We the People of Europe
FLORENCE
– Europeans who are eager to revive the continent’s unification process
have recently turned their attention to the founding of the United
States. Many, however, reject the US precedent on the grounds that
today’s problems are too dissimilar from those encountered then. Others,
who accept that federalist principles might be well suited to
addressing the problems of a European common market, despair that the
“European people” who could bring about this new political structure are
missing.
But there are
striking parallels between America’s founding years and the European
Union’s ongoing political and economic crisis. In fact, the creation of
the US Constitution
and the birth of the American people offer reasons to hope that some of
the most difficult issues facing Europe can one day be resolved.
The years following the American War of Independence were difficult. Under the Articles of Confederation,
the 13 former British colonies had created a common market, with common
institutions, including a central bank. Nevertheless, they spent a
great deal of time squabbling over fiscal policies, in disagreements
between creditors and debtors, and fights over the currency. Schisms
emerged between northern and southern states, and between smaller and
larger ones. It seemed as if the young country was on the verge of
tearing itself apart.
In the 1780s, a small
group of American political leaders completely reframed these problems.
Their key insight is as relevant in Europe today as it was in the US
then. The problems facing the country were not the result of politicians
acting in bad faith or of an ill-informed or ignorant citizenry; they
were a direct consequence of an ill-suited political structure.
Under the Articles of
Confederation – as in the EU today – all politics was truly local.
Individual states held elections for their officials, but there were no
elected officials (or parties) who ran on platforms and programs that
transcended the boundaries of the sovereign state units. What leaders
like Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison, and George Washington
understood was that this structure rewarded parochialism and
provincialism at the expense of the “national interest” – the shared
interests of the union’s member states.
Addressing these
problems, the drafters of the US Constitution proposed the creation of a
national government accountable to the people of the US, empowered to
attend to the interests of the entire union and to mediate conflicts
among member states. To do so, they rooted the sovereignty of the US in
its people – a truly novel concept.
But, having located
national sovereignty in “the people,” they did not insist on a single
principle of sovereignty. Instead, they invented the idea of shared
sovereignty – the system of federalism that allows for multiple levels
of government and for local, state, regional, and national loyalties to
coincide, rather than compete.
To be sure, no one is
proposing that the EU simply copy the US Constitution. But the
principles developed by its drafters have clear relevance for those
attempting to resolve the challenges confronting Europe today.
The conflict between
Greece and its creditors has highlighted the mismatch between an
ever-more-integrated continental economy and a European political
structure built primarily around the interests of sovereign states. In
the absence of a transnational government with the incentive,
legitimacy, and capacity to resolve the conflict, Greece and the other
eurozone countries have resorted to challenging each other’s
sovereignty.
Greece first tried
and failed to use a referendum to impose its preferences on its
creditors, which then used their superior leverage to render the
referendum’s outcome moot. According to the most recent deal between the
two sides, the Greek government must seek its creditors’ approval on
all relevant draft legislation before seeking public consultation or
even submitting it to its own parliament.
Open almost any
European newspaper, and you will find criticisms of ministers and
politicians on all sides in the Greek crisis. But, as in the early years
of the US, the problem lies not with the quality of Europe’s
politicians, but with the EU’s political structure.
As long as no politicians or parties offer programs that compete for
votes in Germany and in Greece, in Finland and in France, and across the
European continent, future crises are inevitable. What Europe needs are
European politicians.
Some might argue that
an appeal to create a European national government in the middle of the
current turmoil is unrealistic. Others might insist on waiting for the
emergence of a European identity before devising ways to create a single
European polity. But here, too, early American history provides a
reason to ignore the doubters.
The first words of the US Constitution are, “We the People of the United States.” And yet, in his book The Quartet: Orchestrating the Second American Revolution, the
American historian Joseph J. Ellis points out that at the time that
phrase was written, few in the country had a strong American identity.
The vast majority of the country’s citizens had lived their lives within
a 30-mile radius of where they were born; their political attachments,
if they had any, were to their state – not to the union.
It took the creation
of a national government to change that. The US Constitution may have
been rooted in “the People of the United States,” but it was only after
it was drafted that those people came to think of themselves that way.
It
is difficult today to know how much support in Europe – with its
schisms, suspicions, and passions – could be mustered for a document
starting with the words, “We the People of Europe.” But the situation on
the continent is no worse than that of the US in the 1780s. It took
bold political action to change the course of history and give birth to a
new and stable union. Europe requires no less today.
Laszlo Bruszt is Professor of Sociology
and Head of the Department of Political and Social Sciences at the
European University Institute in Florence.
David Stark is Professor of Sociology at Columbia University.
No comments:
Post a Comment