Europe is at a tipping point – either the markets will force a massive surge of integration, or things will tip into the other direction and Europe will move towards gradual disintegration. In either case, the lack of citizens’ participation has become a systemic risk which jeopardizes even a development towards further integration. On the other hand, pressure coming from concerned European citizens can be precisely what Europe’s elites need to find a sustainable way out of the crisis.
The current European identity crisis started back in 2005, when French and Dutch citizens voted against the draft EU constitution. The citizens signalled: Europe has become distant, we don’t understand it anymore. The answer of the political elites was the technocratic Lisbon treaty, which regulated a number of processes much better but omitted the important issue of economic and financial governance. Instead of fresh European enthusiasm we got two new EU executive posts occupied by colourless technocrats still unknown to most people today. On the global stage the EU has increasingly manoeuvred itself into the role of an onlooker, most evidently at the failed climate summit in Copenhagen, and again recently during the Arab Spring. Within the EU, border checks were temporarily reintroduced for fear of young migrants coming from the south. This is a roll-back of one of the most tangible achievements of European integration that citizens are able to experience for themselves.
The financial crisis of 2008 hit the EU harder than first expected. It revealed that the monetary union had not been properly thought through to its logical conclusion. Instead of being a factor for deeper integration the Euro has become a systemic risk for the entire European Union. For two years now, Europe has been run by events. Policy makers are reactive, short-term and defensive: decisions are not made until the only choice left is between bad and worse - and even then it is too late.
A mere ten years ago, we were full of self-confidence, seriously believing that the 21st century would belong to the European Dream. Instead Europe is now a problem, and not just for itself. What was considered totally inconceivable only yesterday is now no longer impossible: Europe is not too big to fail.
There are a number of reasons for the potential failure of the European Dream; the latest of these is, of course, the as yet unresolved Euro crisis. To permanently rid ourselves of the ghost of disintegration, however, we should look beyond the present moment and deal in particular with the following five challenges:
I. Restoring the primacy of ends over means
For at least two years now, Europe has been ruled more or less openly by the markets. Without emotions the markets have revealed the design errors of the Euro, forcing politicians to make long overdue economic and political decisions. Ironically, the markets may currently be the most active Europeans.
However, Europe was not designed as an economic balance sheet. Europe was built on historical experience, for political reasons and as a result of political will. Economic integration was the primary means to achieve political ends: peace, stability and prosperity in Europe. Jean Monnet’s method was to build Europe top down, via institution building, economic integration, through a process of small steps. Politics was the driving force and the mastermind behind the development. Now things seem to have been almost turned on their heads: we are determined by the means - and no longer by our goals. The markets are the driving force behind politics, and politicians are always one or two steps behind.
Paradoxically, this method has produced a lot during the last few months that would have been considered totally unrealistic only two years ago. If Merkel and Sarkozy had announced their latest proposals on European economic governance then, they would have been celebrated as visionaries in the footsteps of Monnet, Delors and Kohl. Now they are reactive being pushed by events. This lack of leadership does not inspire confidence– and that goes for markets and citizens alike.
The markets are unpredictable Europeans. We cannot rely on them. But we can overcome the current crisis by going back to the original aims of the European Union and using this to shape policy actively. Especially in these turbulent times the original European vision, namely social stability and economic prosperity in Europe, is still very relevant - and large enough. Peace is also a value which we should not easily take for granted after a historically short period of peace in Europe. That is the lesson the Balkan wars should have taught us.
II. Sustaining prosperity
The European Dream is built on prosperity and growth. The promise of Europe is that everyone will be better off. This was also a central element of the various expansion rounds. Even if we would not admit this easily, the European community of values was only a secondary reason for most new EU members for joining.
The promise of ‘prosperity through Europe’ has worked well up to now. The financial and debt crisis has undermined this promise. Even if the reasons for the crises in Greece, Portugal, Spain, Ireland and Italy differ, Europe is involved, and it cannot in the short run halt the current decline of prosperity in those and possibly other EU members. At the same time, we need to review our present growth-oriented lifestyle anyway. This lifestyle is financed on credit from our children and other parts of the world – in monetary terms and with regard to natural resources. For the future, Europe will not be able to keep the promise of linear growth.
Without prosperity, Europe will not achieve legitimacy from its citizens. But what is prosperity in the 21st century, how is prosperity shared equitably, what does it actually mean to always be better off, and is it at all possible to maintain our level of prosperity in the face of global competition? These are the questions which Europe needs to find answers to. And this is the original vision of Europe which must be updated and implemented. The vision may be an old one, but it is still as relevant as ever, and it is as yet unfulfilled; it is certainly big enough.
Delivering prosperity and growth in the 21st century is a system-critical challenge for Europe, but it is also an opportunity. Here Europe can show itself to be a visionary, out of self-interest but also as a global model.
III. Europe must get faster
Up to now Europe was a slow, heavy train becoming ever longer and stronger and passing through predictable terrain. It got a bit hilly at times. There was plenty of time to change gear. Now the terrain is getting mountainous; it is changing all the time and it is unpredictable. Europe is changing gear all the time and doing her best to somehow keep the speed up. This is a challenge for the heavy train. And lightweight, fast new trains are appearing on the horizon…
In the last 10 years our pace of life has speeded up dramatically as a result of globalization, revolutionary information technologies and a hyper-creative financial industry. Also, what we already know about climate change must force us to make fundamental political and economic decisions even more speedily.
However, decision-making processes in Europe were devised for slower, more predictable times. Our current European model was built for a different era. We will have to retrofit Europe here. Eurobonds und European economic harmonization are ways of buying time in the medium term. At the same time, though, Europe must get faster, and this can only be achieved by more shared sovereignty. In other words, these are not decorative changes to the train that is Europe – we need a stronger central engine and a coordinated transmission. That will make us fit for the global pace of life.
IV. Defending the European model
1989 was not the end of history and the ultimate victory of the West, as Francis Fukuyama and many Europeans thought, but the beginning of a new multipolar era which has put in perspective the position of Europe too.
From whatever perspective you looked at it, there was agreement that Europe would only be able to playing a meaningful global role if it were united. For this purpose, the Lisbon Treaty established a European diplomatic corps with a European foreign minister.
While cleverly thought out from a theoretical and technical perspective, it has had no practical impact up to now. Lady Ashton and her team are unable to cope, and their efforts are unsuccessful. The fact that Europe’s role in the world is declining is almost palpable. The best example of this was the climate summit in Copenhagen in 2009, which saw the EU in the role of an onlooker – although the Europeans were the ones who made climate change a global issue in the first place.
Of course, now in the middle of a sovereign debt crisis Europe is currently not cutting a very fine figure globally.
But one has to keep in mind that the European Union model itself has been a way of solving conflicts and turning problems into opportunities. This model has found many admirers - and should continue to do so. If the European model falls apart, the development of other initiatives of shared governance such as the African Union will be set back dramatically. The future needs more of these initiatives and not less.
In other words, a key thing for Europe to do as a global actor at present is to put its own house in order and continue to improve it. The world needs the European model to be successful. This is not a call for European isolationism. Europe has an important role to play globally but will only be able to do it credibly and with self-confidence if it has sorted out its economic and governance problems at home.
If Europe still happens to have resources after this, it will have to concentrate on two or three main global issues on which it can really speak with one voice. Right at the top of the list should be the fight against dangerous climate change. Here Europe set the agenda itself, it continues to be the frontrunner with regard to implementation, and there is a clear link with economic interests in international competition. Also, Europe’s global commitment on climate change is a European vision for which the European citizens can be mobilized in terms of domestic and foreign policy.
V. A European lobby from below
Europe is ruled by national interests. That is logical in a system where the only direct political legitimacy is fought over in national and regional elections. There are elections to the European Parliament, but these are proxy elections on national policy whose outcome is not reflected in a European political executive. To date the European Parliament elections have not had anything to do with the composition of the European Commission.
Politicians who rely on popular support and with a mandate not measured by European deeds mainly think in national terms.
Add to this the fact that less and less politicians have a European history of their own. Their personal history was lived against a European backdrop, but strengthening Europe has not been their political aim. The nation state is closer to their hearts. This is not anti-European – it is just rational politics. Angela Merkel is a good example here.
European executive posts are occupied by compliant technocrats. They are policy administrators and not policy shapers. One result of this is that the Brussels executive trio of Rompuy/Barroso/Ashton plays only a very minor role in the current crisis. Europe is more or less directly ruled from the national capitals. And national capitals make national European politics.
National elites are becoming less and less able to put across a vision of Europe. The Brussels institutions can do nothing to compensate here. Since the days of Jacques Delors, they have been cut back to such an extent that they are actually nothing but an apolitical bureaucracy. And this is reflected in the language of Europe too: technical, theoretical, complicated and boring. National political is much closer to the people, even just for reasons of election tactics.
The crisis has shown that politicians can react to pressure: the pressure of the markets. Those for whom the markets are too unpredictable and nebulous should remember that politicians are actually appointed and employed by citizens and should react to their pressure. In Finland, the Netherlands and the UK Eurosceptic movements demonstrate how one can effectively exert pressure on policy.
But where is the political pressure of those who see the future in more Europe?
The future of Europe cannot be left up to the national elites, Eurosceptic lobbies and the international financial markets. It needs an effective lobby from below which demands a proactive European policy. We can learn a lot from the Tea Party about how to emotionalize politics – although we are worlds apart on issues.
What to do?
European visionaries built up the European Union step by step as an elite project after World War II. This is a creative achievement of which we in Europe can be justly proud. But this method has reached its limits. To continue in the same way could destroy what has been achieved and set back Europe’s development by several decades.
The disparate crisis management of the current leaderships in Europe has shown that we cannot be passive and leave Europe to them. The European Dream can continue if it is supported by a broad grass-roots movement which helps to shape it. In short, we need pressure from below.
Model Europe is as relevant today as it was 65 years ago. But it has to face the challenges and the pace of the 21st century, in terms of substance and communication. What is at stake is nothing less than re-invention a Europe which will continue to creating prosperity, stability and peace. This remains a big vision for Europe’s domestic and foreign policy.
From Monnet 1.0 to Monnet 2.0: the groups that have benefited most from European integration and are now seeing for the first time that European integration is not irreversible have to be given a political voice. Armchair Europeans will have to become engaged Europeans – a civil lobby, which puts pressure on political decision-makers via national and European elections.
Participation in European elections has shown a consistently negative trend since the first direct election in 1979. The average voter turnout in 2009 was 43%. This trend will have to be stopped in 2014. We can handle the European debt crisis from a technical point of view, but we cannot handle a further loss of engagement of European citizens at a time when anti-European groups are getting stronger and better organised.
The immediate goal of this citizen’s movement is to making the 2014 European Parliament election a real choice of direction. There are enough European issues which can be fought over politically and emotionally, for example: how can Europe safeguard prosperity and stability in future, how can the power of the financial markets be restrained, what should a social policy of redistribution look like, how do we create opportunities and potential for the young generation, what is industrial policy in the age of globalization, what is sustainable energy policy and which education policies will keep us internationally competitive.
Via the elections to the European Parliament must citizens decide the composition of the European Commission. The aim must also be to make national elections more European.
This new movement will be independent, open, political and emotional. Social media open many opportunities but they should not replace ‘old’ political communication. We need the best of traditional communication and campaigning: face to face discussion, posters, graffiti, TV. We need creativity. Europe must be visible online and offline with a civil lobby of its own. Only in this way will there be a sustainable way out of the European identity crisis.
Concerned Europeans act now!
Versions of this essay have appeared in Zeit Online, The European, Open Democracy, Dahrendorf Blog, ECFR, Stiftung Mercator 51°
Posts