Thomas Decreus: The Left must commit itself to Europe In a series of six lectures, Bureau de Helling goes “deeper into Europe”, together with the Europe working group of GroenLinks and the Green European Foundation. The sixth and final lecture was delivered by Thomas Decreus, a philosopher at the University of Leuven. Decreus took his doctorate in early 2014 with a thesis on representation, hegemony and power. In his lecture, he spoke about the state of democracy in Belgium and Europe, and in particular he addressed the question “Does a European project need a European nation?”
National Liberalism Political debate in Europe is dominated by national liberalism, which Decreus defines as follows: “National liberalism is a movement in political theory that holds that our democracy does not work unless it is rooted in a cultural identity. The basis of a well-functioning democracy is a solid cultural community. It helps prevent the conflicts between political parties and between people of differing outlooks from getting out of hand.” Without everyone realising it, a consensus on liberal values such as freedom of expression exists across the whole political landscape, from left to right. Democracy depends on a liberal constitution which defines fundamental rights and freedoms. These ideas originated in the Enlightenment. The mutual recognition that emerges from them prevents disintegration. These ideas data back to the Romantic Era. How does this apply to Belgium? The people who declared Belgian independence in 1830 were inspired by national liberalism. In this outlook, the native country notion is held to embody liberal truths. A distinct Belgian history was written with a distinct Belgian identity. This mentality is still widespread and deep-rooted; the Belgian political system has a pronounced culture-based dimension. Cultural identity is considered a precursor to the political system. The Flemish region has a strongly nationalist movement which uses rational-sounding arguments. Their discourse runs as follows: “The
Flemish have a distinct common character which differs from that of the Walloons. There are therefore differences in political outlook. The Flemish are rightwing and the Walloons are left-wing. Belgium is broken, because it consists of two distinct cultural communities. Belgium should therefore split apart.” But the national liberal mentality also appears in the debate on the multicultural society. Right-wing critics of multiculturalism hold that we have lost our identity. In their view this leads to a relativism of values, and they consider the loss of identity to be the source of all social ills. They see integration and assimilation as the remedies; the recovery of identity here goes hand in hand with the restoration of unity. Only then will the country run smoothly. Another example is Europe. The idea that Europe cannot function because there is no such thing as a European identity is widespread: there is no European nation and therefore no European democracy. This gives rise to such lines of reasoning as “the Scots are far too different from the Germans.” This rationale reappears in relation to the debt crisis, which is blamed on “lazy Greeks and southern European, Latin countries where people are too fond of their siesta.” Cultural differences are here seen as the cause of different economic behaviours. National liberalism, in the view of Decreus, believes in the prior existence of a cultural identity. It assumes a static conception of culture and identity, of a native character that has always prevailed. A properly functioning government must be rooted, in this theory, in cultural identity, in a pre-existing demos. This is a very dominant discourse. It is generally seen in opposition to a cosmopolitanism which does not care about cultural identity, and which promotes a “naïve” concept of world citizenship. The public debate often divides along these two lines. But this is a false dichotomy, for a middle road is possible. That middle road calls, however, for a different idea of how political communities function. Authority creates identity Decreus derives his middle road idea from Niccolò Machiavelli, a philosopher of Renaissance Florence. Machiavelli, who wrote in the North Italian context of wealthy, independent trading city states, is widely regarded as the first modern political thinker. “The question he addressed,” Decreus explains, “was about the source of authority. His book The Prince presents a quest for the foundations of a political community. Machiavelli has long been miscast as an unscrupulous politician for whom the ends always justify the means. But this reputation is baseless, for he was a lucid, profound thinker. The Prince is an analysis of the essence of politics, of how to maintain a society. It’s a kind of physics of power.” Power, in Machiavelli’s view, must derive from the populace. The ruler obtains his legitimacy from his subjects. He cannot remain a ruler