The 2019 elections to the European Parliament will take place between May 23 and May 26. Many in the Union prepare for this election with trepidation. It threatens to be shaping up as a battle between the forces of integration an fragmentation. A Reuter poll, executed in June of last year, projected that Eurosceptic political parties could well expand their representative strength in the Parliament by more than 60%. These largely critical, sometimes entirely anti EU, movements operate outside of the traditional mainstream support structure within the 28 nation bloc. If Brexit does happen before the election, 19 members of the United Kingdom Independent Party, which openly opposes the EU, will leave. However, Italy's coalition of populist parties, "5-Star" and "The League," combined with the rise of "Alternative for Germany," the French "National Rally," the Dutch "Freedom Party," and the recently surging "Forum for the Democracy," as well as Poland's "Law and Justice Party" are anticipated to more than make up for the British absence, and increase their collective representation from the current 80 to a potentially consequential 122 seats.
To say the least, this situation is awkward. EU member states could end up with a governing body seating a very significant percentage of representatives ideologically opposed to its essential objective. Outsiders with suspect intentions also join the fray. Steve Bannon, Donald Trump's former White House Chief Strategist, even set up shop here, launching a project intended to coordinate and bolster the anti-EU vote across the continent. While a 2018 "Eurobarometer" survey commissioned by the Parliament indicated that 67% of EU citizens thought that membership had benefitted their country, and slightly more than half continue to express strong support for the Union - possibly stimulated by the Brexit vote - the Eurosceptic movement and its electoral success has exhibited steady growth. The question is: "why?" The temptation has been to blame the outcomes on populism fed by immigration. While this is important, it is only part of the answer.
EU leadership has become a haven for technocrats. The government in Brussels is filled with obscure bureaucrats few Europeans recognize or know by name. Post-war Europe was rebuilt on the strength and vision of charismatic leaders. German sociologist Max Weber referred to charisma as "a certain quality of an individual personality, by virtue of which he is set apart from ordinary men and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities." After World War II Europeans looked up to leaders with these qualities, men like Charles De Gaulle, Konrad Adenauer, Winston Churchill and Alcide De Gasperi. Some of these inspired the development of the European Union project, aiming to end the frequent and bloody wars between neighbors.
Ultimately, the EU grew to what it has become today. However, it appears to be suffering some consequences of its success. Europe has not seen wars for decades. Its crises have become largely economic. Its technocratic leadership will solve economic issues, but it does not articulate these for popular consumption, and does not really inspire. Hence, ordinary citizens in membership countries are less inclined to develop an emotional connection with Brussels than with their native institutions.
Opposition parties competing in parliamentary elections are clearly taking advantage. Globalization, immigration, and the transfer of power to a source outside of their own country, gradually generated erosion of native cultures. This has often led to identity crises, a perceived loss of direction, and becoming a ripe environment for populist politicians. Political scientists have asserted that the charismatic bond between leader and follower is central to populist parties. Populism advocates the power of the people, yet relies on seduction by a charismatic leader. Populist politicians clearly articulate these identity crises, cast blame on the supranational government in Brussels, and justify their leadership by challenging its legitimacy and pontificating against it. By its nature, their messaging is more focused, and the messengers tend to be skillful and inspirational orators. By using fear and focus their messianic demeanor forges trust, a stable emotional connection with domestic citizenry, and develops a reliable electoral base. People understand what eurosceptics stand for.
Between Brussels and most of Europe, this connection is lacking. Many remain unclear about the direction mainstream parties want to take them. As far back as 2012, Frederico Castiglioni, an articulate member of the European Federalist Movement, warned that "Europe's technocrats might solve the economic conundrum, but they cannot restore trust between Europe and its citizens. We need a charismatic, democratic leader before illiberal and nationalistic forces gain ground." ("Europe's need for a charismatic leader," The European, Nov. 29, 2012). Others have issued similar warnings. Brussels continues to hope to convert dissatisfaction into democratic zeal rather than more political apathy. Thus far with little success.
Lacking major changes in campaign strategies, the upcoming election threatens to remain a confrontation between technocratic competence and charisma, a battle charisma very often wins. In the mean time, the pro EU centrist majority in the European Parliament hangs by a thread, lucky that eurosceptics thus far appear unable to unite under one political umbrella.
No comments:
Post a Comment