserved for states. That is a threat to democracy. Together with another evolution: the change of the elite.”

You’ll have to explain that.

“During hyper-globalization, it was people with a cosmopolitan attitude who ended up in important positions. Now nationalists have the voters behind them, and then you get a gradual change of the elites who are in charge. With such a change you always see that the old elite clings to power.

“That translates into a kind of fear for the voter. I constantly see pleas emerging that the voter cannot be trusted. I recently read that men should not vote. Or: citizens cannot make smart choices, so we would be better off drawing lots for representatives. Part of the elite seems to want a democracy without voters. That is clearly also a threat to democracy.”

About Borders, Mark Elchardus, Ertsberg, 176 p., 22.50 euros.