Europe: what’s next?
Julia Delrieu*
The European Union in the beginning was about reconstructing Europe’s economical strength, and gaining an enduring competitive position, if not advantage, over the United States rather than contenting itself to remain one ofAmerican President Harry Truman’s protégés.
Initially, the idea behind building a European body was mostly - if not exclusively – a series of strategic multi-state alliances between countries that had a stronger control over their economy than they do today. The population was not particularly invited to voice their opinion about these transformations.
The "first steps" were easy to go through, as the concept of what Europe should represent or stand for was not overtly questioned at that point in time. More specifically, there was no debate over Europe's primal characteristics: Europe was considered white, it consisted of countries with a relatively similar historical economic and political development, and was conceived of to maintain democratic, long lasting and moderate governments. There was one "elephant in the room" though, that did not really surface as an issue until later on in the Union's construction: its Christian roots.
Whether we admit it or not, modernity, as understood by European civilization, is a product of a Christian civilization. Most of the political science schools manage to agree on one point: we owe modernity's first steps to Machiavelli, one of the first to advocate "Thinking outside of the church / box". But this first step toward individualism would have not been possible without Christian philosophy. Augustine of Hippo’s heritage justified private property’s pre-eminence over collective property, and Thomas Aquinas managed to render compatible man’s free will with Catholicism’s take on theology. These are fundamental premises to European modernity, premises upon which contractualism and legalism were built, and which lead to how we conceive political entities should be today.
We live with this, we conceive it as history "naturally" unraveling towards democracy, and it also comes with the idea that nation states are the final step in humanity’s political history. Further exportation with relative - and sometimes disputable - success ofEurope vivre-ensemble models lead us to believe that these models had something universal to them.
Exporting policy and economics within State models wasn't too much of a problem (for the European political elites), but how about integrating "new elements" in the realm of a big European machine? Religion is considered as mostly belonging to patrimony or private life in modernity, so why does the idea of integrating a country with a Muslim patrimony makes some of the Europeans cringe? Of course, Turkey's integration can be considered questionable on the basis of certain Turkish practices and positions, but don't you feel that there's that elephant in the room when it comes to the integration of Turkey, and that that elephant requires rethinking the limitations of our modernity?
Certain debates on the European Constitution leads me to believe so, particularly Poland's position when debates went on about on mentioning Christian heritage within the Constitution. John Paul II once said something about Poland that could be applied to Europe's philosophical patrimony: "It is impossible without Christ to understand and appraise the contribution of the Polish nation to the development of man and his humanity in the past, and its contribution today". The way he links Christianity, nationalism and modern history is quite telling, not only because it reminds us of Europe's founding identity, but also because Christian heritage is something Europe must compose with, even if modernity claims State and Church separation as one of its pillars.
So the question about Europe's christian roots isn't necessarily "Should we do with or without Christian heritage, and with or without its political and social forces?", but rather "How should one deal with these forces?".
Furthermore, one key element missing in Europe's construction is a clear gathering symbol.Nations couldn't have appeared without a political formula that elites were capable of "selling to the masses", and Europe is more than ever realizing this, as institutions are growing, but not resting on any distinct and consensual ideological cement. Some would argue that this cement can be found in Europe’s history for the struggle of democracy and a long tradition of economic binds, but we chose to export these universal models and practices: so then, what is that something "genuinely" European, except for smaller cars and cheaper international flights?
It is as if the architects of the European Union were too busy with building institutions, and assumed that (or crossed their fingers and wished for) an aggregation of nations that would eventually constitute a whole in which Europeans would confide their trust, and even their pride. As much as economic agreements were thoroughly discussed and made the headlines, the European Parliament had to struggle for recognition as a political actor. In the mean time, most national parliaments across Europe saw their power decrease in favor of strengthened executive powers. Thus, it isn't surprising that Europe's executive power, elites from national governments, are reluctant to promote parliamentary power. This type of power would most probably ultimately put forward an imperative to federate nations under a peoples' assembly, creating something like a Babel Tower in the middle of an already sprawling organization. The fact that Europe has failed to pass a Constitution and that the European Parliament’s relatively minor role tends to reinforce the idea in people's mind that European politics are rather a result of backstage battles than an expression and execution of the people's will.
Before even looking forward toward the prospect of integrating new countries, Europe should look to what would or is making it break from the inside, rather than pointing at possible external factors or partners. What does Europe owe to Christianity when it comes to its patrimony? What should Europe be willing to recognize without further threatening its stand on modernity? Such collective debates could lead to some kind of productive focus on the patrimony shared by European nations, a base for popular cohesion and perhaps ultimately a tangible popular sovereignty all across Europe.
* Julia grew up in the Netherlands and in France and currently lives in Montreal, where she graduated in Political Science. She collaborates with Radio Centre Ville where she hosts a one hour segment on various issues of social importance.
PREVIOUS PAGE
|
