I was struck this week by the Financial Times survey of people in the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the US looking at how optimistic or pessimistic they were regarding their prospects for the coming decade. Generally, we in the UK emerged as the second most pessimistic about our prospects eclipsed only, but substantially, by the French whose levels of pessimism emerged as depressingly impressive.
People were asked whether they thought the state would do less for them financially in the next decade – 75% of French respondents thought this would be the case compared with 54% of Americans and 69% of UK respondents. So, it seems that not many people are anticipating a ‘Happy New Year’ in this respect, but is there any room for a positive interpretation of this finding?
If the majority of citizens truly expect less from the State perhaps we will need to find new levels of resourcefulness and purpose in order to fend for ourselves. As a result we may become more self-sufficient, resilient and positive about our own self-efficacy. That’s great for us, but what about the European States that citizens anticipate disconnecting themselves from? This survey finding essentially suggests a weakening financial, and possibly psychological, contract between State and individual – this could ultimately threaten the former rather than the latter. If we expect less from the State then presumably we are less prepared to contribute to it. This could be a recipe for growing resentment regarding our tax and national insurance contributions in the future.
On the other hand, things could go in quite a different direction that leads to an altogether healthier relationship between citizens and the State. True commitment is about shared values and an emotional bond and not just a convenient exchange of financial benefits. If the State realises that it can no longer convince us that the financial benefits merit our investment in it, it will need to work harder at engaging us as citizens in other ways. Arguably the US creates a closer emotional and values-driven bond with its citizens than either France or the UK – it is, at least, more explicit about doing so. In Britain non-political and historical symbols of our connection with the state, such as the Royal family, may become more relevant in the coming decade as our dissatisfaction with the ‘State contract’, allied with a growing cynicism about traditional party politics, erodes our tie to the State. In this respect, France may face the biggest challenge – starting at a low ebb a new contract with the State will be difficult to create, especially if there are severe financial constraints. It may drive the quest for a more European identity and a new relationship with a new State.
Of course, the temptation is to think that none of this is relevant to you and I, that this is just the world of politics. However, the reason it’s so interesting is because it filters right down to our own individual sense of self and identity. How much am I ‘me’, a citizen of the world and how much am I defined by my membership of this State? As we look ahead to a new decade, there are more questions than answers.
You can read about the survey at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/006a5e6c-f3ec-11de-ac55-00144feab49a.html
Your discussion of the “social contract” is interesting. You suggest that in the US people feel a higher than average level of affinity for their nation, which may well be the case.
The argument could be made however, that between citizens of the US, the “social contract” does not seem to be as strong as it is in some other countries.
Take for example, crossing the street. In the US cars will often not yield to pedestrians, in France they seem much more likely to do so.
Could we be suffering from a case of, love the country, hate the citizen?