SZ: Mr. Ansell, the title of your book speaks of political failure – an accusation that often comes from populists.
Ben Ansell: The title does indeed allude to the feeling that democracy is in crisis – a feeling that is widespread in many countries at the moment. I would like to offer some reassurance: there are certainly many reasons why our political systems find it difficult to deliver results that satisfy us – be it in terms of the economic situation, the equality of citizens or their political participation. Time and again, our self-interest and collective goals collide with one another. But I want to encourage understanding that this is inevitable: politics “fails” precisely when we think that everything can be done without the things that bother us about politics.
Everything is not so simple?
That is the message of the populists: all we need is strong, determined leadership, and then we would be rid of all the dirty minutiae of democratic politics. Or the message of the technocrats: we just need to let a few smart experts do their thing. Or the message of the technologists: politics is analogue and archaic, whereas algorithms and artificial intelligence could easily solve our problems.
And you want to counteract this anti-politics?
Yes, it is much more damaging than left-right differences. Politics is simply about making decisions among people who do not share the same opinion.
But more and more people no longer want to know anything about politics.
It is true that there is a lot of apathy among voters if we compare it with the 1950s or 1960s. But this does not have to be a constant decline, it can come in waves. In the USA, one might think that general political disillusionment explains the Donald Trump phenomenon – but voter turnout is actually higher there than in previous decades. It was Barack Obama’s candidacy – and perhaps also the financial crisis of 2007/8 – that mobilized this greater voter interest. And if we find many things in politics particularly terrible right now – look at the ten years from 1963: a president, his brother and Martin Luther King were murdered, a president had to resign because he spied on his opponents – that was pretty bad, and many people were afraid for the survival of American democracy.
But Trump is worse than many things before, isn’t he?
Absolutely. But Richard Nixon was bad too.
In your analyses you are less concerned with political ideals and more with people’s self-interest. Why?
I have always been interested in controversial issues that are closely linked to private interests – for example, policy areas such as education or housing. I think you can see things more clearly if you don’t start with high expectations when analyzing politics. And if you don’t immediately criticize people for paying less taxes or wanting to allow less migration or flying several times a year. You should first expect what you expect from people and hold back on normative matters. That’s how you arrive at political solutions.
But what about the identities of groups, of collectives, that seem to be so important right now?
I don’t want to deny that group identities are important for individuals too. But ultimately they are not as dominant as one might think. As social researchers know, it is quite difficult to get groups to act together. So it is a waste of time to be surprised that blacks or Hispanics in the USA also want to vote for Donald Trump – if some of them believe that he would be better for their tax returns or their job prospects and that should be the deciding factor in their voting decision, then they will vote for him.
However, as you mentioned, self-interest often runs counter to collective political goals. You like to talk about the “traps” that these noble common goals can become – and which politicians must find a way out of.
Yes, I have divided it into five common goals: democracy, equality, solidarity, security and prosperity. It is always a difficult task to get individual citizens to commit to something without constantly monitoring them or dictating to them. For example, it is difficult to stop people from making selfish or strategic voting decisions; or, even though they are fundamentally in favour of more equality, from choosing an elite profession that suits their skills and needs; or to dissuade them from summer holidays that cause a lot of emissions, even though they claim that global warming must be stopped.
Does that mean that politicians cannot just appeal or enforce regulations?
Above all, we need political decisions – and therefore laws – that have a steering function. For example, on prices or tax policy or on the promotion of renewable energy. That is the institutional side – but we cannot do without informal norms of behavior. On the one hand, we have to admit that we all have weaknesses, and on the other hand, that politics is there to find solutions to problems anyway.
But many then say: politicians do not only work for the common good, but also have their own interests.
And they’re right. Most politicians want to be re-elected, and they want to be famous, powerful and wealthy. That’s the way it is.
You spoke about climate change – shouldn’t we despair of politics right now?
No. The Paris Climate Agreement has actually achieved more than the strict agreements before it (Kyoto and CopenhagenEditor’s note. Red). It has put climate protection in the right direction. This may not be happening fast enough, but the effort to work towards climate neutrality now has a lot of general support.
With emphasis on “generally” – when it comes to personal renunciation, the picture changes.
Yes, you can actually see that when it comes down to it – farmers protest against environmental protection regulations, homeowners against heating laws and so on. But that just proves again: it cannot be done without “dirty” politics, which negotiates interests with one another.
But the resistance can also become more and more ideological – see the FDP in Germany.
But at least you have a coalition government thanks to proportional representation! In democracies with a majority system, one party often tries to undo everything the other has done. In coalition governments, on the other hand, compromises have to be made at some point – even if it may seem almost impossible at times. And even the Republicans in the US Congress have now managed to reach a compromise on military aid – the pressure was too great.
What role do national characteristics play? For example, the willingness to pay high taxes and social security contributions for the general public varies greatly even in democracies.
There is a saying about Great Britain, where I live and work, that the country is trying to have a European welfare state and at the same time an American level of taxation. Of course, that doesn’t work. But we have a cultural tradition of greater skepticism towards the state. Some peculiarities are also simply due to the different electoral laws. Democracy is generally accused of being short-sighted these days – but in countries with a majority system, politics is shorter-sighted than in those with proportional representation. But decisions are sometimes made more quickly.
In Germany, on the other hand, there is a widespread feeling that the system is very slow to make changes.
Yes, the famous fax machines in German government offices… – when government working methods and rules become entrenched, it can take a long time for anything to change in countries that are strongly geared towards compromise and decentralization. Elsewhere, however, people would like to have a little German bureaucracy, in other words a reasonably reliable public administration.
What about international cooperation? Hopes for a cooperative policy are currently very difficult.
International politics always needs strong countries that are prepared to take on more burdens than others. Take, for example, the pioneering role that Norway has played in development aid – rich countries must act as role models. Or individual industrialized countries that are doing a lot to become climate neutral, even if their share of global emissions is not high overall. The effort that the USA has made for NATO in recent decades is also likely to go beyond its own national interest. But if strong countries withdraw, international politics as a whole suffers.
Can we fairly summarize your concerns by saying: Ben Ansell is calling for lowering expectations of politics so that solutions can be achieved at all?
I think so – you have to be realistic and accept how politics works as a way of finding compromises. Messianic politics, on the other hand, always threatens to backfire – heroic charismatics can certainly inspire people, but they can also lead to disappointment, as we can see with Emmanuel Macron and Barack Obama.
That is, if you are not too frustrated with politics, is there hope for renewal?
Yes – if we keep giving democracy a chance. It is the system that recognises that we do not agree and yet must find solutions together.