Decidedly the media are having great difficulty in finding favour in the eyes of increasing numbers of political leaders and those around them. Special mention has to go, yet again, to President Trump, who, never one to shy away from an outrageous comment, has just promised to buy the New York Times to silence that unworthy newspaper – prompting a vitriolic condemnation by Pascal Bruckner: “Trump is like Nero in Micky Mouse land: a combination of the vulgarity of the upstart and the megalomania of the big chief” (Le Soir, 2 February). The problem is that, more subtly and also more insidiously, lots of other politicians are purveying accusations that lend credence to the belief of the 45th president of the United States that the media and journalists are “some of the most dishonest people in the world”. In French political circles, gearing up for the forthcoming presidential elections, there are some whom the media are pushing to extreme exasperation, seeing plots that damage democracy where, hitherto, there have only been facts reported without it being possible later to corroborate them.
On the European stage, the media cause less in the way of apoplexy but provoke a lot of dissatisfaction at coverage that is felt to be too critical, too negative. The Valletta summit has just provided further evidence: where many political leaders and officials saw progress and hailed the unity that was ultimately maintained by the member states in these troubled times, most journalists saw fault-lines and shortcomings in the stances adopted by the EU on the various issues on the agenda along lines dictated by the over-cautious “realists” with their minimal ambitions for Europe.
After Valletta, Europe remains desperately voiceless and silent, and its citizens despairing. Is it being populist to say such a thing? Some, without a shadow of a doubt, will argue that it is. But they are wrong. They are wrong because, on the contrary, it is the faintheartedness of the decisions and actions of EU leaders, and in particular of members of the European Council (who implicitly disavowed their president for sounding the alarm in the letter of invitation he sent them), which is abetting the populists whose numbers are growing across the whole of Europe. Let there be no mistake: it is the wishy-washy signals, the run-of-the-mill decisions, the half solutions which turn out to be valueless that are raising the stock of Le Pen, Wilders and other political readers of runes. It is their various shortcomings and failings which, as Elena Aoun and Joël Ficet note, nurture fair and legitimate criticism of the way the EU works and make it possible for this criticism to be “put to the service domestically of populist and authoritarian endeavours, which feed off the fear of, necessarily bad and harmful, foreigners and which, in turn, feed back into the fear” (1). The reality is that, in the everyday Europe of ordinary citizens, Europe is nowhere to be seen. The only voices to be heard are those of the sovereignists and nationalists. Yet, as Raphaël Glucksmann argued at a recent conference (2), while we must turn our backs on the solutions they propose, it is essential that we hear their criticisms:
“When the sovereignists tell us that it is aberrant and anti-democratic to have a single currency without a democratic political governance of that currency, they are right. When they say that abolishing borders between European states without creating shared justice and legal services, nor shared ways to protect them, they are right. When they say that having a single market without shared social and environmental laws creates dumping, they are again right. We cannot therefore counter their arguments by simply saying they are wrong, because sometimes they are right. They are right because they are targeting our own inconsistencies.”
Are these the comments of a talented essayist sadly out of touch with reality? Apparently so, since the proposals being developed by governments to provide a fitting celebration of the sixtieth anniversary of the signing of the Rome Treaties seem, yet again, bound to underwhelm and confirm that the European Council is, indeed, as Ulrike Guérot said in an interview for Taurillon, “the key problem for the EU”, that Council which will again demonstrate that it is incapable of providing “reasonable European solutions” that are “fair and lasting for European citizens”. It is to be feared, therefore, that the Capitoline Hill’s “pomp” and glasses of champagne will serve only to increase the numbers of votes for the populists. They may be unwilling to accept this, but the members of the European Council must bow immediately to the obvious: the current crisis has been caused by them. As Glucksman tells them, this crisis comes from “our inability to give a sense to the European project and to European and western democracies in general, from our inability to keep the promises we have made”. Consequently, in these decisive weeks, their responsibility is, “against the discourse of the extreme right, to propose not only moral condemnation, but also a vision, a project to oppose to the nationalist project”. Otherwise, Paul Magnette, Minister-President of the Walloon Region of Belgium, told Frédéric Rohart, “we are on a headlong path towards political disintegration, countries that will become ungovernable, governed by nutters like the United States today” (L’Echo, 3 February). Will the members of the European Council take on board what Magnette is saying, prove to him that they do not belong to those European elites “who live a life disconnected from the people’s”? In truth, there can be few grounds for optimism, with certain national elections playing their part in this view. Yet as Marcel Gauchet has observed, the coming to power of Donald Trump is a historic godsend because it should push Europe to “define itself as an independent beacon of civilisation” (Le Soir, 26 January). However, this sagacious philosopher and historian has no more hope than the journalist who penned these lines: “Unfortunately, I have to think that this realisation will gain more ground in the minds of the people than in those of their leaders …”. Thus, to reverse fortunes, it is vitally important to empower the peoples of Europe, the European people.
Michel Theys