Anthony Giddens‘ Vision of a Federalist Europe

As the var­i­ous crises with­in Europe rage on, a wealth of lit­er­a­ture has been writ­ten about the crises them­selves as well as the pos­si­ble futures for Europe. Antho­ny Gid­dens‘ most recent book „Tur­bu­lent and Mighty Con­ti­nent“ is one of those texts and takes the cur­rent crises as a start­ing point to set out a vision for Europe which – as nobody know­ing Gid­dens will be sur­prised about – is based on a fed­er­al­ist ide­al. In short, he argues that the cur­rent crises show how an inte­grat­ed mon­e­tary pol­i­cy with­in Europe nec­es­sar­i­ly needs a bank­ing union as well as an inte­grat­ed fis­cal pol­i­cy. For him, the Euro­pean Union – defined by the coun­tries part of the mon­e­tary union – con­sti­tutes a com­mu­ni­ty of faith with­in glob­al process­es of eco­nom­ic change and lib­er­al­iza­tion. From this per­spec­tive, espe­cial­ly Ger­many – at the moment the coun­try prof­it­ing most from the Euro – will have to accept its respon­si­bil­i­ties for its sta­bil­i­ty at some point.

While this idea might seem utopi­an from a cur­rent per­spec­tive, where euroscep­tism is on the rise and sup­port for the Euro­pean Union is at an all time low, Gid­dens pro­vides a sug­ges­tion what such an inte­gra­tion project could be based on: He asks the ques­tion why nation­al sov­er­eign­ty is always con­sid­ered as inde­pen­dence of exter­nal influ­ence and sug­gests a con­cept of sov­er­eign­ty+ that looks more at the actu­al influece a nation can wield on an inter­na­tion­al and/or glob­al lev­el. From this per­spec­tive, mem­ber­ship in a clos­er inte­grat­ed Euro­pean Union might pro­vide a nation with a high­er amount of exter­nal sov­er­eign­ty even though it has to sac­ri­fice a lot of inter­nal sov­er­eign­ty.

Of course, such a fed­er­al Europe could not be based on the cur­rent way deci­sions are made with­in the Euro­pean Union. Gid­dens iden­ti­fies three dimen­sions of the cur­rent sys­tem:

  1. the more tech­no­crat­ic EU of the ‚Jean Mon­net method‘ (he calls EU1) con­sist­ing of a strong Euro­pean Com­mis­sion, sev­er­al decid­ing coun­cils as well as a cor­rect­ing Euro­pean Par­lia­ment
  2. the lead­er­ship based EU of the cur­rent cri­sis in which few strong actors – in the cur­rent case espe­cial­ly Ger­man chan­cel­lor Angela Merkel, French pres­i­dent François Hol­lande, IMF pres­i­dent Chris­tine Lagarde and ECB pres­i­dent Mario Draghi – decide about impor­tant mat­ters with­out demo­c­ra­t­ic legit­i­ma­tion (EU2 in Gid­dens‘ terms)
  3. the Europe of the acquis com­muntaire, the paper Europe that is defined as a bureau­crat­ic appa­ra­tus and legal sys­tem

From this dif­fer­en­ti­a­tion he comes to the con­clu­sion that a polit­i­cal­ly inte­grat­ed, fed­er­al Euro­pean Union would have to solve two major prob­lems: the prob­lem of legit­i­ma­cy and the prob­lem of lead­er­ship, as the EU1 can be seen as – more or less – legit­imized but not able to actu­al­ly lead, while the EU2 does dis­play lead­er­ship while not being legit­i­mat­ed for such a posi­tion. His solu­tion seems to be based on cre­at­ing a more legit­i­mate EU2, for which he sug­gests three impor­tant pre­con­di­tions:

  1. Deeply involv­ing the Euro­pean cit­i­zens in the reform process to max­i­mize the legit­i­ma­cy of the emerg­ing polit­i­cal enti­ties
  2. Estab­lish­ing Eng­lish as the com­mon lin­gua fran­ca with­in the EU next to the nation­al lan­guages to enable the emer­gence of pan-Euro­pean media and a Euro­pean pub­lic sphere
  3. A much more trans­par­ent demo­c­ra­t­ic process with­in the EU to enable the estab­lish­ment of some kind of mon­i­to­ry democ­ra­cy

In gen­er­al, Gid­dens‘ vision for the future of Europe reads much like a fed­er­al­ist ide­al, not a real­isitic path towards a com­mon Europan future, as it takes for grantedd far too much emo­tion­al com­mit­ment towards fur­ther Euro­pean inte­gra­tion. In my view, it puts to much con­fi­dence in the dif­fer­ent nation states real­iz­ing the pos­si­bil­i­ty to gain what he calls sovere­ing­ty+ and neglect­ing the iner­tia that is embed­ded with­in the cur­rent sys­tem of nation­al states, their insti­tu­tions and their pub­lic. Nev­er­the­less, from the per­spec­tive of an out­look into the future of Europe, the book makes a very inter­est­ing read as it lines out an ide­al that could be worth striv­ing towards – at least for fed­er­al­ists – and the analy­sis of the cur­rent short­com­ings of the Euro­pean polit­i­cal sys­tems seems spot-on – espe­cial­ly in the dif­fer­en­ti­a­tion between EU1 and EU2.

Still, the out­line of this mod­el of the polit­i­cal future of Europe is only one dimen­sion of the book. In the sec­ond, Antho­ny Gid­dens anl­y­ses the cur­rent crises with­in Europe from a per­spec­tive that con­sid­ers them not a Euro­pean prob­lem per se but rather a Euro­pean expres­sion of glob­al devel­op­ments to which Europe con­sti­tutes a com­mu­ni­ty of faith and needs to devel­op com­mon ways to face. I will get to those argu­ments in a lat­er post.

Gid­dens, A. (2014). Tur­bu­lent and Mighty Con­ti­nent: What Future for Europe? Cam­bridge: Poli­ty Press.

Schreibe einen Kommentar

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind mit * markiert