Dominer
The philosopher Pierre Dardot (Université de Nanterre) and the sociologist Christian Laval devote this broad-ranging investigation, which draws from the sources of history and political philosophy, to decipher the process by which the idea of sovereignty and the State as a means of domination was formed. This investigation is genuinely passionate and thoroughly deserves a read, even though one might doubt the capacity of our societies to invent a genuinely viable self-management model. The work, as the authors make clear right from the introduction, works “against sovereignist ideology, be it right-wing or left-wing” and calls for a different form of governance be called into being (our translation throughout).
In view of the authors, sovereignist ideology “has four shortcomings: 1) it feeds into nationalism and étatism; 2) it is simply a false sort of neoliberalism, as it is already merged with various forms of identitarism and protectionism (Trump and Erdogan are just two examples of this); 3) it is conducive to the exercise of authoritarian power, in some cases ‘neofascist’ and in all cases antidemocratic, in the name of the People or the Nation and fetishised in that it neglects the fact that the external face of sovereignty and its internal face, the power of command over national subjects, are more closely linked than ever before; 4) even more fundamentally, it prohibits humanity from facing the global challenges to which it now needs to respond as a matter of urgency (new climate regime, food disasters, threats of nuclear warfare, migration, finance, inequality, etc.”. Because “how can you ‘save the planet’ if each state acts as if it is the owner of a part of the planet and can therefore act however it sees fit and on the basis of profitability alone?” The Amazon rainforest is unquestionably the “planet’s green lung” and therefore a common good, but it is also, and above all, home to the Amerindians, the authors point out, arguing that the climate emergency “means that we must now directly and openly call into question the principle of the sovereignty of the State and the inter-state logic that is no more no less than its strict corollary”.
This notion of sovereignty came into being in papal circles in the 11th century and has never been seriously challenged by any revolution since. Having discussed ancient forms of governance, in Greece and Rome, and then the organisation of Italian cities in the Middle Ages, the authors plunge us into the pontifical revolution of the second half of the 11th century, which would see the Popes shake off the influence of emperors and the major Roman families by implementing a system whereby they were elected by cardinals alone (1059), before going on gradually to call for universal sovereignty at spiritual, temporal and judicial level. Shortly before the papal hegemony collapsed, Boniface VIII (1294-1303) demanded the role of universal legislator, arguing that all law emanates from the Pope. According to the Italian mediaeval scholar Agostino Paravicini Bagliani, Benedetto Caetani, alias Boniface VIII, would probably have been the first to don the tiara featuring three crowns to symbolise the universality of pontifical power, its dominium over the world (superiority of the Pope over kings and the Emperor) and its priestly sovereignty.
Over the course of the 12th and 13th centuries, royal sovereignty would model itself on that of the Pope, to provide a better response to the claims of the latter to absolute power. It is from the Kings’ battle against the papal aspiration to universal theocracy and clericalism, which still deeply shapes the Catholic Church today, that the modern sovereign state was born. The concept of royal sovereignty would be modelled on that of pontifical sovereignty, with the absolute power of kings taking over from that of the Roman Pontiff. The judicial doctrine that “the King never dies” thus traces its roots back to a decree by Gregory IX (Dignitas non moritur). Just like the Church, whose faithful are the body and the Christ (according to Paul of Tarsus) and the Pope (according canonists) its head, each country becomes a body whose king is the head. To assert the permanence of the Crown and the power derived from the State, the person of the King is detached from the impersonal and permanent institution (the Crown or the State) in the “theological-political theory of the two bodies of the King”, which also harks back to the rituals surrounding the appointment and death of the Pope from the 11th century onwards (see Agostino Paravicini Bagliani, “Le Corps du Pape”, Seuil). The effect of the revolution would simply be to transfer sovereignty from the King to the Nation, with the State retaining the same permanence and the same competences of external power and internal domination, the authors stress, having first referred to the development of the reason of State and the notion of national interest in 16th and 17th centuries, most notably through Machiavelli, who argued that “necessity has no law”. To sum up, “as men are bad and incessantly go to war against each other, the government must also be a government of permanent war”. A bit like President Macron, who is at war with Islamic separatism, terrorism and… Covid-19. Although he has followed this principle, politicians in general – albeit with a few exceptions – have no difficulty in putting into practice the attitude to the public that was recommended by Gabriel Naudé in 1639: “manipulate the people and persuade them by pretty words, seduce them and deceive them by appearances, win them over and use them for [your] own purposes, by preachers and miracles under the pretext of sanctity”. Miracles and sanctity no longer count for much, but the principle holds good and the battalions of modern communication experts lack no imagination when bringing it to life.
“The sovereignty of the State currently seems to be making a spectacular comeback in the form of the most unfettered and unapologetic authoritarian nationalism possible”, with Putin, Trump, Erdogan, Netanyahu and Bolsonaro, but it also includes the “superficially more attractive [face] of a neoliberalism that is ‘open to the world’, a proponent of ‘multilateralism’ and keen to lecture on human rights”, the authors note, expressing the view that it is in crisis. Such a crisis of sovereignty “could lead (…) to the archaic restoration of even more ancient sediment, for instance religious, ethno-nationalist or absolutist”. They go on to argue that “in this regard, the characters of Trump, Bolsonaro, Modi are good examples of the temptation of styling oneself the ‘supreme saviour’ with a mission to defend the sacred commandments, the nation or the order from the misdeeds of the ‘intellectual elites’, the ‘enemy within’ or ‘dangerous minorities’. These phenomena, lazily classified together under the heading of ‘populism’, are a confusing mix of the crisis of confidence in the State and a ‘last hope’ in an individual blessed with powers of charisma”.
“Today’s true political requirement is not to restore the vertical nature of the State or even to keep it in place, but to start to dismantle the fetishism of State pontificalism to imagine another system of obligations on the part of individuals towards each other, which gets us around the choice between vertical or horizontal by rejecting the very logic of political representation”, Dardot and Laval argue, but unfortunately fail to offer us any action plan to implement the direct democracy they call for so eloquently. (Olivier Jehin)
Pierre Dardot, Christian Laval. Dominer – Enquête sur la souveraineté de l’État en Occident (available in French only). La Découverte. ISBN: 978-2-348-04214-0. 730 pages. €26,00
The EU’s Strategic Compass and Its Four Baskets
The report by this German think tank is the fruit of a colloquium held on 21 September 2020 in collaboration with the German Ministry of Defence and the very least that can be said about it is that it inspires very little enthusiasm. Originally, the aim was to bring together experts to identify recommendations for the exercise of creating a strategic compass in a project that was due to continue for the entire year of 2021, with a view to giving the EU a successor to the global strategy in 2016, which was felt by many to be too vague.
An initial panel discussion on crisis management, with Nicole Koenig (Institut Jacques Delors) acting as rapporteur, concluded that the general objectives of the CSDP should be clarified, particularly in terms of (1) its balance between crisis management and protection/defence of the territory, (2) the types of crisis the EU is likely to be dealing with, (3) whether the EU’s involvement should be limited to its own neighbourhood or include theatres further afield or, again, concerning (4) border management, tackling organised crime and the protection of critical infrastructure. In this context, the member states should also re-evaluate the division of labour and cooperation between the EU, NATO and the UN. Finally, member states should also discuss the use battle groups.
Jana Puglierin (ECFR) highlights the fact that the idea of resilience (the theme of the second round of panel discussions) appeared more than 40 times in the EU global strategy, but that it has still not been clearly defined. She stresses that it is a dynamic concept, but also that resilience can be obtained only as a result of interaction between various levels and actors: the EU and its member states, the private and public sectors, civilian and military actors and, as strange as it may seem, NATO. In the event of crisis, the EU should react quickly and the details for the implementation of articles 42.7 TEU (mutual assistance) and 222 TFEU (solidarity clause) should be clarified in the strategic compass, recognising a coordination role for the institutions of the EU. However, the text adds that “concerning the EU’s possible role in territorial defence (following the activation of article 42.7 TEU), the majority of the working group was in favour of excluding this issue from the further development of the resilience cluster and instead of prioritising the European adaptation to US priorities within NATO”.
Finally, Daniel Fiott (EUISS) indicates that the panel on capability development also expressed concern at the inclusion of articles 42.7 and 222 in the discussions stressed the importance of the NPDD and of cooperation with NATO. As for Alexander Mattelaer, his contribution lays emphasis on the need for a little housekeeping in the plethora of strategic partnerships entered into by the EU.
The report shows an astonishing lack of ambition and a surprising degree of subjugation to NATO while at the same time, the delegation of the SPD to the Bundestag issued a reflection document on 6 October recommending the creation of a European army (“the 28th Army”), in addition to the national armies and with a view to bringing the EU out of its situation of powerlessness. The group of members of parliament, which included Fritz Felgentreu, argues that the EU needs an embryonic European army, to be made up initially of a battle group of 1500 soldiers, to be increased to 8000 soldiers, including command, support, logistics and health elements (equivalent to a NATO VJTF). This force will be made up of staff recruited directly by the EU, placed under the command of a European headquarters and with a mandate to be the first on the ground in the framework of crisis management operations. The engagement of these troops will be proposed by the European Commission (which would have a Commissioner for Defence) and green-lit by a committee on defence of the European Parliament. The document also stresses that the strategic compass cannot be any more than an interim document and that a European White Paper on Defence remains necessary. (OJ)
Christian Mölling. Torben Schütz. The EU’s Strategic Compass and Its Four Baskets – Recommendations to Make the Most of It. DGAP Report. The report is available to download free of charge from: https://dgap.org/en/research/publications/eus-strategic-compass-and-its-four-baskets
Afropea
Originally from Cameroon, Léonora Miano lives in France and is the author of many works. She was awarded the Prix Femina in 2013 for “La saison de l’ombre”. With Afropea, she sets out to take us on a journey through the lived experience of people of African descent living in Europe, and specifically in France. The book, which is as dark as its cover, confronts us with the direct experience and perceptions of people who are not African, because they were not born in the sub-Saharan region, but grew up as members of a minority in Europe and whose identities, the fruit of each individual’s story, are not always easy to define and to live with, particularly in a France that is “prey to identity-related tensions”.
In this work, which sets out to explore the utopia of a movement of people of African descent that will prompt France to reinvent itself, readers will find many truths and a great deal of humour, but in spite of everything, it is comparable to a pamphlet whose excesses detract from the message the author is trying to put across. Its criticism of widespread racism on the part of Europeans and a predatory West is particularly acerbic. “Western-ism is a kind of symbolic, stylised cannibalism: it thrives on human lives without much emotion, because the lives have been made invisible”, writes Miano, who is active, amongst other things, in favour of returning cultural artefacts to their original communities. (OJ)
Léonora Miano. Afropea – Utopie post-occidentale et post-raciste. Grasset. ISBN: 978-2-24681-717-8. 223 pages. €18,50
La Flandre, ici et maintenant
The Revue générale devotes its latest issue to Flanders, providing a platform for experts from the world of academia and political figures. It also contains an editorial by Frédéric Saenen on racism and a fascinating article by Jean-Loup Seban on Raphaël. (OJ)
Frédéric Saenen (edited by). La Flandre, ici et maintenant. Revue générale. Presses universitaires de Louvain. ISBN: 978-2-390-61008-3. 248 pages. €22,00