The massive negative votes registered in the recent French and Dutch referenda tend to suggest that “the West” is breaking up and that the shots are being called by the electorate rather than the political elite. The “revolt of the masses” found expression in France and The Netherlands because in each case, the people were called to the polling booths over the issue of the EU Constitutional Treaty.
In the main, the masses did not revolt against the Treaty, but on a range of issues unrelated to it. They were driven by perceptions ranging from the dominance of American capitalism to the fear of the creeping Islamisation of Europe.
There is no saying what the masses would have had to say if they were also to be called to a referendum in the EU member States that opted to ratify the EU Constitutional Treaty by an Act of Parliament.
The Constitutional Treaty requires unanimity to come into force. That unanimity is not there. Hence Europe’s quandary.
Ratification Process
Nevertheless, the ratification process has to proceed. And, when it is all over, all the EU member States will put their heads together and argue about the way forward.
The political class in each EU Member State will be expected to show due democratic regard to its sovereign national electorate. But when the top politicians assemble to discuss the way forward for the EU, they will be talking geopolitics, or rather the overall political and economic interests of the EU in a world context.
Globalisation has transformed the world. America, which has emerged as the world’s dominant military power after the collapse of the Soviet Union, is the spearhead of ‘western” capitalism in strong competition with Europe. In the East, China is fast emerging as a competitor.
In the EU, the imperatives of survival point at the need of unifying European efforts and initiatives. The Constitutional Treaty was
conceived as one step in this direction.
Elaborate document
It is an elaborate document drawn up by the political class over the heads of the electorate whose immediate worries are more pressing than their geopolitical interests!
The issue of Europe’s survival in a world of global competition will not go away, irrespective of the turmoil unleashed by the French and Dutch referenda.
Inevitably, Malta’s fortunes will be in the “European pot”. It is in Malta’s vital interest to have its say in future decisions and our destiny will not be decided over our heads.
The French referendum highlighted the widening gap between Europe and America, which is perceived as the standard bearer of “Anglo-Saxon capitalism”. The French favour a form of European social democracy which is distinct from liberal capitalism. They do not share American policy aims. Their latest differences were loudly explicit over Iraq – but, well before that, they alternated from hostile to cool during General De Gaulle’s day, and were almost incandescent during the Suez crisis.
It has been well said that Americans aren’t noted for their disposition to turn the other cheek. They have been angry at European criticism and French ingratitude, and have been reacting sharply to “Old Europe”. It is this “clash” that has the potential of leading to the break-up of “the West”.
Another cultural factor is added to the mix. Secularism is on the rise in Europe and the feeling in the American heartlands is one of embarrassment when some of their media paint a picture of decadent European societies, hostile to belief and without a purpose
Pangs of change
The pangs of change are inescapable. But is the idea of “the West” obsolete? Is there logic in an open breach?
The fast emergence of China and India is a cause for re-alignment of thought on the part of European and American businessmen and workers alike. Their respective governments have more than enough on their plate, and are far more likely to survive if they work together than if they go for each other’s throat.
There is the added consideration that – the looming threat of Chinese competition and rivalry apart –the Islamic world has come round to equate “the West” with western democracy which, in turn, is perceived to be supportive of an American agenda.
This perception is deep-rooted. In parts of the world, hostility to “the West” is inflammatory. And could potentially yet erupt in crisis situations in countries like Saudi Arabia.
It makes geopolitical sense, for Europe and America to capitalise on what serves their interests rather on what divides them.
No carte blanche
European politicians have no carte blanche to deal with such problems. They first have to come to terms with their respective electorates, and then they have to put their national interests in their equation.
This is the work for seasoned statesmen.
Does this call for politicians with the common touch? Would the European electorates warm to the intervention of the likes of Dominique Marie Francois Rene Gaouzeau de Vilepen, the patrician aristocrat, who has never in his life contested an election, and who has been charged by President Chirac to charm the disaffected French electorate?
Is this appointment the harbinger of hope for ‘The West”, or has it the potential to lead to its disintegration?
What are the constructive alternatives?
What voice, if any, will Malta have in the process that will eventually shape the future of Europe? Who will speak for Malta? Will the electorate have a say on vital issues that have yet to be discussed? Will the media play their part in stimulating the public?
Is it not in Malta’s interest to debate the issue while there is time, rather than play the role of the ostrich, by burying our head in the sand, and open a vociferous debate when the goose is cooked?
[email protected]