Review
The Crisis of the European Union
Jürgen Habermas
Polity Press 2012, 140 pp.
First published in German: “Zur Verfassung Europas – Ein Essay” (2011)
The European Union is in the deepest crisis of its history. The press covers this crisis on a daily basis, not only in Europe but around the globe. There is no shortage of information, opinion and advice. Europe’s status has become a matter of debate, and not exclusively for insiders because it is a topic that concerns everybody. This is the good news among all the bad news: A Europe-wide discussion has emerged concerning questions of European integration. However, promoters of the European integration project would have wished that, instead of a reaction to the financial crisis, this engagement over Europe could have been marked by a proactive shaping of Europe’s future.
Due to a perceived time pressure, the focus of the debate has first and foremost been on short-term solutions – that is, how to avoid the insolvency of banks and states and also how to stabilise and calm the markets. Yet, even though everyone is discussing similar issues – the future of the euro, the role of the European Central Bank and the pros and cons of austerity and growth initiatives – the search for answers is not taking place across the European public. Rather, more-or-less-connected national discourses have followed traditional patterns and used old stereotypes that European integration tried to overcome in the first place.
Most elite contributions to the debate over how to overcome Europe’s multilayered crisis try to reduce its complexity. They describe, explain and often even offer solutions. But these contributions are also about being right. They are about waging ideological battles and masking self-interest in distributional matters. Following the rules inherent to the political game, such contributions concerning the future of Europe also are attended by the necessity to generate attention and attract the media. For a position to be heard, it has to be made attractive for public discourse. As a result, otherwise-complex arguments are reduced to binary conflicts: austerity versus growth, superstate versus end-of-integration and exiting the euro-zone versus unconditional acceptance of conditions. Or arguments are reduced to slogans, such as German Chancellor Angela Merkel is stubborn and Germany’s diagnosis for the crisis is wrong or motivated by an imperial mindset. Consequences are discussed through the lens of the nation-state and not in relation to the implications for the European integration project as a whole.
In addition to the complexity of the subject and the self-interest of the actors involved, there are more reasons for a general feeling of uneasiness. The public is not interested in institutional details, processes and regulations. There is a lack of profound legal, economic and political knowledge on these matters. Many people therefore believe that experts should fix the problem in a technocratic manner, as if technocrats were not part of the reason for the crisis in the first place.
But what is more serious than the lack of knowledge and understanding about the institutional dimensions of Europe is the lack of a general idea about what Europe should become. For people to judge for themselves the proposals for a solution of the crisis, they need to have a vision for the future that orients them. Since the failure of the European constitutional treaty over the past decade, and the experience of how costly it was to save the key reforms in the Treaty of Lisbon, politicians have been afraid to publicly promote their vision for the future of Europe. Rather, they follow populist positions or focus on small and practical outcomes, such as cheaper roaming fees, to generate support for the EU.
European politics may lack vision, or at least goals. The management of the crisis is dominated by short-term calculations and pragmatism due to election cycles that force politicians to make ad-hoc decisions. An eye for the big picture is either absent or not considered helpful. European politicians have therefore failed so far to answer questions about future perspectives for Europe.
Now is the time for a philosopher. His task is to think in broader dimensions and beyond the status quo. Because he does not need to be re-elected, he can afford to choose his point of view. Jürgen Habermas, often called the greatest German philosopher alive, qualifies to meet such expectations. In a world of specialists, Habermas is a universal scholar and polymath. His interventions are based on a profound interdisciplinary knowledge, and he argues with historical, judicial, sociological, political and philosophical proficiency. Habermas is a true critical mind, one not afraid to challenge dominant norms. He not only criticises, he offers alternative solutions, which he justifies socially and ethically.
In his book, “The Crisis of the European Union – A Response,” the language and the messages are not too abstract or idealistic. Habermas is aware of those who criticise his concepts and is willing to engage their counterarguments. This testifies to his courage to think beyond prevailing views and conventional solutions. Habermas writes without condescension and moral arrogance. Instead, he writes with style, precision and elegance, both on the descriptive level and the explanatory level. He formulates his thoughts precisely, never losing sight of his target.
Even though the German and English versions of his book have identical content and were published within only a couple of months of each other, the connotations of the different titles are striking. The German title in the 2011 Suhrkamp edition, “Zur Verfassung Europas – Ein Essay,” can mean two things: “About the State of Europe” or “About the Constitution of Europe.” The English title is, of course, “The Crisis of the European Union – A Response.” Each title highlights in its own specific way what the book is about.
In Germany, the terms “EU” and “Europe” are often used interchangeably, because the European integration project is considered to be an open process in which the European people finally unite and the EU is not seen as an exclusive club. It does not shock German readers to think about such institutional questions beyond the nation state, and the terms “constitution” and “federal” do not have a negative connotation. Books like Habermas’ are perceived as a contribution to a discourse that is an essential part of the integration process, concerned with the fundamental questions of Europe’s future. Such debates do not mobilise the masses. But democracy entails active participation and discussion, not just the delegation of power to the representatives of the demos. This is what the book is about. The crisis is just another opportunity to search for solutions, but it is not the reason why we should think about the future of the European integration project.
The English publishing house followed a different approach and sales strategy. The book appears not as a contribution by a German philosopher to the broader context of the state of the European Union and the impact of the sovereign-debt crisis on Europe and the EU. Instead, the title suggests that the book is about the EU in crisis.
The small book counts 140 pages in the English version and consists of three formal stand-alone parts. The main chapter is an essay of 70 pages titled “The Crisis of the European Union in Light of a Constitutionalization of International Law – An Essay on the Constitution of Europe.” The second part is a study of 30 pages named “The Concept of Human Dignity and the Realistic Utopia of Human Rights,” which first appeared in 2010 in the journal Metaphilosophy. The third part consists of three contributions to German newspapers: one interview, one short article for the weekly newspaper Die Zeit and one piece for the daily paper Süddeutsche Zeitung. In his introduction to the book, written in September 2011, Habermas tries to explain in six pages why he combined all of these publications in a single volume. He does not care about the form. In times like these, he cares about the message.
Habermas puts the process of European integration in the historical context of legalization and civilization of state power through the development of human and civil rights. For him, one cannot think of democracy in the framework of the nation-state only; as the example of the EU shows, international treaties proved able to include democratic components incrementally. According to Habermas, this offers the opportunity to move beyond the state of an international community and create a cosmopolitan community with forms of transnational democracy.
Despite the different formats of each part of the book, every one provides diagnosis, intervention and future prospects. The main part starts with a critique of the destructive consequences of capitalism, and its various 21st-century forms, on the public good. Habermas discusses what went wrong, who is responsible, what it means for democracy and what needs to be done.
In the end, both the German and the English titles keep their promise. The book presents solutions and reflects on the constitution of Europe. It analyzes the causes of the crisis of the EU. In Habermas’ opinion, one of the main reasons for the crisis is a lack of courage in the political class and a lack of willingness to shape the future. This can be explained by constraints of the political system, but it really cannot be justified. For this reason, the reviewer of Habermas’ book in the newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Stefan Müller-Doohm, comes to the conclusion: “The only possible normative vanishing point must be the democratic self-determination of the European citizen.”
Another reviewer, Christoph Ammann from Die Zeit, calls the book “a job order for the European citizen as well as an intellectual heritage for the current generation, including a utopian vision and a powerful commitment to human dignity and human rights.” With regard to the programmatic and visionary character of the book, Ammann even draws a comparison with Immanuel Kant’s 1795 essay “Perpetual Peace.” Such a comparison can be explained by the fact that Habermas thinks beyond the European integration project. His political agenda envisions the European project not only as a model for a dignified coexistence under specific EU-conditions, but as a role model for a global cosmopolitan community.
Despite the very positive responses to “The Crisis of the European Union – A Response” in German reviews, some questions remain – particularly because the book is not meant only for German readers and also addresses European and even global citizens. The major concern can be: Is not Habermas’ solution overly-ambitious, idealistic or at least based on unrealistic assumptions? An important counterargument against his explicit democratic response to the current EU crisis highlights the fact that there is neither a European demos nor one European public. Therefore, a transnational democracy might be only wishful thinking; proposals like these remain nothing but utopian. Habermas takes this argument seriously. He discusses the objections in detail and explains why he comes to the opposite conclusion. But he is less interested in the deconstruction of such counterarguments. Rather, he tries to highlight the necessity to understand that the essence of democracy requires a proactive citizen who takes a stance and meets the challenges to realizing a transnational democracy.
Current contributions to the political debate on the state of European integration mostly do not show an understanding of the grand design and larger contexts. They discuss bits and pieces but do not present a plan or vision. Almost everything is reactive and oriented in the short-term. Habermas stands out from the choir of contributors, because he provides what the debate urgently needs. He manages to present a profound diagnosis with a perspective that is not too abstract. He not only explains how Europe should reform its constitution. He encourages European citizens to take the future in their hands. They should not rely on technocrats, nor should they buy into fatalistic positions, but rather think beyond the status quo. This is one necessary precondition to understand the problem and to fix it. Most importantly, it helps to reject attempts to describe the current situation as destiny or as if there is no alternative.
—
Uli Brückner studied political science and European studies. He lives in Berlin and works for Stanford University, New York University and Freie Universität Berlin, as well as for the German Federal Foreign Office and the European Commission. He is a visiting professor in Ljubljana and a board member of the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy.
Tags: Review