The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics (86 page)

 
Back
  -  
 
New Search

The only working general definition of ethnicity is that it involves the common consciousness of shared origins and traditions.
The Greek
ethnos
is variously translated ‘tribe’ or ‘nation’ and its meaning can be taken as being some way between the two. Ethnicity is the quality of belonging to an ethnic group. But the question of what is an ethnic group, as opposed to any other kind of group, is one which permits no simple answer. Ethnic groups are not races, since ethnicity can be more precisely defined than race or even logically independent: Serbs and Croats are also Slavs, and a Jew might be black or white. Nor does membership of an ethnic group relate a person necessarily to a particular territory in the way that nationality does. Nevertheless, ‘ethnic conflict’ can be the same thing as conflict between nations or races as it can also be conflict between religious groups. Ethnic conflict in Northern Ireland (‘Catholic’ and ‘Protestant’), Lebanon (where Christian Arabs have been in conflict with Muslim Arabs) and in the Balkans (where orthodox Serbs differ from catholic Croats and from Muslims principally in terms of religion) are all conflicts primarily identified by religious affiliation. Language, for the Basques, Welsh, or Georgians, for example, is a more important badge of ethnicity than race, nationality, or religion.
It does not matter, ultimately, whether shared origins and traditions in our opening definition can be said to exist as a matter of objective fact or whether they are ‘invented’ or ‘selected’. Thus the kind of consciousness of ethnicity which gives rise to ethnic conflict can depend entirely on the context in which people form their consciousness and, particularly, on the other ethnic groups which they recognize as existing in that context. In England or the United States ethnicity is conceived primarily in terms of ‘white’, ‘Caucasian’, or ‘white Anglo-Saxon Protestant’ groups in contrast with others, notwithstanding that the most extreme ethnic conflicts in continental Europe take place between ‘Caucasians’. In Australia it is common to refer to ‘Anglo-Celts’ because an important decision is perceived to exist between Australians who identify their origins in the British Isles and the ‘New Australians’ from other parts of the world. But in some cities of the British Isles, like Belfast and Glasgow, the most important ethnic conflict is precisely that between ‘Anglos’ and ‘Celts’. Ethnicity remains one of the most elusive and mysterious aspects of social structures, but also one of the most fundamental and important.
LA 

 
Back
  -  
 
New Search

A body of thought developed within the Italian, Spanish, and French Communist Parties from 1975 which had a profound influence upon the communist movement. Eurocommunism was characterized by three central theses. The first was that the Soviet Union was not the only model for socialist change. Each party operated in distinctive national conditions and must develop programmes to suit these. The second thesis proposed a convergence of all progressive forces (workers, peasants, intellectuals, students, women, clergy, the middle classes) to work for ‘the democratic and socialist renewal of society’, to isolate reactionary groups, and to confront capitalism's ‘incapacity to meet the general demands of society's development’ (Leghorn Statement of the PCI and PCE, July 1975). The third thesis was the need for Communist Parties to re-create themselves, democratizing organizational structures and engendering internal debate. Communist Parties must acknowledge the impact of changing patterns of economic activity upon class structures (the retraction of the traditional working class and the emergence of newly mobilized groups). They must transform themselves, else risk losing both their legitimacy and their constituency.
In Italy the PCI under Enrique Berlinguer attempted to effect a ‘Historic compromise’ with the Christian Democrats that would have ended its exclusion from governmental power. This was blocked, however, by the assassination of Aldo Moro in 1978.
GS 

 
Back
  -  
 
New Search

Europe remains powerful yet ill-defined. Some of its members extend beyond its accepted geographical limits: Russia, Turkey, perhaps Britain. Such unity as it possessed by the early twentieth century rested equivocally upon a shared though divisive Christianity and a rationalist philosophical and scientific tradition (both owing much to the Arab world), a common history of sustained internecine warfare, a fiction of racial uniformity, and an original responsibility for industrialization and modernity. This tense unity was sustained by European state power in the face of other continents, first effectively asserted in the sixteenth century and reaching its greatest extent in the early twentieth century before dissolving in the great European civil wars of 1914–1945. Its greatest continuing vulnerabilities are to nostalgia and racism. See also
European Union
.
CJ 

 
Back
  -  
 
New Search

The Commission of the
European Union
(formerly European Community) most resembles the executive or civil service branch of government in the sense that it generates and executes policies, but does not legislate. It is useful to focus on the evolving relationship between the Commission and the
Council of Ministers
in order to understand fully the role of the former. Traditionally it is said that ‘the Commission proposes, the Council disposes’. According to the Treaty of
Rome
, while the Council (representing the member states' governments) passes EU legislation into law, it can only do so on a proposal of the Commission. Historical practice has meant that this simple pattern does not obtain, and the work of the Commission and Council is often so interconnected as to be indistinguishable.
In the first place, the twenty-member Commission is appointed by member governments for a renewable term of four years. Complicated political jockeying takes place as member states attempt to place national candidates in key positions. There is an informal quota system of two Commissioners each for the five larger members and one each for the rest, and in the process the two-year renewable position of Commission President emerges with Council approval. The President can to an extent shape his ‘team’ and influence the appointment of key personnel among the twenty-three ‘Directorates-General’ (somewhat akin to ministerial departments) including agriculture, industry, competition, and external relations.
Once appointed, Commissioners are obliged to serve the interests of the Union as a whole, not their governments of provenance. This rule has held relatively well, with commissioners and EU officials seconded from national governments ‘going native’ in Brussels, home of the Commission. Member states treat proposals sceptically and often suspiciously: once a particular ‘competence’ or jurisdiction has passed from national to EU level, EU laws are regarded as overriding national laws where the two conflict. Contact with national governments is therefore made early on, through the Committee of Permanent Representatives (COREPER) which is an assemblage of national government officials stationed in Brussels. Consultation also takes place with national ministry officials, the secretariat of the Council, the European Parliament, Euro-interest groups, large corporations potentially affected by the proposals, and national-level interest groups. The proposals may circulate in the Brussels machinery for quite some time before a consensus emerges that the Council is likely to view it favourably, and many are never brought forward, or languish for a period of years until opportunity beckons. That said, initiatives dear to a particular Commission may be submitted with relatively little overt support in the Council, whereupon the Commission attempts to mobilize lobbying and a coalition of forces behind it. The European Parliament can overturn the budget as defined by the Commission and voted by the Council. Finally, the Commission oversees the execution or implementation of legislation, but as Brussels staff is very limited it is usually national ministries which apply the legislation, watched by Brussels and if necessary prodded by the
European Court of Justice
.
The power of the Commission to succeed with its proposals depends on a number of factors such as prevailing public opinion on the subject of EU integration, economic conjunctural circumstances, the dynamism of the Commissioners (particularly the President), the predispositions of the parties in government in the major countries, the level of consensus or agreement among member governments, and of course on the authority assigned to it by the various treaties. In this regard the prerogatives of the Commission have tended to grow over time, but the road has not been smooth nor the passage inevitable. Up to about 1964 the Commission was surprisingly successful at sponsoring and indeed accelerating the integration process, supported strongly by the European Court. The French government subsequently challenged the Commission, and the then EC settled into a pattern representing a ‘Europe of States’. This continued through the first enlargement (1973) and up until the early 1980s when the need for members to address their common economic difficulties and unblock the decision-making machinery led to the
Single European Act
. This moderately enhanced the powers of the Commission, but the momentum led to
Maastricht
, which further reinforced the role of the Commission. Over time, then, the Commission has been strengthened in relation to the member governments, with more policies moving to the EU and the Union taking on more supranational characteristics.
Post-Maastricht, the European Union is committed to a single currency and full economic and monetary union supported by an important element of foreign and defence policy integration. This was in large measure due to the galvanizing role of President Jacques Delors, but a period of national introspection appears to have begun. The agreement of national governments is still difficult to obtain on the Council, and it is not clear how politically sustainable the Commission's long-term agenda will be in a number of member states.
GU