Bitter Lake in which the narrator (Curtis) talks about the ideals that brought both the Soviets and Americans to Afghanistan: to create a state based on their respective principles and ideologies, to create an ally in the region, to change the country in their likeness.
But, Curtis concludes ironically, little did they know that Afghanistan would change them instead. Neither the Soviets nor the Americans could fathom that they would bring back to their home countries the very habits that they tried to eradicate in Afghanistan: corruption, nepotism, and the like.
*
For seven years now I have lived in Albania. I have seen ambassadors and foreign representatives come and go. And they all, so they say, share this same ideal: to make Albania a better place. Or rather, to make Albania more like wherever they came from: the West. Their presence would change Albania, would stabilize Albania.
The government of Edi Rama has gladly and smartly catered to the feelings of self-importance of these foreign dignitaries, who, more often than not, were not exactly the brightest of their class. After all, whose career as foreign diplomat would be well served with a post in a relatively unimportant European country?
But Rama adopted their language and made them feel as if he were one of them. He would create a state, he would invite the IMF and World Bank back into the country, he would reform the police, the justice system, and so on and so forth. He clothed himself in the drapes of European enlightenment – cosmopolitan culture, contemporary art, good taste.
But looking back it seems that Albania has changed hardly at all. What has changed, however, is the West, and in particular the EU. In a relatively short period it has developed (once again) the nationalist and populist discourses that twenty years ago would have been unthinkable in the liberal, affluent, multicultural societies from which they sprang up. The EU has even experienced its first secession, a phenomenon that in the 1990s was strictly reserved to the Balkans.
In no way did Albania in the last decade become more like the EU. Instead, I want to claim that the EU became more like Albania. This is why I often tell friends curious about the country where I live: “Albania is the future of Europe.”
*
I will try to explain what I mean by this, “Albania is the future of Europe.” But in order to do so we need to take an economic perspective, and specifically a perspective articulated by economic sociologist Wolfgang Streeck in his article “The Rise of the European Consolidation State.” Because in part it was reading this particular essay that encouraged me to write this reflection.
The article describes development of fiscal policies such as “austerity,” the decline in taxability, and the increased dependence of nation states on multinational “investors” to provide formerly public services under the header of the “consolidation state.”
An established consolidation state is one that has managed to institutionalize a political commitment and build a political capacity never to default on its debt, projecting an uncompromising determination to place its obligations to its creditors above all other obligations. It features a general configuration of political forces that makes spending increases difficult while making spending cuts, on everything except debt service, easy. […]
In a consolidation state, citizens lose out to investors, rights of citizenship are trumped by claims from commercial contracts, voters range below creditors, the results of elections are less important than those of bond auctions, public opinion matters less than interest rates and citizen loyalties less than investor confidence, and debt service crowds out public services. (11)
This in itself is already a very apt description of Albania as it has evolved under the Rama government since 2013. The government has at multiple occasions stressed that it will not acquire more debt and insistently claims to be on its way to “pay off” old debts.
Meanwhile, it is clear to even the most casual observer that Albanian citizens are completely powerless against national and international “investors” who are provided with custom-made legislation such as the Law on Strategic Investments. Private property is regularly expropriated in favor of such private investments, while reports on economic growth, whether impartial or not, are used to reject any actually lived poverty and hardship among the population. “There is work, but there are no professionals,” was one of Rama’s favorite slogans.
With a decrease in taxability caused by the desire not to scare off potential investors, spending cuts, and a brake on borrowing money on the international market, the consolidated state is forced to eject ever more parts of the government apparatus.
What results is a large-scale political experiment turning over to private enterprise the tasks of insuring against social risks, providing welfare, education and health, building and maintaining physical infrastructures, and even parts of government itself (warfare, the collection of intelligence). (20)
This in turn leads to a series of consequences:
About the Author:
Vincent W.J. van Gerven Oei is a philologist, director of project bureau for the arts and humanities The Department of Eagles, and runs multilingual publishing house Uitgeverij. For Berfrois he writes a regular series on the state and concept of Albania, where he lives and works most of the time.
There is a moment in Adam Curtis’s documentary - Budget balancing means that an ever larger part of the budget will “cover comparatively rigid, legally fixed expenditures, such as wages for public sector workers, public pensions, and, of course, debt service” (22). Public investment in infrastructure, education, health, labor policy will all steadily decrease.
- These public investments will increasingly be financed through public–private partnerships (PPP), “with private investment backed by the public, and governments or individual citizens paying user fees to private firms” (22).
- Cutting in services such as education will force the middle class to look at private alternatives, forcing governments “to allow private firms to compete with public authorities” (23).
- The privatization of investment will lead to an empowerment of private companies vis-à-vis the government: “The evolving connections of the new firms with the government, often taking the form of a revolving-door exchange of personnel, and their campaign contributions will further cement the shift from a redistributive towards a neoliberal state that abandons to civil society and the market its responsibility to provide for social equity and social cohesion” (23).
About the Author: