MUCH WILL CHANGE, MUCH REMAINS THE SAME

La plus ça change, la plus c’est la même chose


One event in history that stands out as an instant of great change is the fall of Rome. The sack of the great city in the mid 400s not only marks the oblivion of the imperial and military order which had commanded the European people’s for more than four centuries, it also crushed its entire civilization, or so we are led to believe. But when not long ago I visited Rome for the first time, I was struck by the specter of continuity. By the looks of it there was much that had not changed. In particular, I felt, the historic elements of the city which are an expression of power and authority – the remnants of imperial Rome but also the monuments of Christianity – all seemed to suggest to me that the process of change had been rather transitional and that the epoch which brought us the Dark Ages is just as fascinating for what had been destroyed as for what was preserved.



It all cumulates in the Rome’s predominant monument of history, the Vatican, a complex that was built to intimidate and to assert the supremacy of the Roman pope, much like his imperial predecessors. Christianity may have been inspired by piety and humility, but its appearance in the city of Rome (and, as many will argue, in some thousand years of its existence) rather underscores an unchanging desire to rule and indeed of every effort, throughout the past sixteen hundred years, to match and preserve what was seemingly lost by the hands of barbarism.


Paris, La Bastille, 1789

There have, of course, been subsequent instances of change – or revolution – in our history, such as the Reformation, the Enlightenment and the period of revolution that followed. The two world wars of the twentieth century similarly define major dividing lines, in manifold dimensions. But as with the history of Rome it can be said for all these instances that continuity was as much an interest of the generations which carried them as the enforcement of change. And thus, in a broader perspective, we can look our history as one in which both elements play a role, every time and again. And this must be true for our time too.

Having said this, change has been the fascination par excellence of our present generations. It is our first and foremost addiction. We want to see change every new season. The fashion of our clothes, the design of our commodities, the technology that drives our appliances; our architecture; all of it must be constantly on the move. And if this is particularly true for our material environment, the same holds for other, more abstract aspects of our world. When in our public arena someone calls “change!”, we rally to it en masse, without so much as a blink, as if change itself is more important than the actual purpose it is supposed to serve.



Nonetheless, even the most ardent champion of change must at one point or other concede to things that will not move. Vested interests and vested practices are often tenacious in their defense and so is this anonymous monster called ‘reality’. As a result, real change remains elusive, almost illusory, and it can only be perceived once considerable had passed – by hindsight. Moreover, in our present day, progressiveness and the urge to change the world for the better have taken a back seat (as has happened many more times in the past) in favor of reinvigorated conservative sentiments, even to the point where going back in time is being presented as a legitimate way to go ahead. We see this sentiment both in Europe and America, in the strengthening of rightist populism, much as a response to the perceived undermining of our societies and its traditional cultural assumptions by foreign elements.

But setting this aside, change is ongoing and seemingly irreversible both inside and outside our political arenas. We are just at the beginning of the information and communication revolution that has ravaged our traditional societal and civic fabric beyond recognition. Economic pressures in addition drive public service and commercial organizations to spew out obsolete management and supporting staff in ever increasing acceleration. At global level economic and political power is shifting into new patterns, adding to the discontent of many people in our world in respect of their future up to and including the most basic conditions of their lives. In my own country, the Netherlands, there is a growing uneasiness about the greater divide between rich and poor and about the diminishing opportunities, both true and perceived, of a significant segment of society to aspire a level of wealth - and welfare – similar to what has been enjoyed by the great majority of the people in previous decades.


Futurist imagery in present-day computergames

In this blog I have already alluded to the disappearance of “future” as a source of inspiration (and aspiration) in our collective mindset at several instances (see, most recently: A future that can energize). If anything our prevailing desire is for the present (and perhaps even the past) to remain where it is, with minor adjustments only. But this is a fallacy. We better be prepared, both in our own mind and in the choices we actually make. Change is a roaring monster which we should tame (or keep checked) in the service of our advancement and not the other way around. It requires that we articulate the terms of such advancement, based on the realities that we face. Adverse change will occur when we deny these realities, as we seem to be doing today. If we pursue along this course, we may find ourselves in a similar situation as the Romans did, many centuries ago. If we want to preserve and foster our continuity, we should embrace change in order to achieve it.

THINKING OF EUROPE – WHAT EUROPE? – PART II

Europe in a world of shifting powers


This is the second part of an essay on the present and future outlook of Europe. For the first part, see:
Thinking of Europe - Part 1


Institution building and the sentiments of history

Throughout modern history the process of nation building and of establishing the fundamental principles and rituals of a people’s governance has been a profoundly historic one. Constitutions were wrought from the claws of one or the other agonizing struggle – from the suppression by tyranny, a foreign usurper or severe civil conflict.- and invariably the transition is recorded as a moment of renewal: the promise of a better future, often coinciding with new liberties and (increased) democracy. Without exception these momentous transitions in a people’s history continue to be celebrated; their remembrance is transferred to the next generations, mementos are erected.

In more recent history similar milestones have been reached at the international level, such as the conclusion of wide reaching treaties and the fall of the Berlin Wall, a defining moment with world wide implications. The establishment of the European Community and its subsequent enhancement both in scope and membership can be seen as similar major accomplishments after nearly two centuries of continental strife and destructive competition between its - then – major powers.


Europe in the present public’s mind

Today, this European pre-history seems all but forgotten. In the eyes of many Europe has become synonymous with a distant and burdensome reality. Public sentiments are firmly fixed at the national level, regardless the gradual erosion of the member states’ autonomy. This prevailing sentiment, even in countries which have been ardent supporters of a strong Europe, stands in sharp contrast with the ongoing unification process. New rules of European governance and member state compliance are being drawn up with major implications at the heart of national budgetary prerogatives. It happens not so much in the wake of one or the other great historic drama or long term European inspiration but rather more as an expediency for the short term fiscal and monetary survival of the members of the Euro zone. It may steer those member states towards greater unity, but it may equally stir new disparity between the European nations.

I believe the project of Europe is on a dangerous path if the governments of the member states merely treat this transition as a technical issue. They should pro-actively mobilize broad public support for the likely further enhancement of Europe’s political clout in national fiscal and budgetary policies. Failing this, it will only add new frustrations to what is already a widespread skepticism of the union’s faceless intrusion in domestic interests.





Yet, all of this can still be seen as concerns to overcome immediate challenges only, leaving the greater question of Europe’s future unaffected – or at least undecided. It remains a question with many faces. The issue of Turkey’s potential EU membership, on which Member States have in principle agreed, epitomizes the manifold dilemma’s – some would call it crises – that linger in the union’s undercurrents. As a country on the brink between the Christian and the Islamic – Arab – world the sentiments against Turkey’s membership have become more articulate, such as those of Germany and France. They most of all reflect the growing uneasiness in European countries with their internal demographic reality of a sizeable Islamic population. Thus, more than ever before, the question of extended EU membership hits the union – and the individual Member States – in the heart of their own sense of European identity.


Our history is moving towards new paths

It is a foregone conclusion, I would think, that the EU will not become the super power that once was considered its destiny, at least not in the foreseeable future. No single, shared interest nor any major issue would rally the current EU members to speak and act in one voice and with sufficiently credible muscle. In fact the whole idea of Europe as a super power rather stems from an era in which it served as a logic – to assert itself against two major super powers, the Soviet Union and the USA. Today these powers have not only lost their pre-eminent position in the emerging multi-polar world, the countervailing pressure towards devolution and regionalization seems stronger than ever at the same time.



Lastly, the history of nation states and their alliances may not yet be at an end but it faces increased competition with the rise of the modern day commercial super powers and the history of their impact in our modern world. It is just as easy, and perhaps more pertinent, to describe the past few decades in terms of Microsoft’s ascent in the lives of almost everyone on our globe (or that of Apple, Samsung, Google and the like) as it is to write about the cumbersome efforts of the various nations to maintain a reasonable level of peace and security. In this respect too, the future of our political conglomerates has many faces, more particularly so as and when we move away from the current oil-driven power equilibrium.




Conclusion

In summary, no single future path for Europe can at present be defined as credible or likely. It may as well become a matter of merely historic interest as it may still emerge as a priority on our agenda. Shifting powers in our world, between major regions as well as between public and private (commercial) interests make a plausible prediction about the position of Europe in the next forthcoming decades a hazardous undertaking. At the same time, EU Member States have arrived at a perilous cross road if they persist in strengthening the political role of the EU whilst simultaneously ignoring to mobilize broad public support in doing so.