As Jacques Delors, one of the initiators of the common currency in the 1990s, remarked, a united Europe is a UPO (an unidentified political object). At the time Delors was a describing a Europe that was uncertain about which path to take towards integration: unification of markets, or the construction of a political union to pave the way for a future federation. Our current situation has resulted from the choice made by the Union in response to these considerations.

Europe opted for the market, which it assumed would provide a satisfactory form of integration. In other words, we allowed ourselves to be beguiled by the illusion that the common market would take charge of a task that Europe’s politicians were not ready to carry out, and create a political union through the establishment of economic links.

With this in mind, we chose not to establish strong political institutions. Not surprisingly, once the crisis struck, the union turned out to be very vulnerable politically. At the same time, the markets, which were supposed to favour its integration, began to trample it into the ground.

Widening divide between strong and weak countries

The privileging of the market over politics has become an Achilles heel for the EU that has prevented it from effectively responding to the crisis, and even more importantly from planning its future. After all, is politics not a means to take control of the future? Today, we have no hopeful vision for the future of Europe, but we should bear in mind that this state of affairs has not been caused by the crisis.

The EU has always had a tendency to avoid the issue of its own transformation. In the pre-crisis era, there was no reason to interfere with a mechanism that was more or less working, especially when European stability was sustained by economic growth. We had the impression that time had stopped and was under our control. There was no need to plan for the future because it was going to be a simple extension of the present.

However, concluding that everything is under control is often the first step to becoming a victim. This is one of the more well-known lessons of history, but one that has still not been assimilated by European leaders especially in the light of the union’s response to the crisis, which increasingly appears to be a recipe for political catastrophe.

The union only offers slow responses to immediate problems, and is careful to avoid taking the initiative in its bid to show that for Europe’s main leaders it remains a single entity. However, today this effort is increasingly strained by a widening divide between strong and weak countries and the EU’s centre and periphery.

European Union no longer offers the guarantee of a decent stable existence

Of course, the politicians have no desire to see the EU break up. They know only too well that this would be a disaster for civilisation. But they have not succeeded in setting aside a mode of action that they themselves believe to be outdated. Of course, they say they want to calm the markets, but without changing any underlying mechanisms so that once the crisis has been allayed the markets will once again take charge of politics and political integration.

The major problem in our European societies is the decline of government by political leaders, which has created a power vacuum. Our democracy is dispersed and atomised to the point where political leaders have trouble deciphering the aspirations of citizens, which are also chaotic and atomised. As a result, it is increasingly difficult to determine clear objectives for a community of citizens.

While the sense of dislocation between leaders and citizens has continued to grow, the power that has been abandoned by politicians has not found its way back into the hands of citizens. The union is a clear expression of this trend: not only has it lost its existing objectives, and thus become a land without a future, but worse still, for many of its citizens it has become the land of broken promises.

With the dramatic increase in unemployment and in particular unemployment among young people, the European Union no longer offers the guarantee of a decent stable existence. The European welfare state, one of the pillars of traditional democracy is progressively — and in some cases rapidly — being dismantled.

Restoring democracy in the union

Amid the anger prompted by growing inequality, poverty and plunging living standards have been observed in societies that were hitherto largely spared by the crisis.

Today we are faced with a complete lack of ideas on how to emerge from this chaos unscathed. In such a situation, returning to our roots — and in this case, that means the roots of the European Union — is the best policy. The political project that was initially supposed to unite the continent was a united Europe in the form of a federation of nations: one that was created both by nations and plans for the future, as philosopher Marcel Gauchet has pointed out.

What we have to do now is to construct that federation of nations. Such a structure would entrust significant powers under the supervision of nations to the EU. A major reversal of the relationships with the Union, which is no longer under the democratic control of peoples, is essential. United Europe was built on the will of peoples, but it has turned away from that will, and it has no hope of survival without it.

The challenge we face is not only one of restoring economic growth, but also, and more importantly one of restoring democracy in the union. It is a challenge that can only be addressed by the citizens of Europe. For this to happen, the citizens of Europe will have to be convinced that such an undertaking is worthwhile and that their efforts will be rewarded by fairer policies and a brighter future.