Blog

The defeat of French President Nicolas Sarkozy by Socialist candidate Francois Hollande was long predicted. What was not foretold even as recently as a year ago was the astonishing fragility of European governments more generally. Since the start of the debt crisis, no fewer than 16 nations in the EU – well over half the total – have seen a change of government. Defeats, resignations, and votes of no confidence pockmark the continent, with no apparent end in sight. Even Europe’s stronger leaders, such as England’s David Cameron and Germany’s Angela Merkel, are in precarious positions as voters in both countries threaten their ability to cut a deal. This is not, moreover, a manifestation of a particular political sentiment. Governments from both the left and the right have been forced to relinquish power.

So what’s the problem? Is it, as many argue, a lack of leadership? Is it, as European Parliament member Udo Bullmann claims, “too few people leading European governenments who have the courage to appear in front of people at home” and tell them the hard truth? Not at all. In fact, most of those who have fallen furthest fastest have done just that, telling their people there is work to be done, work that necessarily includes their own willingness to sacrifice.

Rather the problem lies with fed up followers, with ordinary people too many of whom want something for nothing, with ordinary people who have the patience of a gnat, with ordinary people whose level of tolerance for anything other than instant gratification is low. I do not for one moment dismiss the fact that since the financial crisis times have been tough, particularly for those who are out of work and for those having a hard time making ends meet. But this is not their problem – our leaders’ problem. It’s our problem – it’s a problem that requires collective, collaborative solutions in which large numbers of people will have to play their part. 

Meantime, on this side of the Atlantic, I venture to guess that Barack Obama is watching with trepidation his European counterparts toppling.  Voters refusal to cut their leaders some slack cannot be said to bode well for his own political future.      

What was he thinking? What made him do something so wildly at odds with everything he was supposed to stand for?

It was only because King Juan Carlos ofSpainfell and broke his hip on the way to the bathroom in an exclusive safari camp inAfricathat we found out where he was and what he was doing. As a result, the reputation of this once widely admired man has taken a permanent hit.  

Juan Carlos has been credited with presiding overSpain’s transition from authoritarianism (under Francisco Franco) to democracy some thirty years ago. In exchange for his contribution,Spain’s royal family has remained relatively immune to prying by the press and criticism from the public. Those halcyon days are now over. With a single misstep, Juan Carlos made him and his kin vulnerable to the slings and arrows of Spaniards high and low. 

Times are tough inSpain.  The economy is near double-dip recession and the level of unemployment is frighteningly high: almost half of those between 16 and 24 are jobless.  So for the King to choose this moment to vacation inAfrica, rifle in hand to kill elephants, water buffaloes, and other large animals, suggests a cluelessness that is appalling. (To gild the lily, he is honorary head ofSpain’s World Wildlife Fund!)

The King did finally apologize. “I am very sorry,” said Juan Carlos. “I made a mistake and it won’t happen again.” But whatever his remorse, it cannot compensate for a choice that can most charitably be described as boneheaded. Or for a lifestyle which, it is becoming glaringly clear, has not been exactly replete with reason and rectitude.

As it turned out, he was cleared of the three most serious charges and spared significant punishment. But he was found guilty on one count – failing to keep his cabinet fully informed during the 2008 financial crisis – and he was obliged to endure criminal proceedings against him. This makes Iceland’s former Prime Minister, Geir Haarde, the only head of state whose head rolled because of misdoing during the recent economic meltdown.

            Because Iceland’s fiscal balloon had grown all out of proportion to its small size, when it burst it was traumatic. The country’s three major banks collapsed in a period of a week. Nevertheless it’s worth pointing out that only this one small state followed its outrage against the authorities by actually doing something about it. 

            The U.S. has been, to put it politely, slow to prosecute or even pursue those who might be held accountable for what everyone agrees was, is, the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression. Icelanders, in contrast, channeled their anger, chasing down not only public officials, but corporate ones as well. The country’s collective outrage was ultimately directed into the legal system, which has now been marshaled against an array of protagonists, including among others the top executives of all of Iceland’s leading banks. Before this drama comes to an end, it’s possible that fully 90 people might be implicated to the point of being indicted.    

            I cannot say whether the charges being leveled in Iceland are justified, or whether those being indicted will ultimately be found guilty. What I can say is that at least one western country is trying its level and legal best to hold those who were in charge during the financial fiasco responsible.