Euro crisis can build European identity

When European Union leaders meet in late June, they will weigh ideas that point to more political unity as a way to stem the euro crisis. Will Europeans give up more national sovereignty?

Alvaro Barrientos/AP Photo
People in Pamplona protest May 31 against cutback plans by Spain's government. The European Union urged Spain to come clean on how it plans to finance the overhaul of its banking sector.

Two years into its debt crisis, Europe has finally arrived at the nub of its problem: Will there ever be a common European identity?

The answer may start to become clear at a European Union summit June 28-29. Leaders will weigh proposals to create a binding political union as a way to prevent a collapse of the euro – as well as to prevent the effects to the world economy.

The euro crisis began because too many countries, such as Greece, acted on old national impulses under the umbrella of a single currency. They spent too much money – borrowed from other EU countries – with little regard for the new European rules on fiscal discipline.

Instead of one for all and all for one, it was more often simply all for one.

Financial markets finally gagged on the red ink and now insist that the euro’s 17 member states create a political authority as strong as their economic union.

Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, agrees, in large part to justify helping Europe’s wobbly banks. But this would mean that each nation would need to give up a lot more sovereignty, such as control over spending on health and education.

Europe, which invented the nation-state, is faced with diminishing it for the sake of an elusive United States of Europe. Up to now, however, much of the EU’s unity was based on a negative identity. In 1945, Europe didn’t want to be like its fascist past. Then during the cold war, it rallied around not being like the communist Soviet Union. And it has long tried not to be like America.

Now it is being forced to assert an affirmative identity in order to persuade a skeptical public into accepting far more centralized governance. But where is that common belonging?

Europe shares no common language and no common media. Even the old glue of Christianity has faded. The EU was able to find some bonding across borders by doling out the economic benefits of easier trade, freer immigration, and subsidies to the poorest nations by wealthier ones – mainly Germany. For decades, that was enough.

Now, with a deep financial crisis and higher unemployment, some of those benefits are disappearing. EU leaders must scramble fast to come up with other reasons for people to call themselves European even as they retain individual national identities.

Finding the right mix between the two is possible. As historian Linda Colley famously wrote, “Identities are not like hats. Human beings can and do put on several at a time.” Even the Greeks, despite the onus of severe austerity, still want to stick with the euro.

Communities are indeed invented from what people choose to imagine are their common interests and values. The more universal those interests and values, the easier it is to see others as worthy of respect and trust.

A big part of the EU’s identity woes is caused by its ruling institutions not being very democratic or transparent. People don’t see themselves in the elite who run the institutions. Voter turnout for the elections of the European Parliament has declined over the years. Yet the ideals of democracy are one of the best unifiers for the EU.

At their coming summit, leaders will likely move toward more direct elections of EU governing bodies. Ms. Merkel, for example, wants a directly elected president of the European Commission, the executive arm of the EU.

Granting more power to everyday people could become the central expression of European identity, far more so than the euro. Only when people see a respect for their views will they willingly give more authority – and some of their identity – to the institutions of a more unifying Europe.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to