If it’s broken fix it: Chinese decadence and European crisis

What’s wrong with Europe? We have been sliding from one crisis to another in an endless cycle which is increasing in speed and spread. The results of the elections in France and Greece are likely to open a new round that will shake Europe again.

I expect several will believe that the new governments will put an end to this vicious cycle which today takes the name of austerity measures, but I don’t think they are enough. The roots of European crisis get deeper in the hearts and minds of people, and the malaise which has grown amongst them over the last years didn’t start just in 2008.

A long weekend is the best time to ponder on such a question, when it’s coupled with the right reading. I chose On China by Henry Kissinger. The comparison might be surprising – as mine often are to the audience – but I found an inspiring parallel in the last days of the Chinese Empire.

In the 19^th century, China was under attack by foreign forces. Western countries forced the Empire to open up to international trade and introduced foreign ideas such as Christianity that undermined the Imperial confidence in its unique mandate from Heaven. It was impossible to repel the Westerners’ claims when underpinned by the strength of steam and firearms.  The usual means used by the Empire to win and assimilate invading barbarians over the century didn’t work anymore.

Kissinger comments that a society under siege from more powerful forces has two choices. It can attempt to close the gap, learning and adapting, or insist on its own culture to regroup its forces and counterattack.

Imperial China chose the second option, persuaded that its millenary culture would have defeated the barbarians, but its obtuseness and arrogance led to military defeat, economic decadence and foreign occupation.

The deeply wrong miscalculation was championed by Li Hongzhang, the Imperial Foreign Minister. He was the master of Chinese tradition in managing situations and pitting enemies against each other. He gained time for the Empire but China needed radical change not good management.

If Li Hongzhang embodies the belief in Chinese superiority vis-à-vis the other nations that led to the catastrophe, Mao is the opposite. He accepted the Chinese backwardness in modernization and turned his country upside down, together with its people, to regain the lost ground and pride.

Mao led a ruthless revolution, costing millions of lives but forming the basis for the new worldwide success that China represents today.

What can we learn from Chinese history? Europe is neither a nation nor under direct threat of an invasion, but global forces are causing a radical upheaval in all layers of society. The European model doesn’t work any more: we consume too much, don’t produce enough. Privileges and duties are not equally shared. Economy is lagging behind and democracy is sclerotizing. Leaders are disoriented and people afraid for their future.

I’m not calling for bloodshed. It’s no time for a revolution. We still have such a large share in the global system that that doesn’t suit anybody. But radical change is necessary to re-energize Europe and Europeans – unless we want to wait for the crisis to bite deeper into society and trigger a tsunami.

My trips to Brussels in the last two weeks have persuaded me that this is not clear in the elite. I found a Commission deluded and arrogant – still convinced to be the only solution with no responsibility in the crisis. The Parliament still struggles to rise to the challenge of the new power bestowed on its members, displaying an uneven level of competence but large dependency on interest groups – regional and sectorial – including the social sector.

The fundamental problem lies with the people of Europe – the deepest root of the crisis in my view – who are still attached to a glorious past which is not about to come back. They display an utterly shoking sense of entitlement and but easily forget their duties. They expect leaders to solve their problems but do little to contribute except for throwing out the old ones and plauding the new ones as the former fail and the latter succeed in marketing.

In my view a systemic solution can come only in changing ideas and behaviour. We need a new vision for a Europe led by Europeans in the 21st century in which all stakeholders share the burden together with the privileges, devising a strategy which reconciles the economy with society and the environment, and positions Europe in the world.

In the next weeks I will be in Italy, and will explore how I can enbody the change I advocate for; stay tuned.