KEMAL DERVIŞ
WASHINGTON, DC – In less than three weeks, we will
know who will be the next president of the United States. What kind of partner
that president finds in Europe will depend substantially on the outcome of two
elections in 2017: France’s presidential election in early May and Germany’s
federal election by the end of October.
Of course, the United
Kingdom’s exit from the European Union will have an impact on the future shape
of Europe. The “hard Brexit” option that has gotten a lot of attention lately –
particularly since British Prime Minister Theresa May announced her intention
to focus on limiting immigration, even if it means losing access to the single
market – would by itself change the way Europe functions.
As French Prime Minister Manuel
Valls recently wrote, the key question facing
Europe’s leaders is whether to “give up and leave the European project to a
slow but certain death” or to “transform the EU.” Such a transformation would
be no easy feat. It would require not only a new institutional vision for
Europe, but also a major political restructuring, not least in France and
Germany.
A viable institutional vision,
which I described well before the Brexit vote, is to establish “two
Europes in one.” The eurozone countries would form a more deeply
integrated “Europe A,” while another group of countries would comprise a more
diverse and loosely connected “Europe B.” The two Europes would be strongly
linked, with some arrangements differing among the various members of Europe B.
Together, the two Europes would be part of the post-Brexit “continental partnership,” which might eventually even
replace the EU altogether.
It is a somewhat radical
vision, one that can be fulfilled only if political forces are willing to
embrace it, not least in France and Germany. Each country’s political
leadership would need to be guided – indeed, energized – by the objective of
saving “Europe.” Specifically, that means pursuing an economic policy that balances
competitive markets and social solidarity, with substantial space for local
diversity.
In both France and Germany,
such a political dynamic would depend on an alliance of center-right and
center-left pro-Europe forces – one that could overcome and ultimately
dissipate each camp’s more extremist elements, thereby ensuring that
anti-European political tendencies cannot block progress. To give a concrete –
and provocative – example of what such a realignment might look like in France:
a center-right President Alain Juppé could cooperate with a Prime Minister
Emmanuel Macron trying to develop a “beyond the past” young center-left
movement.
As for Germany, the
center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU) is, on the whole, insufficiently
pro-European. Internally, it is limited by a conservative wing defined by views
that are not compatible with long-term progress in Europe. Externally, it is
limited by the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD), which has lately grown
in popularity.
In this context, even if
Chancellor Angela Merkel’s CDU does emerge with the most votes next year, it
will need help to build a new Europe, with more joint responsibilities for
countries in Europe A and flexible arrangements with countries in Europe B.
Specifically, the pro-European elements of the CDU must work with allies on the
left – namely, most of the Social Democrats and the Greens.
Such an informal coalition has
often allowed pro-Merkel projects to win support in Parliament, despite
opposition from right-wing elements of the CDU. But, to save Europe, it must
become deeper and more reliable, with common goals dominating a shared agenda.
The need for a realignment of
political forces is not unique to France and Germany. There is a broad need for
reformist and realistic globalizers to join forces to take on populist
movements seeking to twist nostalgia into extreme nationalism, built almost
exclusively on identity politics.
The world has changed
substantially in recent decades, and Europe is no exception. It makes little
sense to expect the old alignments to be able to respond adequately to today’s
policy needs or political dynamics. Consider how difficult it has been for
Spain to find a new majority – a two-year-long process that has yet to end.
Against this background, a political
reshuffling is almost inevitable; the party shifts and conflicts that have
characterized the ongoing US presidential election exemplify this. But that
reshuffling could lead to a number of outcomes. To secure a positive, open, and
prosperous future for Europe, it is critical that the forces that come out on
top are those that recognize the huge benefits of politically and economically
open societies, as well as the need for national and global public policies to
promote more inclusion.
But even if progressive center-right and center-left forces manage to overcome their backward-looking counterparts, it will not be enough. The traditional political structure always risks being taken hostage or outflanked by identity-focused populists. That is why forward-thinking political groups must overcome their differences in a more structural manner to advance a new institutional vision of Europe.
Such a deep political restructuring aimed at building new progressive majorities will be difficult, and it will not happen overnight. But it is Europe’s only option. Without it, “Europe” will die, and the assault on economic openness and democratic values will continue to gain traction around the world – with potentially devastating consequences.
No comments:
Post a Comment