Europe or the imposture
Giorgio Agamben, Quodlibet, 20 maggio 2024
It is likely that very few of those who are preparing to vote in the European elections questioned themselves on the political meaning of their act. Since they are called to elect a not better defined “European parliament”, they can believe more or less in good faith that they are doing something that corresponds to the elections of the parliaments of the countries of which they are citizens. It is opportune to clarify straight away that this is absolutely not the case. When one talks of Europe today, the great removal is first and foremost the political and juridical reality of the European Union itself. That it is a real removal, it results from the fact that we avoid in every way bringing to consciousness a truth that is as embarassing as ìt is obvious. I am referring to the fact that from the point of view of constitutional law, Europe does not exists: what we call “European Union” is technically a pact between states, which concerns exclusively international law. The Maastricht Treaty, enforced in 1993, which gave the European Union its current form, is the extreme sanction of European identity as a mere intergovernmental agreement between States. European Union officials, being aware of the fact that talking about a democracy with respect to Europe made no sense, tried therefore to fill this democratic deficit by drafting the project for a so-called European constitution.
It is significant that the text that goes by this name, drawn up by commissions of bureaucrats without any popular foundation and approved by an intergovernmental conference in 2004, when it was subjected to a popular vote, as in France and Holland in 2005, was clamorously rejected. Faced with the failure of popular approval, which in fact made the self-styled constitution null and void, the project was tacitly — and perhaps we should say shamefully — abandoned and replaced by a new international treaty, the so-called Treaty of Lisbon of 2007. It goes without saying that, from a juridical point of view, this document is not a constitution, but is once again an agreement between governments, the only consistency of which concerns international law and which we were therefore careful not to submit to popular approval. No wonder, therefore, that the so-called European parliament that is being elected is not, in truth, a parliament, because it lacks the power to propose laws, which is entirely in the hands of the European Commission.
On the other hand, some years earlier, the problem of the European constitution had given rise to a debate between a German jurist whose competence no one could doubt, Dieter Grimm, and Jürgen Habermas, who, like most of those who call themselves philosophers, was completely devoid of a juridical culture. Against Habermas, who thought he could ultimately found the constitution on public opinion, Dieter Grimm had a good hand in arguing the unthinkability of a consitution for the simple reason that there did not exist a European people and therefore something like a constituent power lacked every possible foundation. If it is true that constituted power presupposes a constituent power, the idea of a European constituent power is the great absentee in the discourses on Europe.
From the point of view of its claimed constitution, the European Union has therefore no legitimacy. It is then perfectly understandable that a political entity without a legitimate constitution cannot express its own politics. The only semblance of unity is achieved when Europe acts as a vassal of the United States, taking part in wars that in no way correspond to common interests and even less to the popular will. The European Union acts now as a branch of NATO (the very NATO which, on its turn, is a military agreement between states).
For this reason, not too ironically taking up the formula that Marx used for communism, one could say that the idea of a European constituent power is the spectre that haunts Europe today and that no one dares evoke today. Yet only such a constituent power could restore legitimacy and reality to the European institutions, which — if an impostor is, according to the dictionaries, “he who imposes on others to believe things alien to the truth and operate according to that credulity” — are at present nothing else than an imposture.
Another idea of Europe will be possible only when we have cleared away this imposture. To put it without pretence or affectation: if we truly want to think of a political Europe, the first thing to do is to get the European Union out of the way — or at least, be ready for the moment when it, as now seems imminent, will fall apart.
Giorgio Agamben, Quodlibet, 20 maggio 2024
It is likely that very few of those who are preparing to vote in the European elections questioned themselves on the political meaning of their act. Since they are called to elect a not better defined “European parliament”, they can believe more or less in good faith that they are doing something that corresponds to the elections of the parliaments of the countries of which they are citizens. It is opportune to clarify straight away that this is absolutely not the case. When one talks of Europe today, the great removal is first and foremost the political and juridical reality of the European Union itself. That it is a real removal, it results from the fact that we avoid in every way bringing to consciousness a truth that is as embarassing as ìt is obvious. I am referring to the fact that from the point of view of constitutional law, Europe does not exists: what we call “European Union” is technically a pact between states, which concerns exclusively international law. The Maastricht Treaty, enforced in 1993, which gave the European Union its current form, is the extreme sanction of European identity as a mere intergovernmental agreement between States. European Union officials, being aware of the fact that talking about a democracy with respect to Europe made no sense, tried therefore to fill this democratic deficit by drafting the project for a so-called European constitution.
It is significant that the text that goes by this name, drawn up by commissions of bureaucrats without any popular foundation and approved by an intergovernmental conference in 2004, when it was subjected to a popular vote, as in France and Holland in 2005, was clamorously rejected. Faced with the failure of popular approval, which in fact made the self-styled constitution null and void, the project was tacitly — and perhaps we should say shamefully — abandoned and replaced by a new international treaty, the so-called Treaty of Lisbon of 2007. It goes without saying that, from a juridical point of view, this document is not a constitution, but is once again an agreement between governments, the only consistency of which concerns international law and which we were therefore careful not to submit to popular approval. No wonder, therefore, that the so-called European parliament that is being elected is not, in truth, a parliament, because it lacks the power to propose laws, which is entirely in the hands of the European Commission.
On the other hand, some years earlier, the problem of the European constitution had given rise to a debate between a German jurist whose competence no one could doubt, Dieter Grimm, and Jürgen Habermas, who, like most of those who call themselves philosophers, was completely devoid of a juridical culture. Against Habermas, who thought he could ultimately found the constitution on public opinion, Dieter Grimm had a good hand in arguing the unthinkability of a consitution for the simple reason that there did not exist a European people and therefore something like a constituent power lacked every possible foundation. If it is true that constituted power presupposes a constituent power, the idea of a European constituent power is the great absentee in the discourses on Europe.
From the point of view of its claimed constitution, the European Union has therefore no legitimacy. It is then perfectly understandable that a political entity without a legitimate constitution cannot express its own politics. The only semblance of unity is achieved when Europe acts as a vassal of the United States, taking part in wars that in no way correspond to common interests and even less to the popular will. The European Union acts now as a branch of NATO (the very NATO which, on its turn, is a military agreement between states).
For this reason, not too ironically taking up the formula that Marx used for communism, one could say that the idea of a European constituent power is the spectre that haunts Europe today and that no one dares evoke today. Yet only such a constituent power could restore legitimacy and reality to the European institutions, which — if an impostor is, according to the dictionaries, “he who imposes on others to believe things alien to the truth and operate according to that credulity” — are at present nothing else than an imposture.
Another idea of Europe will be possible only when we have cleared away this imposture. To put it without pretence or affectation: if we truly want to think of a political Europe, the first thing to do is to get the European Union out of the way — or at least, be ready for the moment when it, as now seems imminent, will fall apart.
(English translation by I, Robot)
No comments:
Post a Comment