Nationalism in Europe: Where did it come from, and what does it mean?

European_union_future_enlargements_map_en

Olga Starikova

At the end of the 20th century, it seemed barely possible that nationalism would come back to the West. The international community was supposed to learn the harsh lessons of the past and reach the important conclusions. Terms like globalization, multiculturalism and internationalism were no longer just a part of political discourse, but also entered the language and the reality of common people. Being cosmopolitan became trendy – especially to younger generations in the West. The fifteen years following the 1993 Maastricht Treaty became a sort of Golden Era for the European Union. The integration process seemed unstoppable – three enlargements of the EU took place, including the biggest in the history of the Union in 2004. The common currency was established in 2002, replacing the national currencies of twelve member states within the Eurozone, which also kept on growing. Nationalism in Europe was close to dying out in the new millennium.

However, reality has collided with this optimistic picture, and despite the common trends of globalization and integration, the right wing started gaining popularity. Nationalism has changed its look, and has probably become more moderate and polished, but it did come back.  This turn in the development of Europe is not illogical: the economic crisis, the so-called Islamization of Europe, and financial inequality of member states have all contributed. The recent European migrant crisis tops the cake.

Yet, what’s really striking is how fast something that was commonly seen as intolerant, odd or just shameful can get significant support in Western society. In this regard, the only thing more impressive than this phenomenon itself is the speed of its evolution. Right-wing politicians and public figures that were formerly treated with disdain suddenly achieved high-profile positions.

512px-front_national_2010-05-01_n04
French National Front leader Marine Le Pen. Photo by Marie-Lan Nguyen.

The French National Front, with its charismatic leader Marine Le Pen, serves as a shining example. Even though the ultra-right populist party experienced a decline in the first decade of the 21st century, it’s managed to rise from the ashes like a phoenix in this one; seeing success first at municipal elections, and then in 2014 winning 24 of France’s 74 seats in European Parliament – an unprecedented number for the National Front. Now, the scariest thing for liberals is Le Pen’s presidential campaign this year. Considering the events of the past five years, her candidacy should not be underestimated.

Similar things are happening in Germany, where luckily they have not yet reached that extent. The right-wing party Alternative für Deutschland is represented in the majority of German states, despite the fact that the party is fairly young and was only founded in 2013. In the European elections of 2014 AfD gained 7%, significantly less than the National Front’s 24.9% in France. Nevertheless, this number is very impressive for Germany, where the Nazi past makes the population less likely to support ultra-right political parties and the state was paying attention to the issue. Somehow, AfD leader Frauke Petry managed to successfully apply the bottom-up approach and gain the support of some people, often with low income and lower levels of education.

 

Those were the founders and the main political powers in the European Union. However, the “right turn” is typical for other countries as well, including Austria, Switzerland, and those in Southern and Eastern Europe. While nationalism has traditionally been rather strong in Eastern states like Poland and Hungary, the “right voice” in Scandinavia – considered to be incredibly tolerant – is much newer. In May 2016, the BBC published a brief Guide to Nationalist Parties Challenging Europe. The article is well-structured, and worth reading for those seeking basic information on the phenomenon.

2016-05-13_frauke_petry_5414
AfD leader Frauke Petry. Photo by Michael Lucan.

From 2014 to today, the trend has become too obvious to ignore, and naturally begged the question: “Why?” As mentioned before, normally financial crisis and refugee issues are named as main factors. The ideals of the European Union did not equate to those of certain cohorts of people. The establishment, in turn, did not always react appropriately, failing to suggest working solutions to current problems, and people started to look for alternatives.

Having faced multiple problems, the European Union as a huge bureaucratic machine appeared to be slow and inefficient. Unfortunately, it turned to be fertile ground for populist parties that often suggest rather extreme solutions. The European idea has definitely known better times, yet despite Brexit, it is too soon to speak of the decline of the European Union and the concept of supranational government. The EU’s history is rather short to make conclusions, as it was started in 1952 as the European Coal and Steel Community.

It is more a speculation, but maybe, using the terms of Samuel P. Huntington, there are certain waves of democratization; in this case waves of nationalism. Or, to be more precise, they are not simply waves but spiral bends, if one can see the process as a spiral rather than a sine curve. If so, the phase is temporary – the only question is its intensity. It does not help that nowadays the “right turn” does not seem to be unique to Europe, as evidenced by the recent US elections. On the bright side, European integration has gone so far and economic binds are so tight that cutting ties often means losing profit – which should make the politicians think twice. The most challenging aspect for the establishment is getting closer to common people, a skill that has been mastered by right-wing populists. So far, we have not passed the point of no return, and this “wave” is a good lesson for the EU to learn from its mistakes. To cite a famous saying: history repeats itself until the lesson is learned.

Olga studied Political Science in Russia and the USA, finished her M.A. Euroculture studies in Germany, and currently lives and works in Moscow.

Click here for more EU on The Euroculturer.

Advertisements

What’s in Strasbourg? ARTE, The European Cultural TV

ARTE1 (1)

Oier Lobera, Adithya Pillai, Sabrina de Vivo, Carolina Froelich and María de las Cuevas

This year is the 20th anniversary of the Franco-German, European Cultural television-channel ARTE, renowned for its pioneering work in intercultural broadcasting and in its aim of creating a ‘European’ TV channel. Therefore, our project for Eurocompetence II, a course module in the second semester of MA Euroculture to provide students with the competences required to do team working with people from different cultures and to carry out projects in a multicultural sphere, had the challenge of organising a visit to ARTE, as it has a distinct understanding of Europeanness and interculturality, which are highly relevant to the Euroculture Master’s program.

“The cooperation between France and Germany…”

ARTE is intriguing because of the cooperation between the two nations, France and Germany, which have a long hostile history. The project has been far more fruitful than other initiatives of cross-border TV stations in Europe. Having an insight into this ‘European’ channel, (as ARTE promotes itself) was a great opportunity to know more about this successful implementation of the multilingual-cross-border TV programming.

It is difficult to think of a TV channel with no programming for celebrities or reality shows such as The Bachelor or Big Brother. Perhaps it is even more difficult to imagine one with no sports or talk shows. Well, this is ARTE: a channel that broadcasts documentaries, feature films, TV films, music, opera, theatre, informative programmes and much more, always with the common denominator of achieving top quality. The different programmes invite the viewer to discover other people, regions and their ways of life, to experience culture in Europe and to better understand political and social developments in today’s world.

Can a TV channel achieve unity among the people of Europe?

This was the idea that was on the minds of François Mitterrand, Helmut Kohl and Lothar Späth, the founding fathers of ARTE, who believed that a joint television channel should bring French and German citizens closer on a cultural level and also promote cultural integration throughout Europe. Creating a television channel for two audiences was a first in television’s history and is still an exception in today’s global TV market.

After years of negotiations, an interstate agreement was signed on the 2nd of October 1990, by the Ministers of the eleven Bundesländer of the former West Germany and the French Minister of Culture, Jack Lang. Within just a few months, ARTE (Association Relative à la Télévision Européenne) was established as a European Economic Interest Grouping – E.E.I.G. (Groupement Européen d’Intérêt Économique – G.E.I.E.) – in Strasbourg.

“After the Elysée-Treaty…”

For the creation of ARTE, the history and friendship of Germany and France is crucial. After a history of wars between both countries the “Elysée-Treaty” was signed in 1963 in Paris by the French President Charles de Gaulle and the German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer. This treaty determined essential points in the cooperation between the two nations. The major fuel in this cooperation can also be seen in the personal friendship between many of the French Presidents and German Chancellors. This initiative of Germany and France was and still is essential for peace in postwar-Europe helping in the formation of a strong European Union.

ARTE is completely financed through TV licensing fees and therefore is not dependent upon advertising. Strasbourg was chosen as the headquarters of the organisation, which is also the residence of many EU organisations therefore emphasizes the orientation of ARTE towards Europe and the EU. Meanwhile, the ARTE cooperation between the German channels (ARD/ZDF) and the French channels (LA SEPT/ARTE) has been complemented by contributions from Belgium (RTBF), Switzerland  (SRG SSR IDEE SUISSE), Poland (TVP), Austria (ORF), Finland (YLE) and Greece (ERT). This suggests a European dimension, which can still be enlarged.

So why did we visit ARTE?

“ARTE can serve as a best-practice model for cross-culture collaboration in the EU at the media level…”

Cultural exchange and dialogue have been topics in our Eurocompetence II classes. ARTE is an institution which promotes both and can serve as a best-practice model for cross-culture collaboration in the EU at the media level. Our motivation to organise this trip was to have an insight into the working process of ARTE. The discussion with Uwe Lothar Müller, député of the head of the Program Unit ARTE Reportage at ARTE, gave us, the Euroculture students, the chance to receive first-hand information about working in a multi-cultural environment. Furthermore, several students in the Euroculture program are or aspire to be journalists and therefore, might also have ambitions in being employed at ARTE or similar international media organisations. This trip gave them first contacts with the atmosphere at ARTE, thus helping them to become more informed with regards to a potential future career. It is also apparent that to apply for an internship at ARTE, you must be fluent in both German and French, and be very motivated about the understanding the role of the European Union in the global world and intercultural dialogue, skills that we find in the basis of the MA Euroculture Masters program.

“There are three kinds of journalism,” ­explained Uwe Lothar Müller, “the French way, which will rather tend to provoke an emotional reaction on the audience by showing a close shot of something suffering. In my opinion, this kind of journalism might transfer some limits of privacy. On the other hand, we have the German style, which will avoid any kind of emotion. This doesn’t work neither because it is too distant from the reader. Thirdly, we have ARTE’s style that has the best of both. We search for a component of humanity when we inform, but at the same time our aim is to be very rigorous and respectful. We strive to create thought-provoking, emotionally engaging programmes that enrich our multicultural audience’s lives. Our channel should reflect our audience’s interests, passions and dreams.”

ARTE2

Oier Lobera, Adithya Pillai, Sabrina de Vivo, Carolina Froelich and María de las Cuevas are students of MA Euroculture 2012-14. They studied in Strasbourg for Spring Semester 2013. Currently, they are spread around the world doing an internship or a research track. 

For more information, visit ARTE