Do we believe in a policy based on dialogue and pact? Are you tired of the polarization and the permanent rejection of the agreement? Do they like to be defined from a single armored and exclusive identity, based on distrust of others and of perfidious democratic institutions? Do they identify with the logic of insult or systematic lying, with the normalization of rhetorical brutality, catastrophic visions or discourses that place us in the abyss of exception? Do you trust redemptive authoritarianism? Do you prefer solidarity or nationalistic selfishness, the paralysis of the eternal nation or a horizon towards which we can walk together? And what about an idea of limited, shared and delegated power versus the fetishism of sovereignty? Do you think, in short, that it is preferable to aspire to pacts between equals and institutional cooperation or do you opt for the exchange of votes for favors?
We have not heard it in these elections, but there is a political style that offers a model called federalism, a word that etymologically refers to pact and trust. It is not the pure dispersion of power: it is based on the connection between rights and democracy. It is not mere verbiage either, but an interpretive framework for doing politics in substance and form. It is not a foggy utopia: it is realistic, as it recognizes our interdependence and democratizes it through solidarity. Anyway, I don’t reveal the gunpowder to them. The idea began to take shape after World War I. He spoke of a supranational Europe, of a customs union and of a European army, even of the possibility of intervening States in the event of democratic regression. It was a flag of resistance during World War II and defended by the founding fathers and mothers of Europe, such as Ursula Hirschmann or Altiero Spinelli.
This idea of federalism could confront the only bloc that seems to present itself in these elections with some coherence, although in reality it does not have it. I am talking about the ultra-Europeanism defended by the Meloni, Le Pen and Abascal. What defines them is their opportunism, but they are not trustworthy. No nationalist is. Look how quickly it took Poland and Hungary to turn their backs on each other after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Not to mention Meloni, today a disciplined student of Brussels who needs Europe on migration and financial issues. But how do you think the Austrian, German or Dutch ultras will be understood when they are asked to share their money with Italy, Spain or Greece? This selfishness is a form of xenophobia that only appears when there is no common identity based on shared values.
How easy this ultra-Europeanism is after seeing the disaster of Brexit. How convincing did Le Pen sound defending the Frexit before the British suicide and how tender she appeared at the Abascaline convention in May calling to “revive Europe.” It will be, I suppose, after she and her cronies murder her. And how foolish it is for the popular people to think that Meloni will be different from Berlusconi or Orbán. The director told it Le Monde in an editorial: ideas are circulating that were recently considered shameful while leaders, journalists and public opinion have “little by little acclimatized to the feeling that all this is not so serious.” What has happened so that trust has changed sides, so that those who should speak about the spirit and soul of Europe have given up defending it without complexes?
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits
_
#spirit #soul #Europe