Many Europeans are evaluating with scepticism the ability of European countries to really establish an effective direction for the future. In this, they're hardly influenced by the rather confused critiques of Europe advanced by major representatives of the Trump administration. They're more impressed by how ongoing events are developing, both at the higher levels of state administration as well as in other more tehnical areas which are however indispensable if a state is to function effectively when promoting the best interests of its citizens.
A case in point is the stagnant political situation in France, where a central budget for the state cannot be finalised as politically, despite all the compromises which may have been arrived at, there is still no parliamentary majority to vote for it.
Another instance is that of the problem experienced in the Berlin region where an extremist group sabotaged the energy supply for a big area of the city. Till the energy system was repaired and resumed delivery of light and heat to the homes of hundreds of thousands of consumers at a time of acute cold weather, days had to pass.
Other instances are mentioned that create doubt about European resilience when faced with trouble. .
***
SHAH AND ISLAMIC STATE
During the most recent violent wave of popular unrest in Iran, it seemed as if the alternative to the obscurantist regime of the mullahs that came out in the open was one run by the Pahlavis, the descendants of the former Shah of Persia. No doubt, the current regime is not one that anybody'd like to be subjected to - it's slightly less repressive than the Taliban administration in Afghanistan. No country can sound attractive if it's ruled with an iron fist by a clique of dogmatic clergy.
On the other hand, neither was it such a pretty situation when the Shah ruled before Ayatollah Khomeini arrived. The corruption, the squandering of funds, the hidden poverty, the social injustice, the suppression of all dissent were as prevalent as they are today!
Iran's problems go back to well before those days. They started when the US and the UK organised a coup to topple the reformist government of the prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh. For them, he was too "leftist"! That happened in the year 1953.
***
DIRECT CONTRACTS
It is wise to restrict the scope for the granting of direct contracts by government entities. However, one cannot ignore the realities of what most projects face, especially if they happen to be of a certain magnitude.
Consider what does sometimes happen during the implementation of a project about which an open public call for tenders has been held: the physical conditions to which the offer has been referred when the call for tenders was made, turn out to be different on the ground. It becomes therefore necessary to carry out procedures and works that are different to those initially envisaged. They might imply greater expense or further outlays to cover different arrangments to those that had been planned.
How should such complications be resolved? By issuing a new tender? By giving a direct order to whoever won the original call? It is clear: both options present margins for abuses and corruption. On the other hand as well, an important consideration is whether the possible solutions could simply serve to create delays for the project as a whole.