Europe in the Twilight of Certainties

From pension disputes in Paris to housing protests in Athens and Tirana, mounting unrest exposes the strains in the continent’s postwar social settlement. Liberty Leading the People, by Eugène Delacroix, 1830. Paris’s defaced Monument to the Republic. Civilisations sometimes encounter their most perplexing problems not when they fail, but when they succeed too well. Between the 1880s and the mid-20th century, Western Europe achieved something unprecedented in human history. Clean municipal...

min read

From pension disputes in Paris to housing protests in Athens and Tirana, mounting unrest exposes the strains in the continent’s postwar social settlement. Liberty Leading the People, by Eugène Delacroix, 1830. Paris’s defaced Monument to the Republic. Civilisations sometimes encounter their most perplexing problems not when they fail, but when they succeed too well. Between the 1880s and the mid-20th century, Western Europe achieved something unprecedented in human history. Clean municipal water, mass vaccination, antibiotics, and statutory pensions rendered old age less precarious, childhood less lethal, and disease less routinely fatal. Living into one’s eighties ceased to be an extravagant wager against nature and became a standard civilisational expectation. But this demographic triumph created a political challenge: How does a society honour its financial and social promises when citizens live significantly longer and the inflow of young tax-paying workers can no longer keep pace with those retiring? According to Eurostat, citizens aged 65 or older accounted for 22 percent of the European Union’s population in 2025, up from 17 percent in 2005. Over the same period, the EU’s median age rose from 39.6 to 44.9 years. In Italy, the median age has reached an astonishing 49.1. It is tempting to look at the unrest rippling across European capitals, from pension strikes in Paris to housing protests in Athens and Tirana, and label it a simple crisis of state solvency. But the deeper question is whether a social settlement forged for one demographic and economic era can survive another without destroying the moral principles that justified its creation. Bismarck’s Irony Bismarck, the conservative who built the welfare state to save the monarchy. In the 1880s, the fiercely conservative Otto von Bismarck, the ‘Iron Chancellor’ of a newly unified Germany, paradoxically laid the foundations of the modern welfare state. Sickness insurance in 1883 was followed by accident insurance in 1884, and old-age and invalidity pensions in 1889. Bismarck recognized that rapid industrialisation had clustered urban workers in crowded German cities, generating acute economic vulnerability and fuelling the rise of revolutionary socialism. His calculated move was to bind the working classes directly to the Imperial state through statutory protection. As the British historian A.J.P. Taylor famously observed in Bismarck: The Man and the Statesman (1955), Bismarck sought to buy off the proletariat with a state pension, offering social security to render revolutionary socialism redundant. The delicious historical irony here was a conservative chancellor seeking to preserve a monarchy established institutions that subsequent generations of Social Democrats would expand and defend as universal human rights. Bismarck’s achievement lay in making social protection a systematic, law-bound responsibility of the modern state. Yet, the state Bismarck built was never intended for a continent where mass longevity would become the norm. Malthus Inverted Malthus, Prophet of too many mouths, in an age of too few workers. In 1798, Thomas Malthus published his Essay on the Principle of Population, arguing that human numbers would inevitably outstrip the earth’s ability to feed them, checked only by war, pestilence, and famine. For the next two centuries, Malthus served as the patron saint of economic pessimism, warning that human progress would always founder on material limits. Today, Europe faces an inverted Malthusian nightmare where the crisis is not too many mouths to feed, but too few working hands to generate the tax revenue needed to support an aging society. This demographic imbalance cannot be reduced to a ‘moral’ failing on the part of the elderly, who planned their retirements around long-standing legal contracts. Nor is it the fault of younger generations, who face high housing costs, real wage stagnation and insecure labour markets. Furthermore, the current protests are not just about pension ages. Greece has seen university students and teachers protest over runaway rent prices, low purchasing power and public education cuts. In Albania, mass citizen movements like Lëvizja Bashkë have mobilized against state corruption, oligarchic urban developments and the mass emigration of young talent who see no domestic future. Viewed from the periphery, the street unrest is less about generational warfare than institutional capture. The post-war European generation built families under conditions of expanding public housing, rising real wages, and shared prosperity. A state cannot reasonably expect its youth to embrace the family-building norms of their grandparents while operating under the wages and housing odds of the present. Postwar Pluck The modern European welfare state acquired its moral authority after the Second World War. Having mobilized entire populations for war, governments faced a peace-time question: if the state could demand everything from citizens in conflict, what security did it owe them in peace? In Britain, William Beveridge’s 1942 report mapped out a war on five “Giant Evils” of want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness. Across Europe, distinct social models emerged - from Britain’s universal services to France’s labour-managed funds, from West Germany’s social market economy to the Nordic universal safety nets. As the Danish sociologist Gøsta Esping-Andersen observed in his classic The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism (1990), these were not uniform social-democratic experiments, but fundamentally different compromises balancing the responsibilities of the state, the market and the family. Crucially, these welfare expansions were underpinned by an exceptional historical moment what the French demographer Jean Fourastié dubbed Les Trente Glorieuses (the “Thirty Glorious Years”) of economic expansion between 1945 and 1975. This period was characterized by high productivity growth. rapid industrialization, low unemployment and a massive baby-boom workforce. Thus, expanding welfare was easy when a wide base of young workers supported a small apex of retirees. But over decades, public pensions and universal healthcare ceased to look like historical compromises dependent on economic growth and began to resemble rights as immutable as the seasons. Pay-as-you-go pension systems are essentially intergenerational compacts which hold that current workers will finance current retirees, trusting that future workers will do the same for them. That trust faces a structural political asymmetry. The defender of an existing entitlement is an active voter with an immediate stake. The younger or future taxpayer who will shoulder the long-term bill faces a cost that is dispersed and easily deferred by politicians. In The Logic of Collective Action (1965), Mancur Olson explained how small, well-organized interest groups routinely outmanoeuvre large, diffuse populations. This dilemma is not entirely new and history offers compelling parallels. In 5 CE, Emperor Augustus faced a severe crisis when retiring legionnaires demanded promised land and pensions that the state could no longer afford. To prevent military rebellion, Augustus established a dedicated military treasury (Aerarium Militare) funded by new sales and inheritance taxes. Rome learned early that when state promises outpace fiscal realities, it destabilizes social peace. It is easy to reach for grand literary narratives of decline. Gibbon found gloomy majesty in Rome’s slow decay while Oswald Spengler prophesied the deterministic winter of Western civilization. Yet, merely treating the current unrest sweeping Europe as a story of civilisational collapse misses the mark. The challenge today is to re-engineer its institutions with the realization that there are no frictionless policy choices. Raising retirement ages is fiscally necessary, but imposes a heavier burden on manual labourers than office workers. Raising taxes risks dampening economic dynamism while increasing immigration helps plug labour deficits, but requires integration and social cohesion. Shakespeare’s King Lear dramatically illustrates that political crises erupt when authority and entitlement are divorced from ongoing responsibility. Lear sought to retain the privileges of majesty while shedding the burdens of governance – something all too observable in today’s European leaders. The post-war generation’s achievement was that they had the intellectual courage to construct institutions capable of answering the realities of their era. They certainly had the leaders and political will. Europe today needs to recover that courage to renegotiate its terms. The arithmetic is demanding, but it is not a Götterdämmerung written in the stars.

Imran Khan’s Fall from Grace

Kaswar Klasra

Aug 27, 2024

4 min read

Updated: Oct 21, 2024

Imran Khan, once hailed as Pakistan’s most charismatic and resilient leader now finds himself in a position unprecedented for a man of his stature.

The former Prime Minister of Pakistan, once known for his unyielding spirit and fierce determination, now shows signs of strain. Imprisoned and facing numerous charges, Khan appears to be a shadow of the leader who once inspired millions.

Khan’s recent meeting with journalists revealed a man who is a shell of his former self. Once confident and commanding, his body now shows a sense of unease and agitation. Those who met him describe a waning spirit, a stark change for a leader once known for his steadfastness in adversity.

The journalists described Khan as a man who is aware that his political party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), is losing its once-iron grip on the nation’s imagination―a realisation that visibly shook him.

The PTI, once a magnet for massive crowds and inspired loyalty among its supporters, is now struggling. The much-hyped rally scheduled for August 22 in Islamabad, was embarrassingly cancelled due to a lack of public interest. Khan, in a bid to save face, claimed that the rally was called off to avoid potential violence. In a sign of growing desperation, Khan rescheduled the rally for September 8 and directed his party leaders to overcome any obstacles. This defiant stance is typical of Khan’s confrontational style, and his public directives highlight his insecurity about his party’s ability to mobilise support.

While Khan outwardly appears calm and composed, the multiple cases against him and his time in jail have left him isolated and struggling with loneliness. Even in this difficult situation, he remains in the headlines, thanks to his uncanny ability to stay in the public’s eye. Khan recently made headlines by applying for the University of Oxford Chancellorship, a move initially dismissed as a rumor but confirmed by his spokesman, Sayed Zulfikar Bukhari. As an Oxford alumnus, Khan would be the first Asian to take the role. Many see this bid as a strategic play to leverage his international profile against Pakistan’s establishment, a move that has kept him prominently in the media spotlight.

The political landscape in Pakistan is deeply divided. Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif, in his second term, has failed to address critical issues including unemployment, soaring inflation, and deteriorating law and order. His administration’s inability to deliver on its promises has only deepened the public’s disillusionment, leading to growing nostalgia for Khan’s past leadership.

Shahbaz Sharif’s government is a source of frustration for the Pakistani people and a cause for concern for the country’s military. Historically, the military has shaped Pakistan’s political trajectory, stepping in when civilian governments falter. The military reportedly is growing uneasy about the government’s performance especially Sharif’s inability to stabilize the country and mend relationships with key neighbors, particularly India. Additionally, its deteriorating ties with Afghanistan and Iran have left Pakistan increasingly isolated. Even China, Pakistan’s longstanding ally, has expressed dissatisfaction with the government’s policies, a worrying sign given the importance of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) to the country’s economic future.

It is within this context of political turmoil and international isolation that Imran Khan remains a potent force. Despite his legal troubles and the challenges facing his party, Khan’s popularity endures. For millions of Pakistanis, his tenure as Prime Minister is seen as a time of relative stability and hope, a stark contrast to the current administration’s ineptitude. This perception has kept Khan’s political base intact, even as his party faces an uphill battle in the coming months.

However, Khan’s ability to navigate the current political landscape is far from guaranteed. The PTI’s diminishing support, coupled with the increasing pressure from the establishment, raises questions about Khan’s long-term strategy. His recent moves, including the application for the Oxford Chancellorship, suggest a leader willing to explore unconventional avenues to maintain his relevance. But whether these tactics will translate into a successful political comeback remains to be seen.

Pakistan’s political future is more uncertain than ever. Imran Khan’s journey from cricketing legend to political maverick has been extraordinary. Still, as he faces the toughest challenge of his career, the question remains: Can he once again defy the odds and reclaim his place at the helm of Pakistani politics, or is this the beginning of the end for a once unstoppable leader?

Khan’s story is a testament to the complexities of power and the unpredictable nature of political life in Pakistan. His rise, driven by charisma, populism, and a genuine desire for change, now faces the realities of personal and political challenges, raising the possibility that his time may be running out.

Imran Khan is a beacon of hope for his supporters, and a polarizing figure for detractors, whose ambitions have often clouded his judgment. As the nation watches, the world is left to wonder: What will Imran Khan’s next move be? And more importantly, what does it mean for the future of Pakistan? The coming months will be critical not only for Imran Khan but for Pakistan as a whole. The decisions made during this period will shape the country’s trajectory for years. Whether Khan emerges victorious or is consigned to the annals of history as a fallen leader, one thing is certain: The story of Imran Khan is far from over.

(The writer is a senior jounalist based in Islamabad. Views personal)

Europe in the Twilight of Certainties

Imran Khan’s Fall from Grace

Recent Posts

Comments