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.
© Project Syndicate, 2015
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
COMMENTARY
“THIS ARTICLE IS A CALL FOR UNIFICATION, WHICH IT IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR EUROPEANS TO UNDERSTAND”
Yurii SHCHERBAK, public activist, former ambassador of Ukraine to the US and Canada, Kyiv:
“The idea of uniting Europe into a certain confederation or even federation has been expressed even before. This goal can well be achieved at a certain time. But I do not think it is a road map for the near future. It is unlikely that Great Britain, a monarchy, or Germany, a chancellor-led powerful political mechanism, or Poland will abandon their traditions and ambitions just to become part of a state.
“Incidentally, Europe has a certain institutional mechanism of unification, although we know that it is insufficient and will prevent Europe from being a single integrated body.
“Yet I think the very idea is sound and can be put into practice 50 or 100 years later. Europe is now facing an immense challenge. On the one hand, there is a giant, the US, which is forming a very powerful and huge economic body owing to a common market with Canada and Latin American states. On the other hand, there is China which has come out onto the world arena and has colossal resources and, what is more, is cemented by one government and one ideology. Conversely, Europe, which used to be for many years the leading center of the world that produced political, scientific, and economic ideas, looks rather weak today. And, in spite of being part of an economic (EU) and military (NATO) alliance, it is unable today to respond to the challenge of history, globalization, Asia, and the Pacific region. Europe is declining both demographically and politically. Besides, the political ambitions of some member states are eroding European unity.
“In other words, drawing up a basic document starting with the words ‘We the People of Europe’ is a timely idea. But we know the attitude of Europeans to American ideas. In particular, they point out that the Americans do not understand Europe and want to impose their ideas on it. This may be the case, for what is being proposed is in fact the unification experience of the United States. On the other hand, Europe is very much differentiated. There is an ‘Old Europe’ the core of which is France, Germany, and the UK, and a ‘New Europe’ with Poland at the head. There are serious contradictions between them. Particularly, Poland and other post-communist countries are very well aware of the danger of Russia as a chauvinistic imperial power which thinks it has the right to dictate its will to all nations.
“It is some terrible ordeals that may unify Europe. God forbid they take place, but it is not ruled out that some upheavals or a new world war will at last unify Europe. Or this may be done in an evolutionary way, and the existing economic unity will gradually impose political commitments on the governments. For the economy is, to a large extent, a condition for unification. This article should be viewed as a manifesto of sorts, a certain vision of the future. As we know, manifestos can also come into effect. Nobody thought in 1848 that communism would seize almost a half of the world 100 years later.
“In principle, this article is a call for the unification of Europe, which it is very important for Europeans to understand, for Europe may in fact remain an ageing and weak center of the former civilization.
“Undoubtedly, the role of European leaders is crucial for this idea to be implemented. Unfortunately, we can see no big-caliber leaders in Europe today. We keep on saying that Europe lacks such great national leaders as Churchill, de Gaulle, and Adenauer. Mediocre leaders are coming and going with no major traces left.
“We must remember that the founding fathers of the United States were not only statesmen, but also philosophers. They were immensely educated people who had absorbed all the best trends, including French political culture and the French vision of freedom and fraternity. Therefore, they had an opportunity and the right to tell the nascent North American nation about their vision. They drew up a constitution that has never been rewritten and is a model of a highly-spiritual document. This fundamental document was not adjusted to a concrete person or situation. They rose above this. We have not yet seen this kind of leaders. I think such leaders emerge when major crises come up. And we remember the way new leaders, who proposed new guidelines to peoples, emerged on the ruins of old ideas and states. So, I think Europe will see new leaders who will at last say to Europeans: we must restore the importance of Europe as a political, economic, and scientific center, a center of new social ideas. It is very important for Europe to restore these old European traditions.”
Interviewed by Mykola SIRUK, The Day
