By Kevin J. McNamara
Saturday, January 04, 2020
The Light That Failed seeks to explain the
ongoing turmoil within the European Union that many see as evidence of a new
East–West European divide. Much contemporary analysis of this type follows a
common blueprint. It goes like this: The United Kingdom has done something bad
in voting for Brexit, while Poland and Hungary have done similarly bad things
in embracing illiberal, populist, and Christian political parties. The argument
continues that the rise of populism, East and West, threatens the health and
future of the EU, to say nothing of democracy and liberalism itself. (When the
analysis extends to events beyond Europe, the election of Donald Trump is
viewed as an additional menace.)
This approach requires a view of competing countries as
either nice or not-nice actors doing things in keeping with their disposition.
It relies on emotional readings and psychological impressions more than
on-the-ground facts regarding the countries and policies in question. And it
takes little account of the actions or policies of either the EU itself or its
most influential members, France and Germany. With The Light That Failed,
Ivan Krastev and Stephen Holmes have largely written yet another version of
this psycho-morality tale.
Krastev, a fellow at the Institute for Human Sciences,
Vienna, and Holmes, a professor at New York University School of Law, postulate
that soon after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the resulting euphoria of
its liberated nations, things took a dark psychological turn. The effort of
Central and Eastern European countries (“the imitators”) to emulate the
countries of the West (“the imitated”) required the East to acknowledge the
moral superiority of the West. What’s more, it meant the imitators had to
accept a Western political model that did not allow for adaptations to local
cultures and traditions, and to accept that the West “could legitimately claim
a right to monitor and evaluate the progress of imitating countries on an
ongoing basis.” The authors say that for the countries of Central and Eastern
Europe, “the project of adopting a Western model under Western supervision
feels like a confession of having failed to escape Central Europe’s historical
vassalage to foreign instructors and inquisitors.” This, then, explains the
fresh appeal of nationalism in former Soviet states.
This thesis doesn’t help explain why voters in France,
Germany, Italy, Sweden, and the United Kingdom are expressing populist and
nationalist views similar to those of the Hungarians and Poles. Who, after all,
are the imitators imitating? Clearly, something else is going on across the
Continent.
Take the European Union. Its larger members make sweeping
decisions unilaterally. Might this have something to do with the union’s
instability? There is no more flagrant unilateralist than German Chancellor
Angela Merkel. While Brussels loves to invoke the “rule of law” and “democracy”
whenever it points an accusatory finger eastward, there was nothing democratic,
or necessarily lawful, about Merkel’s unilateral decision to allow more than 1
million migrants into Europe in 2015. A Bundestag report concluded that there
had been no legal basis for Merkel’s decision, and she never put the issue to a
vote either at the Bundestag or in the EU. She merely discussed it with a few
ministers and aides and then proceeded.
According to a detailed report in Der Spiegel,
Merkel also ignored pleas by her interior minister and the head of the German
Federal Police to implement border controls. Merkel’s decision violated
Germany’s asylum laws, and those laws were aligned with the EU “Dublin rule,”
which states that all migrants must be returned to the EU country-of-entry.
With the Dublin rule effectively erased by Merkel’s actions, migrants were left
to move around the Continent far and wide, into democratic countries whose
citizens had no say in the matter.
Merkel has made other mistakes in the same vein. But
Krastev and Holmes see none of this. Rather, they lay the blame for the EU’s
crisis on European hysterics who supposedly exaggerated the degree of the
problem. “Central Europe’s fear-mongering populists interpreted the refugee
crisis as conclusive evidence that liberalism has weakened the capacity of
nations to defend themselves in a hostile world,” they write. But if there was
nothing to “fear,” to what “crisis” are the authors referring? They don’t say
so, but the crisis arose directly from open borders, which do, in fact, weaken
a country’s capacity for self-defense.
In a similar contradictory passage, the authors condemn
Central and Eastern European leaders for anti-refugee “fear-mongering” even as
they acknowledge that “Central and East Europeans are constantly exposed,
through sensationalized television reporting, to the immigration problems
plaguing Western Europe.” And while Krastev and Holmes condemn those leaders
for resisting our “post-national” age, they write that “democracy presupposes
the existence of a bounded political community and is therefore inherently
national. Nationalism cannot disappear.” What exactly does this mean for a
republic in the EU, whose leaders invoke democracy as a totem and condemn nationalism
as a crime? The authors don’t say.
Another problem with The Light That Failed is that
it relies on important terms such as “liberal” or “populist” without defining
them. In international affairs, this can make things quite confusing. In
Western Europe, for example, a “liberal” is what we Americans would call a
conservative or libertarian. And while the authors would never call French
President Emmanuel Macron a “populist,” there is an argument to be made that he
fits the definition. He had less than two years’ experience in government when
he created his own political party (En Marche!) issued a manifesto entitled
“RĂ©volution,” ran for president, and won a triple-digit majority in parliament
to become the youngest leader of France since Napoleon.
The Light That Failed offers simplistic
conclusions and ignores the facts and scenarios that tell a more nuanced story
or a different story. Unlike Krastev’s 2017 book, After Europe, it’s a
disappointing piece of work.
No comments:
Post a Comment