The Union of the peoples of Europe commenced as a reaction against the wars which had devastated the continent in the 20th century, or against the menace of totalitarian regimes. Paradoxically, the politicians who contributed most to its birth were the worst enemies of those peoples: first Hitler, then Stalin. The overcoming of national divergences was possible as a result of the perils threatening the continent: the return of war, the imposition of a Communist regime. On the one hand, the constitution of (unified) European politics is a success: wars have become impossible between member-States and attempts to overthrow democratic governments have failed.
On the other hand, the implausibility of inter-State wars in Europe is at the heart of a tragic illusion: that of automatic invulnerability, extended also to the extra-European world. It is shown by the exiguity of military expenditures in the majority of European States. Truth be told, Europeans chose a different solution: to delegate their own defense to a loyal ally, the United States, while obtaining security advantages without taking on the relative costs. Nonetheless, this free-ride policy has its drawbacks. In fact, from the moment Europeans rely on others they give up effective control on the security measures taken by the latter. Consequently, they cannot protest against the use of such measures without losing face: in case they do not approve them, why does not the European Union directly provide for its own security? To mention recent examples, how can it denounce the torture of enemy prisoners, legalized by a previous US administration? How can it dissociate itself from the massive use of drones, destined to execute faraway suspects, never brought to justice in court?
How can Europeans protest against the general surveillance of all means of communication throughout entire segments of their population, and even of allied Heads of State? In all these cases, we should expect an incontrovertible reply: these measures – they would say – are indispensable not only for our own security but also for yours.
Hence, Europe would do better if it assumed on itself its own security, in order to establish a better balance between efficacy and legality while escaping from the temptation of excesses – what ancient Greeks referred to as “hubris”. This attitude of moderation, able to preserve and keep together different policy principles, may become the EU’s trademark also in other fields related to public policies. In particular, the one regarding relations between politics and economics. In Soviet-style dictatorships, economic needs were entirely subjugated to political diktat. The consequences are known: empty store shelves, chronic shortages, populations turning to ingenious measures to satisfy their needs.
However, in the contemporary state of world economy another peril has emerged: the globalized economy, free from any constraint by politics, tends to even subdue the latter. The term “democracy” has lost its significance: power does not belong to the people any more, but to multinational corporations. To sum up this last point, only a very limited number of individuals (those whose power derives from their wealth) determines peoples’ destiny. In principle, the European Union would have the capacity to propose, and even impose, more balanced relations among different powers, in order to avoid that the pursuance of economic efficiency leads necessarily to the destruction of any social protection and legal control – in a few words, of life quality, that is the ultimate goal of our institutions.
In the defense sector, as well as in the economic one, the EU would succeed where single States are destined to fail: military self-protection without legalizing torture and obviating the problems of a globalized economy. But in order to face these challenges and thus become a world player, it is imperative for the EU to strengthen its own unity. This evolution must proceed hand in hand with a democratization implying the transfer of powers from the European Council – which brings together the EU Heads of State and Government – to the EU Parliament, whose members are elected by EU citizens. It should be the parliament to elect the executive body, the Commission, presided by a President who would also be the President of the European Union (a function now absurdly divided between different people). For the time being, this desirable course of European institutions meets with a considerable obstacle: the attitude of the political elites in each country, fearful of losing at the European level the prerogatives they enjoy at the national level (according to the principle: “half a loaf is better than no bread”). How can we convince them to give up voluntarily their power? Maybe the endeavor is not so impossible. After all, Nelson Mandela succeeded in persuading the South African government to peacefully cede him its power…
Until that happy day comes (for the European Union), every measure aimed at strengthening the EU Parliament is a step forward in the right direction. The higher the participation in the EU elections, the greater the legitimacy of the Parliament will be.
Translated by Alon Helled
The article was originally published in la Repubblica, April 7th, 2014
Log in