Social democracy's often diffuse societal, intellectual and cultural influences have exceeded and outlasted Labour's direct electoral success. This book focuses questions relating to the popular values, mindsets and sense of citizenship needed to further social democracy on that deeper enterprise of this book. It reflects on the 'big picture' of social democracy and progressivism, both historical and contemporary. Part I takes the historical bird's eye view, exploring social democratic and liberal dilemmas that both pervaded the twentieth century and remain very much alive today. It suggests that scholars and political analysts tend to under-play the extent to which progressivism and the voters have managed to operate in constructive harmony. Tracing new and social liberalism's, distinctive offer of a fusion between social interdependence and individualism, the volume assesses the failure of this British liberalism to become the over-arching driver of politics. The Scottish secession from the United Kingdom in the aftermath of the Brexit referendum is also discussed. Part II takes stock of the critical scrutiny, discussing 'Western' democracies alongside the dominance and the extensive body of thought from David Marquand on citizenship, and especially Marquand's civic republican vision. Part III seeks to apply Marquand's search for the 'principled society', discusses social and psychological concept of 'neighbourliness', and examines the public good less as a fixed entity. Finally, the significance of Christopher Addison and his notions on the democratic socialism and liberal progressive traditions, and pluralism are discussed.
South China Sea could be an exception to the rule. It is an area where the US potentially cannot exercise its control due to China's resources and political position on the matter (Peterson 2016 ).
Latin America and the European Union
The EU and Latin America have developed over time a different degree of interdependence at both the political and economic levels. Over the years, and in particular since the membership of the Iberian countries in 1986, the EU has developed relations with Latin America, and the other way round
While for much of the world globalisation is associated with growing interdependence and the spread of ‘zones of peace’, in the Middle East the decade of globalisation was ushered in by war, was marked by intrusive US hegemony, renewed economic dependency on the core and continuing insecurity, and ended with yet another round of war in 2001.
In the early 1990s, prospects looked different to some observers: the end of the Cold War, the second Gulf War, and the advance of economic globalisation seemed to provide a unique
its strategic partners Brazil (2007) and Mexico (2009).
Both trade and political dialogues have in common that they are built no longer around regional or sub-regional schemes – according to the EU paradigm of “pure inter-regionalism” between two integrated blocs that speak with a single voice – but around multilevel formats, according to the changing nature of regionalism (Ayuso and Caballero 2018 ; Gratius 2021 ). Whilst political dialogue started in the 1980s, in the midst of the Cold War, in a context of global interdependence, from the
each organization are also different in critical ways. Article 3 of the OAU Charter affirms, “Respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of each State and for its inalienable right to independent existence,” 9 whereas Article 4 of the AU Constitutive Act affirms, “sovereign equality and interdependence among Member States of the Union (and) respect of borders existing on achievement of independence.” 10 However, the Constitutive Act also adds several new principles, notably the right of the AU to intervene as a result of certain grave circumstances and
subject reflects the process of formation of social order (see Elias 1995 : xiii; Mennell 1989 : 50). Elias argued that modernity was associated with a massive internalization of self-restraint, which mirrors the development of a social order characterized by centripetal forces of complex interdependence between social actors.
Elias’ work focussed upon social transformations that took place in Western Europe, which he describes in terms of the civilizing process . The ethnocentric implications of this are so obvious that we do not need to restate them. While making
Assistance, have been unable to leave Egypt.
Arguably, the main reason why the securitisation of emigration is becoming less prevalent today is the rise of economic interdependence and globalisation. Increasingly, a number of authoritarian regimes liberalised their emigration policies over time, granting citizens greater freedom to travel abroad: in the late 1970s, Deng Xiaoping's economic reforms afforded Chinese people the opportunity to travel and study abroad for the first time in the history of the People's Republic of China. Egypt famously adopted
BRICS will develop an agenda of balancing power because they would suffer economically if they did (Schaefer and Poffenbarger 2014 ). In other words the degree of interdependence is enough to avoid a direct confrontation. The following subsections will elaborate on the impact that some of the BRICs have on South American foreign policy.
During the Cold War the role of Russia in Latin America was associated with counterbalancing the influence of the US. These countries’ projection of power over Central and South America
Extensive asymmetries, geographical distance and limited interdependence define the context of the bilateral relationship between the EU and Mexico. None the less, both parties have sought to develop practices and institutions to increase their political and economic interconnections. Since the early 1990s the EU and Mexico have dealt with the changing global contexts and adapted their relationship to the new circumstances. Two salient moments have defined the relationship in the past three decades. The first
pharmakoi (those banned from the polis , cast into abjection and compelled to find a new discursive idiom in exile). Yet while the pharmacotic rite seeks to enact a clear, distinct boundary between inside and outside – between those who can be considered part of the polis and those who cannot ever be – the return of the parasite troubles and blurs this distinction by making the ontological interdependence of its two poles ambiguously manifest in a single body. The parasite, then, both is and is more than the pharmakos : ‘is’ insofar as she represents the return of