Where one – just briefly - doubts democracy

Democracy has its dark side. And not just in films by George Lucas. (This is the title of a must read book by Pr Michael Mann (Cambridge University Press, 2005) which shows how genocide is the natural child of democracy and war.) In the aftermath of these nightmare French and Dutch referenda, you’re tempted to think that if Robert Schuman had subjected his declaration of May 9^th, 1950 to a referendum, we wouldn’t have gotten any Europe at all. But on the day after the day after, when the passion of the debate and the bitterness of the defeat recede, you also come to wonder: what if the majority of our compatriots were right in spite of all? What if they had somehow felt, through the blur of arguments and counterarguments, that European construction had become a poorly managed ever accelerating spiral, with means poorly proportioned to its ambitions, maybe even ambiguous in its aims?

In any case, this grandiose constitutional treaty was a clear break with the cautious small steps policy, which was so dear to Robert Schumann and so often proved effective.

This could be the opportunity to rework the Constitution, with the perseverance Boileau recommended to would-be writers, in order to get a simpler text, with more European subsidiarity. It could also be the opportunity to give a true mission of economic development to the European Central Bank (much like its American counterpart), instead of its present assignment of mere anti-inflation policeman.

If we can do this in a cross-border yet constructive political debate, the "no" will eventually mean a great step forward for Europe. If everyone remains in the current state of protracted defence of the national and category-specific interests, the "no" will have been a major setback for Europe.

There is of course a lot of work to do. If we just look at the amazing consequences of the referendum in France (the replacement of a prime minister who had survived a rout in the regional elections, reshuffling of the cards between the winners and losers in all political parties) and remember that it was described as wholly unrelated to national political issues, we can only worry at the size of the challenge. But there is no choice (and it won’t be the first time that Europe would drive France to break with bad habits).

Besides, the question is put as much to France as to its European partners: European politics must now be dealt with like national politics. There is no reason why it should remain slow and quiet. The media must give full exposure to Europolitics, public debate must be encouraged, major politicians must get involved. If there was a positive point in the French referendum campaign, it was a renewed interest for politics in the population. It is necessary to develop interest in European issues. Transnational networks and forums are needed.

I hope that we will live a key moment in that respect at the conference “a heart and a soul for Europe”. (It takes place in Caux, the Swiss conference centre of Initiatives of Change, between July 16^th and July 24^th, 2005; see www.caux.ch). Extracts from the program: « Must differences always divide? How do we build community with all our differences on the European continent? What are the common values that can bring us together? Beyond political structures, geography and history force us to learn to live together, to discover the other as a partner, to forge an active tolerance that builds community in diversity. Black and white, immigrant and native, Jew, Christian and Muslim, secularist and believer – all have a part in creating a heart and a soul for Europe. »