All of the West is going through a period of “democratic fatigue”, to use the term of the diagnosis delivered by France Stratégie in a recent report entitled “Lignes de faille” (Faultlines). The only patient examined by this think tank which answers to the French prime minister was France but the symptoms it observes are not unique to that country. The summary by Gérard Courtois (Le Monde, 19/10/2016) makes this clear: “drop in turn-outs at elections, down by an average of 20% since the 1970s; criticism of a political elite which is seen as being divorced from reality, unrepresentative and, above all, largely corrupt; suspicion towards political parties on a scale unparalleled in Europe” (really?) “since only 5% of French people trust them; and lastly, grave doubts over the ability of political leaders to influence the course of events in line with the will of the people”. It would be highly surprising if the state of health of the Italian, Spanish, Hungarian or Polish democracies, for example, were found to be of much less concern even though their pasts are different.
All things being equal, it really should be for the politicians of all the countries where democratic fatigue is being felt to be at their patient’s bedside – and with a good dose of humility since they have to bear some of the responsibility depending on how long they have been in power. Clearly any such honourable action is not held in great favour in those places where power is wielded or sought. No, this is more the time, for some, to sit quietly and listen ever more intently to populist chants and crowd-pleasing refrains that give “real people” a sense of being understood, or at any rate of not having what they think dismissed and ignored.
In Mediapart, Christian Sazmon recently suggested that “Donald Trump is the metaphor that enlightens our political disarray, like a ghostly apparition of what is troubling American and Western societies”, Trump “whose symbolic capital … feeds off white males’ frustrations and resentment, which he stokes and turns into against whatever is different, women, foreigners, migrants, Muslims …”. He sees himself, in some way, as the spokesman for an America that has lost its way. The problem is that these kinds of ghostly apparitions are becoming more numerous and frequent, and on this side of the Atlantic, too. Jan-Werner Müller, professor of political theory and the history of ideas at Princeton University, recently issued this warning: “Talking with populists is not the same as talking like populists”. It is clear that Theresa May and several members of her government have not often attended his lectures. Neither has Nicolas Sarkozy. Nor Jean-Luc Mélenchon. The salvo of repugnant ideas fired by the Conservative establishment at its annual conference in Birmingham provides the disheartening proof that henceforth it is the xenophobic and nationalistic ideas so dear to the populists of UKIP that reign in Downing Street. Theresa May is the prime minister putting the manifesto of that nationalistic party into effect. She decided the economist Paul De Grauwe, as a “foreign” academic at the London School of Economics, should be asked by the Foreign Office not to give advice and analysis any longer on Brexit and its consequences. The only good news coming out of London is that Home Secretary Amber Rudd has finally felt obliged to retract her promise to grant visas only to foreigners who will not be “stealing” jobs that could be taken by British workers. Theresa May will, promise, cross her heart, be the intractable protector of the real British people who have for too long been let down by “too many people in positions of power” who “behave as though they have more in common with international elite than with the people down the road, the people they employ, the people they pass in the street”.
These forceful comments brought Theresa May a congratulatory tweet from none other than Marine Le Pen. That can come as no surprise: extremists have a gift for putting their fingers on problematic situations to which they will bring the solution. But these solutions, at best products of the rabble-rousing demagoguery which is their stock in trade, can serve only to make matters worse. In the 1930s, there were also some who set out on a crusade against “elites”, all, of course, corrupt. It should not be forgotten just where these modern-day Savonarolas took the world when, today, we hear Nicolas Sarkozy wanting to speak for “France on top”, revitalising the idea of a “real country” that is oppressed by the legal country and its elites. It is important to remember where nationalistic and xenophobic fervour took Europe when, as Professor Dominique Reynié highlighted in the Belgian daily Le Soir (7/10/2016), “Mélenchon, a man of the Left, addressing the European Parliament in July, said that posted workers were ‘stealing the jobs’ of national workers”.
These comments, these posturings, those which hold the upper hand in Hungary and Poland in particular, are indicators of a resurgence of an opportunistic state of political mind which harbours no ambition other than the maintenance of bits of power – or, better, the restoration of strong powers, Putin being the best example of this – sheltered within national borders. This same sickness is overtaking the United States where victory for Donald Trump would, at the very least, signal a triumphal return to isolationism.
How can we get out of the quagmire into which inclusive democracy – and the European ideal with it – is sinking? In whom can Europeans place their trust to break them free without causing too much major damage? In themselves! In reality, three options are open to them.
The first is, like 52% of voters in the UK, to give in to the bogus siren calls of the extremists and nationalistic populists. The choice of the majority has to be respected. But the 48% of British citizens who must also bear the consequences must not be forgotten. In other member states which might be tempted to follow the UK’s lead, it would serve no purpose to reflect on the fate reserved for the minority.
The second possibility is, once again, passively to hand over all responsibility to the realistic political leaders who have made Europe what it is. This Europe from which more and more citizens are turning away because, for whatever reason, it does not seem just or fair, or to care about all its people. This means yet again putting themselves in the hands of the national leaders and parties which make use of Europe for their own ends – the common European good never having been the Holy Grail of the rogue institution that is the European Council, the symbol of an intergovernmental Europe that has imposed itself over the Community method.
The third way is for citizens themselves to build Europe, shaped by their own aspirations without political leaders being able once more to grant themselves the right to speak in their name. Clearly, this is the route that may seem the most fraught with danger because it gives the impression of allowing free rein to the forces of populism. Yet, as Arnaud Leparmentier recently observed in Le Monde (13/10/2016) “the silent majority is not always on the side one might believe”. While extremist and populist parties might like to surf the wave of public opinion and pander to its basest instincts, one would do well to remember that there is also an active, combative, idealistic civil society. Rebellious and annoying it may well be but not to the extent that it should not be listened to, argues Princeton’s Jan-Werner Müller: “When European Union leaders, looking to silence all criticism of dominant neoliberal relations, state that Syriza or Podemos are populist parties, this is a political attack that is all the more misguided as populism shares with technocracy the conviction that it has ‘the’ answer to every problem”.
It would be very wise, therefore, to remove the European project before it is too late from the traditional, close ruling circles where it is flagging. What is encouraging is that initiatives to do just that seem to be about to emerge. So, for example, we have the idea from Alain Juppé, who is campaigning to be named his party’s candidate in the forthcoming French presidential elections, that “a major conference of intellectuals, artists and politicians” be held in order to “reflect on and discuss what European identity is today”. Better, Emmanuel Macron is proposing that, as a way of “rebuilding trust”, “a six-month or year-long democratic convention” be held in the 27 countries of the Union to “ask people what they expect” so that what is created is “a joint political project, not an indecipherable mishmash that everyone has had a hand in making” and that it is put “thereafter for the approval of all member states, by referendum if any countries so wish” (Le Soir, 19/10/2016). The former French economy minister thus lends credence to what environmentalists are proposing in the Green European Journal as a response to Brexit. They call for a “European Foundational Assembly” to be set up. For this, “a cross-section of the population will be randomly selected”; their task will be to discuss how “the idea of a common destiny” can emerge, where “members acknowledge their responsibility for each other”. It is clear to see this explosion of ideas – the author of this piece has not forgotten the idea already twice proposed in Beacons of a Convention of young people under the age of 35 or 40, those who, the British just like the Swiss and all other Europeans, will have to live the Europe of the years to come. This is pleasing and exciting. It is proof that some people do not just resign themselves to things. The Europe of tomorrow may finally become a project that is actively shared by its citizens. Michel Theys