What do courageous, affluent Europeans have to do with the Dutch government’s recent distribution of booklets on how to survive independently for 72 hours? Or with Germans discussing the need to increase safe, bunker-like locations in case shelter is required? That is, with recent efforts by European governments to convince their societies to become more resilient in the event of power outages, internet blackouts, and other shocks?
Initiatives to raise awareness of the importance of strengthening resilience and prepare for the ‘unexpected’ are certainly to praise – as is stocking up on sufficient canned food, candles, battery-powered radios, and knowledge about shelters. Yet the current focus is too narrow. Governments have sounded alarms primarily about war, even though the most recent test of resilience was a pandemic. Whereas environmental change and the rise of AI are equally strong contenders for boosting societal resilience.
Moreover, even if survival kits are indisputably useful in the case of shocks, strong social networks, collaboration, and a sense of mutual dependency are just as important – if not more so. During challenging times, these qualities are often key to survival, rather than simply having essential items stocked at home. To navigate crises, it is crucial to come together, share the latest information, mutually decide what the next steps will be, offer a helping hand where needed, and share resources.
It would be unfair to suggest that governments completely ignore these fundamental aspects of a resilient society. By and large, however, easy, inexpensive solutions are proposed that place the burden of responsibility on individuals. Conversely, fostering conditions that enable solidarity and support networks to thrive demands serious financial and political commitment. It involves maintaining the infrastructure and environment essential to open and democratic societies, which are generally better equipped to absorb shocks – and consistently rank among the world’s high-income countries. The prosperity and peace enjoyed by many European citizens and firms over the past eight decades, as well as their capacity to adapt to new realities, rest on pluralism, safeguards against the concentration of power and monopolies, justice, the free flow of information, transparency, and a sense of togetherness.
Survival kits and shelters, thus, are insufficient, especially considering the substantial rise in military spending across Europe. Rich Europeans – ranging from the mere affluent to extremely affluent and small to large businesses with enough reserves – must recognise that it will ultimately harm them, too, when this comes at the costs of reducing investment in ‘softer’ elements underpinning open societies – such as civil society, collective commitments, community support. Since they are well placed to handle a (temporary) increase in financial contributions, it is a modest exchange for a society better able to cope with disruptions and change. Failing to contribute a relatively small amount now may cost them dear in the long run, as aside from only a few beneficiaries a collapsing society is to the disadvantage of all – a case in point is that the fortunes of rich Europeans suffered tremendously due to the world wars, as Thomas Piketty has shown.
Consequently, affluent Europeans should display greater courage, particularly as mounting military expenditure by governments would increasingly compete with other areas of public spending. They could, for example, establish a substantial pan-European fund supporting the broader foundations of societal resilience, rather than relying on numerous fragmented philanthropic initiatives – wealthy members of initiatives such as Tax Me Now, who already advocate for a fairer tax system to fund public services, etc., might well take the lead here.
The wealthy should also prepare for the possibility that governments may view higher taxes on the rich as one of the few remaining options to boost military budgets – if the situation in the Ukraine turns for the worse amid increasing economic and geopolitical uncertainty (with the latest threat to Europe coming from the 2025 US’ National Security Strategy). Just as a 90% income tax rate imposed on the highest US earners towards the end of WOII (1944-1963), external threats may pave the way for significant tax hikes. In this event, the affluent should be bold enough to accept such hikes only if they are coupled with a commitment to sustain democratic foundations – for everyone’s benefit.
Of course, history is replete with examples of the wealthy failing to respond swiftly enough to threats – to society and, ultimately, to themselves. Why should it be any different this time? How can wealthy Europeans be encouraged to act with greater courage and realise that it is in their own interest to increase their financial support towards protecting their societies against external threats, while also safeguarding the (internal) conditions for open, democratic societies? It is a quest that matters to us all!
Picture by Alex Shune on Unsplash