Our World-Struck by the Pandemic

POLITICAL ECONOMY OF A PANDEMIC
critics in a spiral of attacks against a weak
and imperfect Union. Because democracy,
since the times of the Athenians or
the downfall of the Roman Republic,
has always been weak and imperfect.
Weak against the propaganda machine
of autocrats, imperfect vis-à-vis the
ostensible promises of messianic rule:
an easy target for egocentric politicians
able to accede to leadership but unable
to actually lead, and in constant need of
a scapegoat.
I do not blame colleagues who, amidst
the current crisis, suggest that China or
Russia are showing greater solidarity than
the EU itself. They suffer from the stress
created by this pandemic, and from the
lack of European leadership in comparison
with the concrete actions, however
insidious, which we are witnessing in
other corners of the world. Let’s face the
uncomfortable truth: the only way for
democracy to survive is for leaders to step
up in times of need. Unfortunately I do not
see today a Pericles, Churchill or de Gaulle.
“So then what?” an anxious Twitter
follower might ask. Now enters the
pragmatist (not to be confused with
the bureaucrat!): someone who deep
in his heart knows, like millions of other
Europeans, that this imperfect Union, this
artificial construct created by its Founders
and still in ever-evolving process of
creation, is the only shield protecting us
from having Putin or the idolised leader
of the Chinese Communist Party held
aloft as a paragon of perfection. So what
can we do to protect and promote our
democracies and our European Union?
First, we must humbly admit our
mistakes. Looking back, we can detect
two recent warning signs. The first was
the refusal, by a significant number
of European citizens, of the European
Constitution; the second is the bad blood
which has remained in many parts of
our society after the financial crisis. I am
convinced that European citizens want
us to concentrate on solving their real
problems rather than fixate on the details
of a possible European senate or whether
or when the EU might become a happy
federation. Let’s leave these big dreams
to the next generation — a generation I
am confident will be capable of achieving
them — and concentrate instead, in the
here and now, on filling the fissures in the
very hull of our ship. We all know there
are many of them, the lack of coordination
in health emergencies being one of the
most tragic and prominent examples.
(Ah! Had Member States only listened to
Michel Barnier in 2006 when he proposed
a European initiative to response to
emergencies such as pandemics . . .)
Secondly, we must be ambitious in real
and concrete things. Like many others in
the EU institutions, I am often weary of
the reality that so many of our citizens are
unaware of the good work we are doing.
This is because the European Council,
the EU’s only non-transparent body, is
the one really calling the shots. I am tired
of secret meetings by the EU’s real power
players — i.e. our national governments:
meetings in which bad decisions are
blamed on the EU while good ones result
in praise for visionary national leaders
who in turn fail to ever mention the EU
in their subsequent ’’war reports’’ to the
press. Enough of this! When a new bridge
is built in a small town, when EU citizens
are no longer burdened by roaming
fees, or when funds arrive to relieve the
consequences of a critical pandemic: all
this is thanks to the EU. But the fact is
not recognised by some governments,
interested only in convincing their
electorates of their own ability to defend
the national interest against imaginary
usurpation and racketeering taking place
in Brussels.
Thirdly, we must be transparent and
accountable. Those European countries
which will be transparent in managing the
coronavirus pandemic will also be the first
to overcome the economic and social crisis
ahead. In 1918 it was American soldiers
who brought the so-called ‘’Spanish flu’’ to
the battlefields of Europe, causing millions
of deaths worldwide. Why did it come to
be known as Spanish flu? Because Spain,
a neutral country at the time, was alone in
not counting deaths from the disease as
casualties of war. The transparency that
spawned such an ironic misnomer also
gave to Spain a credibility it took other
countries some time to regain.
After more than
twenty years living and
breathing this European
debate, I am convinced
we must change the
narrative. The EU is not
a matter of either love
or hate; it exists because
we need it. We needed it
after the Second World
War; and we need it
today, more than ever.
In our current context, it is not
European institutions which must be
more transparent in their approach —
they already are. Where transparency is
lacking is on the part of some Member
State governments. The deficiency
therefore lies among members of the
Council, a body which has not received
a mandate on behalf of the entire
European population. This is why we
must again insist on a discussion of
the Spitzenkandidat: a directly elected
European leader, directly accountable to
all European citizens. A leader who can
take decisions at European level — and
therefore a leader who is responsible for
taking the lead and who can thus be held
accountable for his or her actions. A leader
elected by and for the European people.
We must surely focus now on the
immediate crisis at hand. But it will
soon be time to return our attention to
the future of Europe. To what kind of
Europe we want and need. For though
the EU is imperfect, make no mistake: it
is a necessity. And it will be this crucial
discussion which will allow us to overcome
the current problems of transparency,
accountability and coordination, and
which will enable us to more efficiently
prepare for future crises. But this is just
the view of a pragmatist.
34 MAY 2020 | OUR WORLD