Tuesday28 January 2020 ★ FINANCIAL TIMES 13

Opinion

will block investments in the future.

This could trigger a further exodus

of young people. Governments face a

dilemma, therefore: how to persuade

older citizens to sacrifice for their coun-

try’s future, even if they suspect that

their children or grandchildren will be

living elsewhere.

Shutting immigrants out of the polit-

ical process could, in the space of a few

decades, produce a situation in which

most working people lack the right to

vote, while most voters areretired. In

order for such a system to work, either

democracy will lose its importance or

the regime willbecome less democratic.

In 1953, following the violent suppres-

sion of anti-communist protests in East

Berlin, Bertolt Brecht wrote a poem

called “The Solution”, in which he sar-

donically asked whether it would not be

“easier” for the rulers “to dissolve the

people and elect another”. For today’s

illiberal political leaders, Europe is fac-

ing its Brechtian moment.

The writer is chairman of the Centre for

Liberal Strategies in Sofia and fellow at the

Institute for Human Sciences, IWM Vienna

in politics — itreserves the right to

distinguish, within countries, between

citizens and non-citizens. Foreigners

are free to come and work, but they

will never be allowed to have any fund-

amental say in the political process. This

is a version, albeit less dramatic in size

and scope, of the waythe Gulf states

treat migrant workers. All are welcome

to work, butnot to enjoy the benefits of

citizenship.

There is obviously a cost to preserving

the power of the ethnic majority in

diversifying societies. The establish-

ment of a two-tier society, and the

resentment it inevitably provokes, is the

most obvious consequence. The emer-

gence of a disenfranchised youth is a

further, less-obvious outcome. At

present, young people constitute a rela-

tively small cohort in central and east-

ern Europe. Low birth rates and high

rates of emigration have seen to that.

This creates a risk that older gener-

ations, over-represented in the political

system, and who rightly see themselves

as thebiggest victims ofthe post-

communist transition (with their

low pensions and disrupted careers),

When they change, political power

often changes as well.Central and east-

ern Europe has witnessed a version fo

this phenomenon. Millions of people

have moved away, mostly to the west,

and liberal political forces ave seenh

their influence drop considerably as a

consequence, since large numbers of

their voters are among those who have

chosen toleave.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, the

new illiberalismis not premised on a

policy pledge to keep borders tightly

closed. For example, in 2017,Poland,

whose governmentopposes Brussels’

refugee policies, issued more visas to

foreign migrant workers than any other

EU member state.

Illiberalism, rather, promisessover-

eign control over who gets to participate

atavistic nationalism and authoritarian-

ism, it might instead be understood as

something new: an attempt to preserve

the power of shrinking ethnocultural

majorities in the face of population

decline and increased migration. The

UN estimates that, since the 1990s, the

nations of Europe’s east have lost about

6 per cent of their collective population,

or about18m people.

In 1939, almost a third of Poland’s

inhabitants were something other than

ethnic Poles (there were substantial

German, Jewish, Ukrainian, and other

minorities). Today, ethnic Poles account

for more than 95 per cent of Polish citi-

zens. But in this century, those trends

have begun to reverse. What the politi-

cal historian Joseph Rothschild calls a

“return to diversity” has become

increasingly apparent.

To manage this “diversification”, cen-

tral and eastern European societies will

need to unlearn what many of them still

see as the 20th century’sbiggest lesson

— that ethnic and cultural diversity is

less an advantage and more of a security

threat.

In a democracy, numbers matter.

W

hen western European

political leaders meet

their central and east-

ern European counter-

parts, all they want to

discuss is the crisis of democracy and

the erosion of the rule of law. The prior-

ity for the latter, however, is the demo-

graphic crisis and the depopulation of

their countries.

Andrej Plenkovic, the prime minister

of Croatia, which currently holds the

rotating presidency of the EU, defined

depopulation as Europe’s “existential

problem” in his recent meeting with the

new European Council president,

Charles Michel.

But might there be a connection

between the twin crises of democracy

and demography?Rather than viewing

risingilliberalism n central and easterni

Europe as the inevitable return of

F

or what is regarded by some as

anindependence day, the

commemorations are decid-

edly underwhelming. Brexit

day will be marked with a

speech by the UK prime minister, a coin,

some flags, red white and blue lighting

and a party in Parliament Square, but it

is not exactly July 4.

The time difference does not help. The

UK departs the EU at midnight Brussels

time, not UK time. India’s first premier

hailed independence with themagiste-

rial words: At the stroke of the mid-“

night hour, when the world sleeps, India

will awake to life.” Britain will have to

make do with: “At the stroke of 11pm,

when much of the country would nor-

mally be watching Graham Norton... ”

Boris Johnson rode to electoral

victory on the back of Brexit fatigue.

The speed with which his win drew all

the heat from the debate suggests an

entire country waiting to exhale. His

speech, while inevitably celebratory,

will therefore try to draw a line under

the divisions. It is, of course, easier to be

magnanimous when you have won, but

he knows this moment is a chance for

the nation to move beyond the corrosive

zero-sum politics that have done such

damage. What a shame then, that the

chance is unlikely to be taken.

Brexiters are responsible for much of

the ugliness of debate, but they were not

alone. Since the 2016 referendum, Brit-

ish politics has been disfigured by the

vicious rhetoric of identity politics.

Opponents are not simply wrong; they

are wicked. Remainers were “traitors”;

the courts, “enemies of the people”.

Leavers were “racists” and “stupid”.

These instincts went beyond Brexit.

In the opposition Labour party, leaders

boast of having no Tory friends. For aco-

lytes of the defeated leader Jeremy Cor-

byn, the word “centrist” became a term

of abuse, as if compromise were ignoble.

Tories were simply “evil”. The demonis-

ing goes beyond party politics. Accusa-

tions of bigotry are hurled with abandon

because the easiest way to win the argu-

ment is to silence your opponent.

The price of pursuing a zero-sum

approach was especially severe for the

opponents of Brexit. Recently, I bumped

into a highly combative leading light of

the second referendum campaign. He

was in fine form. He had given it his best

shot, he said, admitting that perhaps

those who had argued that Remainers

should accept the outcome and fight for

a softer Brexit were right after all. It was

a maddening conversation. By rubbish-

ing any search for a compromise or soft

Brexit, the Remainers lost entirely, at a

time when the parliamentary numbers

decreed it need not be so.

But much of this was about identity,

about being, in the words of one activist,

“able to tell my children that I stood up

and fought it”. Politics was thus reduced

to a statement about self. Once politics is

wrapped up in identity, it is drawn

towards zero-sum outcomes.

Thelatest election was framed in just

such a way. Not just Leave and Remain,

but also north v south and young v old.

But having won by dividing, Mr Johnson

wants to revert to One NationConserva-

tism and he sees the dividend of holding

the political centre ground. His eco-

nomic agenda is more interventionist

than those of previous Tory administra-

tions. He will invest in public services

and infrastructure. But already the hard

questions are crowding in: whether to

defy the US and impose a digital services

tax, orlet Huawei into the 5G network,

or how to flesh out the trade-offs of eco-

nomic divergence with the EU.

As the decisions get harder, Mr John-

son and his attack dogs will see the elec-

toral benefits of identity politics and

cultural warfare. Be itthrough going

after the BBC, the judiciary, liberals, or

the woke London elite, the temptation

to draw sharp lines will be powerful.

Simultaneously, Labour has turned in

on itself,fighting a leadership contest ni

which angry denunciation of Mr John-

son is a prerequisite for success. When

you are fighting for attention, under-

statement is not the best weapon. Yet

while politics is about choices and argu-

ment, few issues demand absolutism.

In Scotland, too, the demands of the

nationalists do not lend themselves to

unity. Scottish Nationalists will spend

the year nursing a grievance culture.

Rising above all this first requires a

government that uses its majority judi-

ciously and not simply to stifle dissent.

Easing division cannot be at the expense

of forensic opposition. Mr Johnson must

take the lead by tempering the potent

emotionalism of identity politics.

So the prime minister’s instinct over

Brexit day is encouraging. But he must

set a consistent example. It would be an

immense service if he draws some of the

poison and absolutism from public life.

Still, the allure of wedge politics is great

and Mr Johnson is not a man known for

resisting temptation.

[email protected]

Having won by dividing,

after Brexit Johnson

wants to revert to

One Nation Conservatism

Depopulation is eastern Europe’s biggest problem

Ivan

Krastev

Illiberalism promises

sovereign control over

who can participate

in the political process

A moment to end zero-sum politics

foreign travel, all of which will generate

more greenhouse gases. The good news

is that the Chinese government has said

repeatedly that it understands that cli-

mate change and pollution are direct

threats to China’s future, causing

droughts, water shortages and rises in

sea levels that threaten major cities,

such as Shanghai. President Xi Jinping

has also demonstrated some commit-

ment to environmental action, through

his efforts to improve the air quality in

major cities such as Beijing. The Chinese

government has also poured money and

expertise into the development of

renewable sources of energy.

In the months ahead, the Chinese and

the Europeans are going to try to work

together to develop new international

goals for the reduction of greenhouse

gases. If they succeed, the next UN con-

ference on climate change may preserve

the hope that an international commu-

nity can still come together to tackle a

common threat to humanity — what-

ever happens in the US election.

[email protected]

climate debate in Davos was the way

in which the topic seemed to hover over

every session — even those that were

ostensibly devoted to other subjects.

Particularly striking was Ashraf Ghani,

the president of Afghanistan, saying

that his biggest fearis environmental

degradation — even more than the long-

running conflict that still hasthe coun-

try in its grip: “We used to have a

drought every 100 years, now it is more

like every five years”.

African politicians in Davos made

similar points about the increase in

droughts in the Sahel region and the way

in which the changing climate is driving

conflicts over land and water, and dis-

placing populations.

After a day of conversations like that,

I needed a drink. So I headed to a wine-

tasting, only to meet a German wine-

maker who told me that climate change

had prompted him to start planting

vines in Norway.

The bad news for the planet is that the

continued growth of the Chinese and

Indian middle classes will increase

demands for cars, electricity, meat and

ambitious and detailed goals for the

reduction of greenhouse gases.

But COP26 will open just six days after

the US presidential election. If Mr

Trump is re-elected, it will confirm that

the US has essentially opted out of glo-

bal efforts to combat climate change. On

November 4, the day after the lection,e

the US is also scheduled formally to

withdraw from the Paris accord. That,

in turn, will ratchet up the pressure on

the EU, China, India and the UK (as

hosts) to keep alive the effort to combat

climate change through co-ordinated

global action.Adam Tooze, a Columbia

University professor who is writing a

history of international climate politics,

says that November 2020 will be a “key

moment in global history”.

One of the striking things about the

back to the level that it was in 1975.

China, by contrast, continues to open

new coal-fired power plants.

Nonetheless, the Trump administra-

tion’s climate scepticism (denialism,

if you prefer) still matters. The US has

led in the construction of most of the

important international institutions

and agreements that have shaped the

current world order. If it opts out of the

global effort to combat climate change,

others will have to provide the leader-

ship to achieve an international deal.

China’s coal addiction and authorit-

arian system mean that it will struggle

to provide a global lead on the climate.

The Europeans are passionate on the

subject but probably lack the organisa-

tion and the international heft to take

charge. The EU’s discussion of imposing

a “carbon border tax” — essentially tax-

ing imports from heavily-polluting

countries — could also lead to bitter

trade disputes that will make it even

harder to achieve an international

agreement.

But somebody is going to have to

provide leadership quickly, because

the coming year will be vital to inter-

national efforts on climate. In Nov-

ember, the UK will host COP26, the

latest UN summit on climate change.

This will be a particularly important

meeting because the participating coun-

tries are expected to recognise that

the pledges they made under the Paris

climate accord of 2015 are insufficient

to meet the goal of containing global

warming. At November’s Glasgow sum-

mit, they are meant to commit to more

D

onald Trump has become

the pantomime villain of

the climate change story.

At the World Economic

Forum n Davos last week,i

the US president played the role to

perfection, denouncing climate activists

as “prophets of doom”, whileGreta

Thunberg, the teenage campaigner,

watched on from the audience.

However, if you look at the numbers

— as opposed to the theatre — it

becomes clear that the battle to control

climate change now depends much

more on what happens in China than

in America. According to theUnion of

Concerned Scientists, China now

accounts for 29 per cent of global carbon

dioxide emissions generation — com-

paredwith 16 per cent for the US, about

10 per cent for the EU and 7 per cent for

India. Even on a per-capita basis, the

Chinese now emit moregreenhouse

gases han Europeans and have done sot

since 2014.

Asthe Trump administration likes to

point out, America’s greenhouse gas

emissions actually fell last year — albeit

only by 2.1 per cent. This is largely

because coal-fired power generation in

the US has dropped sharply and is now

China will

decide the fate

of the planet

Beijing’s coal addiction

and authoritarian system

mean that it will

struggle to lead globally

BRITAIN

Robert

Shrimsley

T

he world should be more

anxious than it was a week

ago. According to research

published on Friday, a new

Sars-likecoronavirus ash

been present in China since December 1,

a full month before the alarm was

raised.Almost 3,000 people have been

diagnosed with the respiratory illness.

As ofyesterday afternoon, 35 cases

were outside China. At least 81 people

have died.

Despite draconian quarantining,

the virus, provisionally known as

2019-nCoV, isspreading. Several coun-

tries, including the UK, are considering

evacuating nationals from the hot zone.

It is now time for the World Health

Organisation to call a Public Health

Emergency of International Concern

(PHEIC).

The revised timeline on when the

virus began circulating comes courtesy

of two papers in The Lancet medical

journal, which reveal other worrying

details.One ets out the clinical data ons

the first 41 laboratory-confirmed

patients.

Patient zero, who fell ill on December

1, had no link to the seafood market in

Wuhan that is widely assumed to be the

source of the outbreak. Afurther 13 of

those 41 cases showed no link either. It is

possible that the virus began circulating

earlier than December.

Other analyses separately suggest

that containment is now a forlorn hope.

The “reproduction number” is thought

to lie between two and four — meaning

that, on average, each infected person

passes the virus to between twoand four

others.That is high:seasonal flu as ah

reproduction rate of about 1.4.

The incubation periodcould beabout

a week, with infected individuals possi-

bly being contagious while showing

mild or no symptoms.Neil Ferguson, an

Imperial College epidemiologist, esti-

mated that 4,000were infected by Janu-

ary 18. Jonathan Read, ofLancaster Uni-

versity, and colleagues provisionally

calculate hat the tally could exceedt

190,000 by February 4.

A “grave situation” for China, as Presi-

dent Xi Jinping describes the epidemic,

is a grave situation for the world. A fifth

of the global population is now poten-

tially exposed to a highly transmissible,

currently incurable and potentially fatal

respiratory virus.

Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of

The Lancet, believes a PHEIC declara-

tion should be considered. “The emer-

gency committee [of the WHO] should

reconvene as a matter of urgency,” Mr

Horton said, adding that he felt there

were political sensitivities at play that

have not dogged other epidemics, such

as Ebola in west Africa.

Recentdevelopments, such as a

specialcommittee et up by China’ss

rulingparty, have also heightened

rather than allayed his concerns. He

says: “Not one [of the people on that

committee] has any background in

public health. That makes me very

worried.”

Mr Horton also fears the mass social

unrest hat may accompany prolongedt

quarantine with patchy information.

It is unclear whether the WHO knew

in advance of China’s quarantine plans.

The language emerging from itsmeet-

ings has been painfully diplomatic, with

its director-general Tedros Adhanom

Ghebreyesus remarking only that he

hoped the extreme measures were

“both effective and short in their dura-

tion”.

Sir Jeremy Farrar, the director of

the Wellcome Trust, said it was “right

and appropriate” for China to control

the first response. Antivirals were going

into randomised trials on the ground,

he said, and vaccines might become

available within six months.

He acknowledged, though, that the

social consequences of quarantining

millions of people remained “uncharted

territory”.

All factors considered, it is perverse to

see thecoronavirus outbreak as any-

thing other than a PHEIC.

The writer is a science commentator

Containing

coronavirus

is now a

forlorn hope

The language emerging

from the WHO’s

meetings has been

painfully diplomatic

SCIENCE

Anjana

Ahuja

global affairs

Gideon

Rachman

JANUARY 28 2020 Section:Features Time: 27/1/2020- 18:13 User:alistair.hayes Page Name:COMMENT, Part,Page,Edition:LON, 13, 1