Home › Features › Comments › The Third Way and Liberty: An Authoritarian Streak in Europe's New Center

The Third Way and Liberty: An Authoritarian Streak in Europe's New Center

By Ralf Dahrendorf
September/October 1999
Article Summary and Author Biography

A curious authoritarian streak runs through the Third Way rhetoric of Tony Blair and other European leaders. The new center is ominously silent about freedom.

Lord Dahrendorf is author of Reflections on the Revolution in Europe and After 1989: Morals, Revolution and Civil Society. This article is adapted from his address at "Ten Years After 1989," a June 1999 conference in Vienna sponsored by the Institute for Human Sciences in cooperation with Project Syndicate.

Print Email
Login or Register to leave a comment.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.

In many European countries, politicians are trying to go "beyond left and right" to a Third Way. Most of its protagonists have a close relationship to what in Britain is called New Labor, or sometimes, the "Blair project." In fact, the Third Way debate has become the only game in town -- the only hint at new directions for Europe's politics in a confused multitude of trends and ideas.

The recent paper signed by British Prime Minister Tony Blair and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, entitled Europe: The Third Way -- Die neue Mitte, begins boldly: "Social democrats are in government in almost all the countries of the Union. Social democracy has found new acceptance -- but only because, while retaining its traditional values, it has begun in a credible way to renew its ideas and modernize its programs. It has also found new acceptance because it stands not only for social justice but also for economic dynamism and the unleashing of creativity and innovation."

This document was published a week before the June elections to the European Parliament. Whatever their shortcomings, the European elections undermine Blair and Schroeder's assertion that "social democracy has found new acceptance." In 6 of the 15 European Union (EU) countries (Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Italy, and the Netherlands), social democratic parties had 20 percent or less of the vote; in two others (France and Luxembourg), they had 22 or 23 percent. In 5 further countries (Germany, Greece, Britain, Austria, and Sweden), the social democratic vote was between 26 and 33 percent. In Spain, 35 percent voted for the democratic Socialists, and in Portugal, 43 percent. In only 4 of these countries were social democrats relatively the strongest party -- and this includes France, where the fragmentation of the right allowed Prime Minister Lionel Jospin's Socialists (themselves hardly unified) to have the best showing with just 22 percent.

Twenty years ago these parties had twice their current support in Europe. Social democrats are distinctly minority parties in most European countries. Even in Britain, Blair's deceptively large parliamentary majority is based on 43 percent of the popular vote.

This is a premium article

You must be a logged in Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you wish to continue reading this article please subscribe , or activate your online account to get full online access.

Buy PDF

Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.

Related

Review Essay, May/Jun 2002
The Liberal Lion
Walter Russell Mead

Roy Jenkins' brilliant new biography of Winston Churchill places him in profound historical perspective: as heir to the Liberal tradition of William Gladstone and Herbert Asquith.

Read
Essay, Oct 1969
Realism in British Foreign Policy
Edward Heath

Looking back at the foreign policies of Britain and the United States since 1800 one sees two strands woven closely together-the strands of idealism and realism. In both countries, governments, parliaments and peoples have been happiest when these two elements have been brought together in apparent harmony. Take for example two quotations from nineteenth-century England:

Read
Essay, Jul 1963
After Brussels
Andrew Shonfield

In 1962 the European enthusiasts in Brussels were explaining regretfully that although British membership would slow down the process of European integration-perhaps severely impede the whole movement toward a United States of Europe-it was a price that had to be paid for widening the geographical spread of the Community. No doubt these people, while regretting the manner of General de Gaulle's rupture of negotiations with Britain, are now privately relieved that the price will not have to be paid. Their view is that Britain's inherent weakness is such that she will be compelled sooner or later to come back and knock on the door again and plead for entry into the European Economic Community (E.E.C.). On the whole, better later than sooner. The European Community will by then have consolidated itself; it will be able to impose its terms with less difficulty and, in fairness it should be added, will be less niggling about making small concessions which may contravene the letter, though not the spirit, of the Treaty of Rome.

Read