Beneyto Transcript SP: Sandra Porcar JB: Jose Mario Beneyto SP: Welcome to the EU Futures Podcast exploring the emerging future in Europe. I am Sandra Porcar visiting researcher at the BU center for the study of Europe and today February 27th. I am with Jose Mario Beneyto, a professor of European law and politics, international relations, and international law, and the Director of the Institute for European Studies in Madrid. Besides being an academic, he's also an international lawyer, a politician, and a writer, and he has published extensively on several topics like the EU constitutional development, EU foreign policy, political theory, global governance, international organizations, and human rights. SP: One of the specific goals of the project is to explore the prospects for democratic politics in the aftermath of the financial crisis, after the Brexit, after Trump, etc. In your opinion, what is the future that is emerging now in Europe? JB: As we all know, Europe going through a number of different crises in a recent in recent years. It started certainly with the financial crisis. which is now still ongoing when we see the negotiations taking place with Greece. And then it went, I think, into a larger you know broader situation in which there was an increasing sense of a lack of legitimacy of the European project. This connected the monetary and financial crisis and the increasing political and legitimacy crisis with the refugees, the church, and the emergence and a consolidation of populist movements throughout Europe. All of these are a challenge, and an opportunity to review the need of a closer relationship between the European institutions and the citizens. I think that the sense of citizens that elites or the establishment have not been listening to their concerns has to be addressed. It's also true that the institutions have got an aura of technocracy and sometimes decisions need to be politicized and they need to be taken in the context of more understand the needs of the citizens, and it's also true that the monetary and economic crisis has increased the levels of inequalities throughout Europe. So, citizens are asking European politicians, and European institutions to take into account what they are expressing in different ways. It does not mean, certainly, that we acquiesce with the populist demands, which is certainly you know are very often not respectful of the rule of law, but it means that we listen to the citizens, and we try from the institutions and from the governments to address the specific needs that they are voicing. SP: How can we bridge this gap between citizens and institutions? JB: Well, there are many ways in order to do that. I think that there's a need for as I was implying for further developments of the institutional structure as one which is not just a replica of you know machinery of a big bureaucracy, but it's also connected and responds to political needs, which takes into account national Parliaments which also answers you know to all the political demands that citizens are expressing. So, I think that one way is going forward
into a institutional structure which is more keen to a system of checks and balances in which you have real political expression of the demands of the citizens. The other way is by arguing and expression from the European institutions. It is not true that all citizens are now in an anti- European or necessarily Europhobic mood. There are many citizens in Europe who would like to have more Europe and who like to have a clearer response from the side of the leaders responsible in different institutions and governments in terms of a further vision for Europe and a further commitment to the goals and values of the European Union. Many citizens will still think that the European Union has been indeed you know the guarantor of prosperity, peace, and also the rule of law, human rights, throughout the continent for many years. And they would like to have, from the leaders, also I think a clearer response addressing the surge of populist movements, the expression of anti-european sentiments. All of what has emerged in recent months is really some kind of further developments and still you know the commitments are a bit vague in the realm of defense and security policy, but I think that there are many other areas which should be tackled from the institutions and from the governments together with the European institutions. We cannot just rely on a structure and system which is deviating toward something inter-governmental. The essence and the inherent value of the European project is the is that it is a supranational project and a project which rests on both the government and institutions and I think that there is a lack of interconnection of channeling citizens concerns through national countries to the European institutions, and then working together in order to solve the real problems are there. We have witnessed that with the refugee crisis. It is obvious that it is needed a stronger and closer commitment of European institutions in this regard. National governments alone are not able to solve the problem. But at the same time there has been there a lack of coherent response from the side of the government's. This lack of support, which we have heard from different national governments in terms of the managing of the refugee crisis I think that the European institutions there should have played more a role of intermediary, as you know, it's the role they own. SP: You ve mentioned before about the populism that is rising in Europe. Why is in light of the financial and economic crisis Europe is lighting up this right wing and extremism political parties in Europe? Yeah, I think different reasons different causes for the surge of populism. First one is certainly the economic crisis and the consequences of the economic crisis which have you know brought more inequality and a sense that the technological change and the rapid development of financial services and the erosion of the middle classes as a consequence of the monetary and financial crisis. You know, this has certainly affect large segments of population, and there is an internal evaluation which has taken place in different countries, and which has affected the capacity - economy capacity of voters and of citizens. So, this is economic uncertainty is one of the main reasons. But there is also a cultural underlying trend which has not been sufficiently analyzed, and which has to do with a perceived sentiment that the European integration project and also the solutions given to the crisis and, particularly, the globalization process have left the individual in an environment of anonymity, of abandonment, and there is a strong sentiment a strong need for a re-rooting, for having an embeddedness in culture and history in
communities in communities which are given a certain security and guaranteeing, you know, the prosperity of the people. So, this is the fear which has emerged in front of the other, in front of the Muslims, in front of the refugees, and this is something that which has been then appropriated in a sometimes very perverse manner by the populist parties which have many of these sentiments which are, in a sense, legitimate. The need for roots, for culture and historical background, for being a part of a historical cultural community in which has developed in an organic way. This does not mean, necessarily, that it brings a kind of politics based on the idea of friends and enemy, politics of exclusion, politics in which you need to radicalize you positions because this is mobilizing. So, populists rely on all of these sentiments, the loss of trust and confidence of parts of the population on the expert culture. The loss of confidence on elites and establishment as a consequence of the financial crisis and also the loss of traditional politics. We see that in the crisis of the social democratic party is all over Europe, which has brought many workers, traditional voters of social democratic parties, have gone to the populist party and are voting for populist parties in France, in the Netherlands, in the Scandinavian parties, and even in Austria, and so on. So, we face a year which is complicated in terms of the elections which are going to take place. First in the Netherlands, where it is most likely that Geert Wilders is going to have the lead in the electoral results, most likely is not going to be able to form a government but he would certainly influence the outcome in the political future of the Netherlands, and this is a party which very much rests on the assumption that there is a civilizational of war between the so-called Judeo-Christian culture and the Muslim world and which completely rejects the idea of multiculturalism and integration of, particularly of Muslim citizens into the Dutch society. So, this is a challenge, certainly, for democratic parties to address the issues which are behind these populist surges on explain to the citizens that it is possible to have societies which are diverse but at the same time are integrated. This I think is a very important point. And then we'll have the very decisive elections in France in which Marine le Pen also leads at this moment in the polls. I expect that at the end you know reasonableness and political rationality would prevail and there will be in the second round a candidate which is backed by all the republican parties and which again make possible that Marine le Pen is not going to be the president of France. But the need to address what is being voiced here and demanded by from the citizens will continue. It's going to be the same and you know in other eventual elections, which could be in Austria, initiative elections, if this is the case still a question mark because no one wants elections in Austria but it could happen. But it is, you know, the situation of this idea of homogeneity of the people, the pure people, the true Austrians, the true Swedes, and so on which want to have an exclusionary line on which you know in a very fictional way portray themselves as the only moral presentation of sovereignty of the people. I think this is something which needs to be addressed through arguments through pedagogical means in a very dark way, because you know the challenge is there, no doubt. SP: Could you please elaborate a little bit more on which would be your advice to social democratic party is to address this rise of extreme right-wing populism JB: I think not only for social democratic parties but for all democratic parties that there is a need to devise a strategic and tactical response to the populist parties. And I think that there
are four methods which have been tested and each one of them has advantages and disadvantages and it depends very much on the concrete situation how you should react. I think one method which is the one I am advocating throughout the interview certainly and the need for explaining and arguing, not delegitimizing the strengths of political rationality, and I think that democratic parties have to continue being confident that a response based on the better arguments will prevail. Because if we at the end disbelieve the capacity of political rationality and rational argumentation to prevail over sentiments all their confrontational rhetoric which very often use negativity as a way to express itself, which uses exclusion, which uses the lash of the media for that which is you know abnormal or in a sense gets out of the normal discourse. We cannot fall into that because I think then we would just give the terrain and the territory to the populist rhetoric. But there are also other tactical means. Of course the first one which sometimes can be counterproductive is the sanitization the cordon sanitaire. This has been the case with the so-called the Vlaams Blok in Belgium, which prevented them from coming to power or now this is also going to be the instrument which is going to be used in France against Marine le Pen. Sometimes this is going to be necessary, you know, that the democratic parties come together and prevent that you know in any particular situation a populist party gets the government. But this also counterproductive sometimes in the sense that it can give the argument to them that they are being excluded by the elites. So this has to be tested and used a diplomatic and intelligent manner. You can also have the other way, which is concession. And sometimes, I am concerned because you see how some democratic leaders think that by introducing, integrating part of the populist rhetoric in your own political manifestos this is going to be a way of luring voters from the populists. I don't think that this is a good strategy. I think that this contaminates democratic discourse and this makes the arguments of the populists are being brought forward. And the third strategy, and sometimes it may be necessary, is the clear confrontational stance. You need to say, without of course violence, but we see very clear, with strength that populist parties may be in contravention of the rule of law. They may be, as has been in the case in Hungary and Poland put question the constitutional system. There is never there is nowhere written that plebiscites or referendums are necessarily more democratic than parliamentary elections. A democracy as the Council of Europe has very clearly made explicit once and again is the result of different elements. You need to have elections - free elections. You need to have a system of checks and balances. You need to have the prevalence of the rule of law. You need to have a constitutional system which also protects the rights of individuals and of minorities. I mean, it is much more structured and much more nuanced democratic system than just the will of the majority. The option, the choice for majoritarian institutions and tools isn't necessarily more democratic than the reliance on parliamentary elections from parliamentary argumentation on party political change of political opinions, so I think we need to re-legitimize and to again bring confidence and trust to the means that we have to make that again. You know political rationality can be continued to be seen by citizens as the way to solve political conflict and not necessarily disinclusion or the politics of friends and enemies. SP: Looking forward, to a future of different possibilities, how is the Europe in which you would like to live in?
JB: We need to create a Europe in which continues to be open to others. We have been very successful, and I think that we need to repeat that once again in terms of opening up borders to the others not just within Europe. I mean this has been the European integration project has been a process of opening up and expanding borders really and this has been not a zero-sum game, but a plus positive sum game in which everybody has really won and has taken benefit out of it. And so we need to continue to have of Europe which is open which do not create unnecessary borders, but at the same time we have to manage migration. We have to manage the refugee surge, which is not, if you look at the figures of course in 2015 there was a big surge there. But if you compare with that which have been in the past migration fluctuations, migration movements in different countries, this is not something really completely out of the picture. So it's important to have this idea of an open Europe. Then I think it needs to be also Europe which is reflective of its past, its history, its culture, the variety, the diversity, the richness of the different European cultures. It s a very important asset of the continent and we cannot just construe Europe which is basically relying on the integrative power of economy and institutional decision making. We need to go back and once again be aware that the founding fathers of Europe were basically trying to achieve a political union which was based on the cultural and historical diversity of Europe. If you - I'm a big fan of Salvador de Madariaga, the Spanish writer, diplomat, and politician, who was so instrumental in the creation of you know some of the most interesting institutions within the European system like the College L Europe or even the Council of Europe. Or later on the University European Institute in Florence, and others who you know like him who fought for European unity in the interwar years and after the Second World War with a goal having a Europe united based on the plurality of the different cultures of Europe. And they wanted to believe in the hope of European peace and they believe in the idea that Europe represents a certain achievement of human civilization in terms of culture, in terms of experience which history has brought to the European people. And I think that very often the institutions and the process of integration has been too functional. Has been, in a sense, technocratic. And this have created these big opportunity leaders in these institutions and the citizens. So a Europe which is open a Europe which takes account of its roots, its cultures, its history, a Europe which also is responsible to words and the other parts of the world. We have established through the process of European integration the largest system of, you know, trade the interconnections and on the other hand also humanitarian aid, political cooperation in a large-scale throughout also now the European External Action Service. So this is an experience of cooperation which should be not only preserved, but fostered and developed into the future. And this means that Europe has to engage in in this political and also civilizational dialogue with the other cultures of the world. It is not only the political countries I mean the political systems the countries, the diplomatic relationships. I think that we have to go a step forward and make possible that there is also a consideration of also again the intercultural elements which would be considered too. I think it's important to realize that the 20th century was as we all know terrible century in terms of loss of human lives and in terms of the destruction which was brought along. The European institutions, the European project, European unity has been an incredible experience in terms of cooperation, supernationality, multilateralism, interrelationships between different countries, so this should be always be well in the consciousness and the collective awareness of European citizens. And so there is a positive note here. There is an optimistic note. Europe is again another Spanish writer, I'm
quoting too man Spanish writers and philosophers but another Spanish philosopher Ortega y Gasset, whom I have devoted quite a bit of time and have written about him, Gasset was always optimistic about Europe. Even when he was witness to the two big catastrophes of the 20 th century. And doubted confidence of the European spirit, European wisdom, you know to overcome crisis, to even use crisis as challenges you know to find new solutions and to perceive always the strong roots that Europe has in terms of its ability and capacity to recreate the idea of unity. This idea of E pluribus unum out of the plurality of the unity. I think that this optimism which was rooted in a philosophical analysis of what Europe as a civilization means should be take into consideration every day by European leaders and European institutions. SP: Thank you very much. JB: Thank you.