It‘a Crisis - but for how long?

I see that the Euro Crisis is still continuing. Steps are being taken to resolve this, as they have been for the past umpteen months.

How long can a crisis last? I always imagined (i.e. “in my day, a crisis……) that a crisis was a point in time; a point when a decision was made; a point in time, when history might go one way or might go another way.

The Free online dictionary tells me that a crisis is:

- A crucial or decisive point or situation; a turning point or.

- An unstable condition, as in political, social, or economic affairs, involving an impending abrupt or decisive change

Perhaps then, contrary to my initial prejudice, this really is a crisis. It is certainly unstable, although whether there is to be an abrupt or decisive change is another question. In this case, I guess that it is a crisis, because it is expected that there will be an abrupt or decisive change.

But what happens if “Euro Crisis” eventually ends, not abruptly or decisively, but slides steadily and gradually into chaos, bankruptcy of various countries, a gradual drift into recession, and / or the continuous drip feed of German (and French) money to pay for the running expenses of its neighbours (with something left over for me, I hope).  Does this mean that someone will admit that it was all a big mistake and that there wasn’t a crisis after all?

José Barroso might announce “Sorry folks – it wasn’t a crisis at all. It was just a continuous unsolvable problem. There was no abrupt or decisive ending. We have just slipped remorsely into bankruptcy / civil war / been taken over by Saudia Arabia /oblivion” (please delete as required), while trying to look statesmanlike and in control.

Another way of putting the question is how many summits does it take before a crisis becomes something…well …more boring and routine?  I mean to say, that apart from David Cameron’s recent appearance on the “Euro Crisis” platform, not a lot has changed in the headlines on “Euro Crisis”. Actually, I think that the newspapers are now just recycling old headlines.

I have decided to take different tacks on this question, by asking what it would take to end the crisis, whether it is necessary to end a crisis or whether a crisis can carry on indefinitely (Perhaps these two questions are actually the same).

After all, the modern meaning (as used by the newspapers and newscasts) of a “Crisis” is really just an unsatisfactory or undesired state of affairs. This is what most people refer to as a problem. “Greece is Bankrupt” / “The problems of the NHS in England are unsolvable / inflation is increasing / unemployment is rising / education system is failing”. These are actually just statements of fact. In themselves, they are not crises.

The consequences are unpleasant, and if one had previously believed something different, then the recognition of the truth is something of a jolt. In political terms, this leads to hyperactivity (e.g. summits), in an attempt to deny the inevitable.

For this sorry state of affairs, we (voters) only have ourselves to blame. After all, what politician was ever re-elected on the banner “It is hopeless. The best thing is to do nothing and see what happens”. Besides which it makes for pretty boring news, and the English don’t like their news to be boring, but stirring for the emotions.

What if they are not “Crises”? The moment of crisis was over, probably when no one was watching, when we were all tucked up in bed, fast asleep, believing that all was well with the world. At the point at which we recognise that there is a problem, the crisis is long past. The point for decision is miles behind us, and all political leaders can do is to thrash around, while looking statesmanlike, and spend billions of whatever currency we choose, of other people’s money, to help us look statesmanlike.

Therefore I propose a new category in the Guinness Book of Records. “The Record Length for an Unresolved Crisis”.