Nation states of EU – Stockholm syndrome for the weak and old
Europe, a matriarch of the concept of nation states, now seems to have outgrown that flailing storyline. Could trans national regions be its next power model or is it perhaps the return to an empire upgraded or is a city state the new it?
People with common characteristics and an organized political system, with borders having sovereignty over a predetermined area, united with a sense of who they are, seem to be a pretty valid and successful definition. Now with globalization urging the people to make a compromise on putting their identity aside, become more decentralized, borderless, with less censorship and more freedom makes me wonder has identity, the thing EU is most blamed for losing, really necessary? Letting go of identity, borders and becoming equal citizens of the world seem to have reached its expiration date. It is as thought we knew all along that it was just an ideal that simply became a bedtime story nowadays. It is in human nature to identify and categorize itself? Therefore, could trans national regions or the city states, or whatever the future form revived or reformed will be defined, become our new definition of co-existing. The reality is that new concentrated sources of power and autonomy will have to be made. Networks with institutions that produce economy and retain power will dominate as usual. Nation state seem to can no longer survive because the composition of the people in the states is continuously changing due to global issues and globalization.
Self ruling, sovereign with common heritage, that is what the EU dream starter point was at the time. Flattering ourselves we once compared the idea of EU to the idea of USA, saying how EU will be its trade concurrent and an antipode. However, USA did not have a problem of nation state. USA has nations and that may as well be its only similarity with EU. EU however was not as successful in accommodating that many cultural diversities under one roof. So why did the Europeans comfort themselves that they will be as united? Nation itself may not but nation state equals trouble and that is the thesis I will try to support until the last line of this article. Since various migrations, the mixing of the nations happen and is happening on its own, hence it is no longer necessary for every nation to be a state nor for every state to be one nation. In fact we may need to stir away from nation states on the whole. The reason for that lies in the solemn fact that nation states were created as a result of war, violence, oppression or disintegration of the states of former systems which no longer seem to be present in Europe. Therefore, from nation state, to member state a new model for politically handling multinational socio-cultural diversities needs to emerge. With the end of that handling be the state of nations.
Contemporary Europe requires many bug fixes. The disintegration or the mere lack of the existence of its identity has proved as one of the mayor ones. The jump from nation states to member states created a gap too difficult to bridge with states loosing the sentiment for the European identity. The main reason for the lies in the fact the EU offers integration but no supranationalism. Nation state’s political life is no longer based on a combination of democratic contestation and governmental effectiveness. The political parties have been for a long time now in a predicament on where they are standing between the civil society and national interests and the pressures from EU institutions. Those institutions which are being very coercive without any real coercive power a pressuring the state governments which have become a mediators in distress. Not only is the mediation between the governments and their civilians weak, so is the EU corporately oriented mechanism. The states’ governments can no longer supply reconciliation, cater to demands, offer representation to its people, nor bring to life responsible government action because there are no concrete set of policies which matter in the practical functioning of the state, rather offering very general policy creating with less and less visible outcome.
Since EU has a critical role in existence of states and it pressures the individual governments, it is very likely that no one will come out of it as a winner, nor the states nor the European Union. Such Union’s evolution requires the nations to have a positive identification with it, the feeling of pride for belonging to it, a degree of trust in the constitutional, legal, administrative power and the deliverance of democracy from all the previously stated. That does not seem likely due to all those previously mentioned positive feelings, bearing in mind it already lacks the apparatuses of the nation states. All those inherited issues can hardly be resolved with all mechanisms. In fact it seems as though all the member states have an increased desire for their own cultural autonomy and identity different than the one the EU has been provided them with so far. As the defragmentation continues, it is valid to try to distinguish on whether we are coming together, holding together or simply bearing together. EU has tried to duplicate the nation symbols, creating the state-like institutions, namely the Parliament, the flag, the anthem, passports, but so far has not successfully dealt with the problems at the national level of its member states. Further on if we are not Germany, Spain or France, we do not feel as present and as integrated in EU. Symbols, images, ideas are merely a starting point, while military, political, technological, economic-financial power combined with moral and cultural leadership, cosmopolitan order, sensitive to differences are all the strengths on which the unity can grow.
If the state can encompass several nations, then nation state could become an oxymoron, for let us not forget how a nation can have several states or how there are nations which may not necessarily have their states. In European decision making it is often presented as if the governments have much more power than they do in reality, which is the potential source of frustration and the continuous strengthening of the nation’s cultures which develop separately from EU. Therefore, national culture and national sovereignty may no longer be the same fruit of the tree.
