European diversities

“The most militarised State of Europe” with a President “who is totally dependent on Russia’s political will”, but within which “a national consciousness” is being reborn and could form “the cornerstone of a new” nation: that, in essence, is the portrait of Belarus painted by Father ARKADIUSZ TIEPLAKOFF in the last number of “Études” (www.revue-etudes.com) ,http://www.revue-etudes.com)>, a review of contemporary culture published by the French Jesuits since 1856. The article is complemented, in the international section of the monthly, by an analysis of Spain conducted a review of contemporary culture published by the French Jesuits since 1856. The article is complemented, in the international section of the monthly, by an analysis of Spain conducted by BENOIT PELLISTRANDI , an expert on the political and cultural history of contemporary Spain. “The most decentralized country in Europe”, Spain is, he writes, characterised by “an extremely tense political life” in which consensus, “keyword of the years of transition” from the Franco dictatorship to democracy”, seems to be suffering a “gradual erosion”. BELARUS: BRIDGE BETWEEN EAST AND WEST. “The years of the famous perestroïka in the early 1990s threw the area of the former USSR into total chaos”, points out Father Tieplakoff; at the same time, “the political and economic vacuum, combined with the absence of a collective civic conscience”, recalled the “ghost of a happy past” which could apparently “solve the problems of the country”. The centuries of foreign domination, the “Stalinist purges of the Bielorussian intellighentia“, and the forced collectivization, have, in the Jesuit’s view, impeded the development of a national culture and relegated the country to the margins of European public opinion. Despite that, Belarus today “forms the essential bridge for culture, trade, transport and the oil and gas pipelines that permit Western and Central Europe to be connected with Russia and the Far East”. The country’s future “as communication hub in the world of communication is inescapable – emphasises the author of the article -, and Western Europe cannot long ignore this reality, nor the powers of Minsk”. In the judgement of Father Tieplakoff, “Bielorussian culture forms, in addition, “one of the few areas of decompression between Germany and Russia”. Another new element inside the country should also be pointed out: in spite of the fact that “Belarus remains, with due proportion, the most militarised State in Europe”, and that “the province is still politically passive”, the events “of last spring demonstrate that fear has vanished from the streets of Minsk”. “The regime is becoming increasingly self-insulated” and ever more dependent on Moscow, but “for the first time the activists of the national movement can really plan their takeover of power”. “The most recent events – concludes Father Tieplakoff – give ground for hope that, on the basis of current tensions, a civic conscience may grow and form the cornerstone of a new Belarus open to others, and that the ‘here’ of the village may extend to the European ‘home'”. SPAIN: WHAT MODEL OF DEMOCRACY? Today, according to the historian Benoit Pellistrandi, “to the economic vitality of Spain is added the vigour of its cultural influence and “the acknowledgement of the political trajectory that has led the country from dictatorship to democracy without civil strife. This is thanks, especially, to exceptional personalities like King Juan Carlos”. In Pellistrandi’s view, the “keyword of the years of transition was consensus”, which continues to “explain the institutional architecture of the country”, as well as some economic, social and foreign policy decisions. This continued to 2003, the year of the establishment of the front favourable to the armed intervention in Iraq (Aznar-Blair), in opposition to the anti-war front (Chirac-Schröder). “The intervention in Iraq – comments Pellistrandi – met with little support from Spanish public opinion”, which according to public opinion polls was against the war in percentages ranging between 80% and 90%. It marks the fragmentation of “Spanish consensus, which today is beyond reach of any chance of restoration”. It was followed, on 14 March 2004, by the victory of Zapatero, “atypical” because influenced by “the dramatic conspiracy of the terror attacks” three days previously. According to the analyst, the central problem of the present-day tensions in the policy of Spain consists in the interpretation given by the current premier to his own victory, seen “not as the result of the success of the movement in his support combined with the disarray of public opinion following the shock of the massacre of 11 May”, but “as massive Spanish support for his political project”, which includes “homosexual marriages, the placing in question of religious education in public schools, the opening of a debate on the funding of the Churches, and “the opening of a process of reform of the autonomous statutes of the Spanish regions”. Various “basic tendencies” are leading, according to Pellistrandi, to some “structural developments that will modify the political balance of Spain”. “The reshaping of its model of State has begun. It will be achieved – he concludes – on the basis of the Constitution of 1978, but will force a reform of this Constitution itself”.