Post-election reflections

4-7 June elections results signal which parties prevail at national and European levels along with the candidates elected in Strasbourg for the 2009/2014 legislature. However, drawing merely “parliamentary” conclusions from the election results would be a serious mistake. In fact, some of the highlighted trends trigger questions that transcend the elections and that shouldn’t be underestimated, since the risk is the refusal to reconsider the Community project in the framework of a rapidly changing scenario. What conclusions should be drawn from the fact that only 4 voters out of ten went to the polls to vote their Euro-Chamber representatives? Is it due to Europe’s scarce appeal, or is the political realm undergoing a crisis? And how should we view the record-breaking abstention-rates in East European Countries? The same Countries that for a number of reasons benefited from the EU – starting with the fall of the Iron Curtain -, in terms of increased democracy, political stability and financial aid. How should we interpret the increase in Euro-sceptical, nationalistic, and even xenophobic stands that the electors expressed by voting for parties whose electoral campaign pilloried the Union, the “foreigners”, the weaker brackets, all those who are “different”, including those with a different cultural background, complexion or religious faith? Were the “Christian roots” of Europe brought to the fore during the electoral campaign? A few days ago Church dignitaries justly highlighted two points: abstention and the future of integration. Msgr. Adrianus Van Luyn, COMECE President (Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Community), claimed that the low turnouts “indicate that a European civil society is still missing”. Msgr. Van Luyn pointed out, “The European Institutions, the national governments, the political parties and perhaps even the Churches should therefore ask themselves: Was our contribution big enough to raise the European conscience of our fellow citizens?” Msgr. Aldo Giordano, Permanent Observer of the Holy See at the Council of Europe, underlined, “abstention heralds the distance between European citizens and their institutions”. But the core of the matter isn’t just a lack of information (on the part of EU institutions, political parties and the media). Indeed, there’s more to this. Today, the European building is probably marked by a scarcity of “ideals; the original ideal of Europe, capable of addressing world issues” with clarity of vision “ought to be revived”. Msgr. Van Luyn declared, “Given the worldwide economic crisis, climate change and the food crisis there is in fact no alternative to a united Europe speaking with one voice and standing up for justice and peace”. From this standpoint, the problem of abstention and the future of the European project converge. Remaining faithful to its history, values, and being “united in diversity” whilst delivering positive results for citizens is the EU’s first – albeit not only – response to those who feel that the EU is distant, useless or even sullen, and who for this reason desert the ballot-box. It’s not by chance that the Presidency of CCEE (Council of European Bishops’ Conferences), pointed out that the EU ought to bring about “a more just society, grounded in the respect of human rights, in the dignity of the human person, mutual cooperation, solidarity and subsidiarity, in justice and in the defence of life”. The future of the EU greatly depends on the very European Union itself.