A critical vote to define ‘home’ for Europe

An election in May for the European Parliament has triggered differing visions from France and Germany to prevent victories for anti-EU populist parties.

Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, the new leader of Germany's ruling Christian Democratic Party.

One of the most compelling elections of 2019 comes in May when voters of the European Union choose a new parliament, which represents more than a half-billion people. Normally a boring democratic exercise, the election this time could result in nationalist, right-wing parties winning many more seats. Their continuing rise poses an existential threat to the future of the 28-country union.

Yet just as compelling is how the bloc’s most powerful defenders – France and Germany – are responding. In recent days, leaders in each country have tried to redefine how the EU can provide a stronger identity for its people, even a feeling of a common home despite disputes over issues like immigration. This Pan-European debate is not politics as usual. And the outcome could be more important than Britain’s possible exit from the EU.

On March 5, a letter written by French President Emmanuel Macron was published in 28 newspapers across the Continent. It proposes stronger, more centralized institutions, such as a single security force for the EU border. It also uses the language of the populist parties. Mr. Macron, for example, appeals to “citizens of Europe.” He asks them to reinforce the bloc “because it is European civilization that unites, frees, and protects us.” The euroskeptic nationalists are misguided, he writes, “when they claim to defend our identity by withdrawing from the EU.”

His letter triggered a response on March 11 from Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, the leader of Germany’s ruling party, the Christian Democratic Union. As the front-runner to replace Chancellor Angela Merkel, she could be the next power broker within the EU. She is also an able challenger to Macron’s vision.

She opposes what she calls a European superstate, preferring to see identity in Europe as still rooted in each country but bound together by shared interests, values, and goals. The EU’s many institutions cannot claim any moral superiority over the collaborative effort of national governments.

“The reform of Europe will not work without the nation-states,” she writes. “They are the guarantors of democratic legitimacy and a sense of belonging.”

Her vision is to better balance the interests and resources of each member state. “The more [a state] does in one area, the less should be its contribution in other fields,” she proposes.

She sees Europe’s attraction as lying in its diversity and its ability to work together. Her mentor, Ms. Merkel, often quotes the Czech writer Karel Čapek: “The Creator made Europe small and even divided her, so that our hearts could find joy not in size but in diversity.”

The EU was designed after World War II to be both an economic and a values-based community that could prevent a return of blood-and-soil nationalism. Now, with the coming election, two of its leaders are offering visions of a different sort of nationalism. They may differ, but at least they aim to counter the type of nationalism that shuts its borders and turns against democratic values. Most of all, each sees Europe as home.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

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 CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to A critical vote to define ‘home’ for Europe
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today