Tzvetan Todorov
Philosopher and Anthropologist
Professor Todorov, how do you assess the French NO to the European Constitution? What is missing in this document in order to move European people's feelings? What about citizens' passions?
Does the European project need passion or only rationality? I think that a rational calculation of benefits and costs is not enough. The European people need reasons to love Europe as well. Human beings and their behaviours are usually driven by feelings and emotions. In this perspective, I believe it's important to return to the issue of European values so that we can support Europe because it involves our feelings, and not only for we think in rational terms. To my mind, an emotional support is a really crucial element. I think that this aspect was unfortunately missing in the French campaign. To be sure, this NO vote has been biased by other variables, which deal with French politics, internal struggles for power, political careers... all but European issues, and - as we all know - I'm not the only one who thinks so.
You wrote about a "new world disorder". Do you think that a European Government, deriving from the Commission, and accountable to the European Parliament, would be a proper solution for a more adequate world order? Do you think it could be feasible in the short run? What about the consequences of the French and the Dutch NOs?
Predicting the future is a tricky job... I'm not that confident about it... However, I believe that Europe, in order to play a stronger role on the world stage, has to speak with a single voice. It is essential that it has something similar to a Government, at least as far as Foreign and Security Policy is concerned. Europe needs also its own defence. Without it, a country can't be really autonomous. Provided with such tools, Europe could really follow its own way, not against the USA, which is a liberal democracy as well, but modifying the American approach to international affairs and to the current world order. The French and Dutch NOs are very bad answers. However, I don't think they represent the end of the story. We have just lost a battle, not the war (and luckily it's not a war!). I'm pretty convinced that the movement towards European integration.
Do you think that Europe should have a proper Army? Which kind of role should it eventually play?
Going back to the issue of the Army, I think that it should have a well-defined role: it's not our concern to compete with the US. It's neither possible nor easy - due to very high costs - let alone the fact that nowadays wars are different... The European Union doesn't need to be involved in, for instance, Indian or Chinese conflicts. Europe should be a "quiet power", that is, a limited one, mainly devoted to the defence of its territory. Well, I'd like to say: "No one threatens us!" but I think that unfortunately that wouldn't be true. Something bad might come from East: Russia is nowadays quiet, but who knows how it will look in ten, fifteen or twenty years? A new nationalism, or religious fundamentalism could bring Russia back to the aggressive role that it played in the XX century.
Weapons of Mass Destruction can't be overestimated. We must control them and their destructive potential. The same applies to international terrorism, and I don't mean only the Muslim one. Nowadays every small group could easily build small arsenals, for technology spread quickly and without obstacles. In the end, we must avoid civil wars at all events. Therefore we must think how to hinder conflicts such as the Yugoslavian one. Considering all the above. mentioned reasons, we need an Army, although not as powerful and costly such as the US one. I don't think it would mean a waste of money because it would give the Europeans a tool to live together in peace.
Some scholars hold that the European Union, with or without its Constitution, is already a kind of federation; other ones believe on the contrary that Governments are still the Lords of the Treaties. What do you mean by federalism in the XXI century.
As far as federalism is concerned, I'm neither a specialist of the federal state nor a jurist: I don't think I'm the right person to give a proper answer. I'd like anyway to stress a point that seems to me crucial: the European Union is the expression of something which has never existed in the past. We don't have proper models and we don't know where we are going to. Our federation is neither an empire - where all states are subject to a more powerful one - nor a federal state, such as Switzerland or Belgium, where some entities gave up their sovereignty in order to build up a single state. We are a federal union, but we're discovering it on the way, step by step. To sum up, I don' think that power is still completely in the hands of Governments. States have given up parts of their sovereignty, which lies to some extent in European institutions. We're building Europe step by step. The Constitution was just one of them; let's not dramatize its rejection in the French referendum.
You spoke about passions and emotions, which were missing when French people went to vote but are still present in the souls and hearts of people who are active in pacifist movements, no global movements, and so on. By the way, some of them were supporting the NO side in France. Which are to your mind the true European passions? Which role can pacifist movements play in the construction of Europe and in the world?
The so-called "No-global" movement is important as its message is spread worldwide, but in electoral terms, it represents only a tiny minority of voters. I think that more than half of the NO vote is due to the Extreme Right. Several "No-global" ideas have already entered the public debate and have been captured by political parties. Let's think about sustainable development, working conditions, and so on and so forth. With regard to passions... well, it's not a philosopher's task to decide which ones they ought to be. It's up to all of us. However, I believe that especially during the Iraqi War we all felt that a crucial European value is the rejection of the use of force to impose the Good. We must defend and strengthen this ideal which is a legacy of our history - featured by colonialism and totalitarianism.
There are other values as well: for instance, secularism. You might have heard of the French movement Ni pute, ni soumise (Neither whore, nor submitted), formed by young women in peripheries who defend their chance to avoid what some people would like them to do. Such movements are inspired by a strong idea of secularism. Individuals must have the chance to choose their own life. It's an important ideal. We must go ahead giving them the right place. They mean something more than barely technical issues - customs, or whatever.
Log in