The virus of nationalism ” “The force of democracy

When 100 years ago European citizens of different countries marched towards war with naïf enthusiasm they didn’t imagine that it would have taken four years to stop the destruction and deaths caused by unprecedented military rage and that also civilians would have been involved. An armed conflict waged by neighbouring countries escalated into the global outbreak of the First World War. Nationalistic drives underlying the conflict are characterised by irrational, limited, self-referential forms of fanaticism, that see only self-interests, merits, expectations, rights. This leads to self-isolation, to the isolation against whatever is “alien”, with ensuing intellectual impoverishment. Related self-esteem is thereby doomed to disaster. The virus of nationalism remained active after the First World War, which poisoned the relations of leaders and politicians and led to the rise of extremist radical forces. Nationalistic arrogance and narrow-mindedness have prevented self-criticism and reflection, which would have prompted ethical foundations of a renewal process. At political level, we have failed to learn the lesson of the past. This led to the rise to power of fascist and Nazi movements causing World War Two spiritual and material annihilation. It was not until Europe was overcome by total ruin, and the Holocaust brought to the fore the barbarism of the conflict, that the spiritual renewal forces resurged, thereby promoting a new political beginning. It mainly consisted in Europe’s self-reconciliation. Nation-states’ central role had to be eliminated in order to eradicate also the antagonism between the nations. European nation-states had miserably failed. The validity of the principle of nation-State had been questioned. It was a “godsend” that after the war Robert Schuman, Alcide de Gasperi, Konrad Adenauer were simultaneously nominated at the lead of the governments of their respective Countries. During the previous fifty years, all three statesmen had lived and suffered from a privileged standpoint. They came from bordering areas that had simultaneously bound and separated their three Countries. They were practising, committed Catholics. Their origins had raised their awareness of problems they now had to devote themselves to; their experiences brought together their capability of successfully facing the situation in which they were in; faith and human wisdom highlighted appropriate solutions that were to prove promising for their Countries and for Europe. The interaction between these statesmen and their collaborators led to the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community in 1952, the first concrete experience of the “idea of Europe” which went beyond a mere cooperation among the involved governments. An organism took shape in which the six founding Countries renounced parts of their sovereignty, in order to represent everyone in the framework of its mission. Thus were placed the foundations of what later became the European Economic Community that developed into today’s European Union with its 28 Member countries. Looking behind, the nature of the European Union, protector of freedom and peace, stands out. But this Union is also aimed at growth, prosperity and quality of life. In short: the politics of European integration that learned its lessons from the past, found the right answers to the disasters of the first half of the 20th century. The continuation of this politics will ensure a future of peace for EU citizens. The true meaning of this action has become evident 100 years since the outbreak of World War I, in the aggression against Ukraine ordered by the Kremlin. Also in this case an exasperated form of nationalism was manifested through hegemonic claims, disrespectful of the rights of neighbouring countries. Moreover, the virus of nationalism poses a threat to EU cohesion. The outcomes of the European election of May last have shown that in times of crisis the heralds of simplistic solutions can allure a significant portion of the population without much effort. Indeed, this time the social and political context will prevent nationalism from winning through. The democratic institutions of European countries have grown more solid compared to 1914. But nationalism, which is often coupled by xenophobia, could bring havoc insofar as it obstructs or prevents Europe’s unification, to which we owe our liberty and peace. The best way to fight it is to resolutely seek community integration, with the purpose of ensuring individual prosperity through a social and intelligent economic policy, and finally making the EU solid for the future through a democratic and federal constitution.