Crossing Cultures
Europe Turns Right
Ian Buruma
|
|
|
|
AMSTERDAM – Whatever happened to the good Europeans, those nice folks in small northern countries who liked to think of themselves as the world champions of liberty and tolerance?
Of course, many liberal Europeans are still alive and well. But first in Denmark, then in the Netherlands, and now in Sweden, illiberal, populist parties stirring up fear of immigrants – specifically Muslim immigrants – have managed to gain enough power to set, or at least influence, their countries’ political agendas.
These parties are not confined to Scandinavia and the Low Countries, but are part of a global wave of anger against political elites, who are blamed for all of the insecurities that come with global economics, the financial crisis, and living in more ethnically mixed societies. The psychology behind the Tea Party in the United States and the anti-immigrant parties in Europe is similar, even if their policies vary.
Modern European populists don’t wear black shirts, or indulge in street violence. Their leaders are youngish men in sharp suits, who don’t use the language of race, but that of freedom and democracy.
The Dutch Freedom Party (whose only member is its leader, Geert Wilders), the Danish People’s Party, led by Pia Kjaersgaard, and Jimmy Akesson’s Sweden Democrats claim to be the defenders of Western civilization against its main enemy: Islam. They talk about Western liberties, including freedom of speech, but Wilders wants to ban the Koran and the burqa, and a Danish member of parliament has called Islam “a plague upon Europe.”
All three countries may soon be following the Danish model, in which the illiberal populist parties pledge their support without actually governing, thereby gaining power without responsibility. Denmark’s conservative government could not govern without the support of the People’s Party. Sweden’s recently re-elected moderate conservatives will have to rely on the Democrats to form a viable government. And Wilders has already received assurances from the conservative and Christian democratic parties that, in exchange for his support, the burqa will be banned in the Netherlands and immigration curbed.
The influence of these slick new populists, waging their war on Islam, goes well beyond their countries’ borders. Nativism is on the rise all over the Western world, and Wilders, in particular, is a popular speaker at right-wing anti-Muslim gatherings in the US, Britain, and Germany.
European populism focuses on Islam and immigration, but it may be mobilizing a wider rage against elites expressed by people who feel unrepresented, or fear being left behind economically. They share a feeling of being dispossessed by foreigners, of losing their sense of national, social, or religious belonging. Northern Europe’s political elites, largely social or Christian democrats, have often been dismissive of such fears, and their paternalism and condescension may be why the backlash in those liberal countries has been particularly fierce.
The question is what to do about it. One possible solution is to let populist parties join the government if they get a sufficient number of votes. The idea of a Tea Party candidate becoming US president is alarming, to be sure, but European populists could only be part of coalition governments.
True, Hitler’s Nazis took over Germany almost as soon as they were voted into power, but the new European right are not Nazis. They have not used violence, or broken any laws. Not yet. As long as this is so, why not give them real political responsibility? They would then not only have to prove their competence, but also moderate their attitudes.
That is why the Danish model is probably the worst solution, for it requires no governing ability from the populists. As long as Wilders and his European counterparts stay out of government, they have no incentive to temper their illiberal rhetoric and stop stoking up hostility towards ethnic and religious minorities.
That is what happened in the one European country that tried to bring its populists into government – Austria under Wolfgang Schüssel a decade ago. There, the populist Freedom Party splintered, as some opted to moderate their views in order to succeed in government. But the EU’s decision to impose a form of diplomatic limbo on Austria for Schüssel’s decision to include the Freedom Party in his governing coalition may discourage other conservatives from going this route. As a result, mainstream conservatives are more likely to compromise on principles that we have long taken for granted, such as civil equality and religious freedom.
Indeed, fearful of the populists’ power, in or out of government, the response from mainstream conservatives – and even some social democrats – to their illiberal views has already been inexcusably soft. There are in fact plenty of ways to fight back, but not with outdated ideologies. Those who see the danger of a culture war with Muslims, or the hostile branding of minorities, should be able to influence opinion with practical arguments. It will no longer do merely to warn against racism, or promote multiculturalism.
Instead, people must be convinced that without controlled immigration – and not just asylum for refugees – Europeans will be worse off. With falling birthrates, immigrants are needed to maintain European prosperity. At the same time, Europe’s economies should be less enmeshed in protective regulations, so that immigrants can find work more easily.
Finally, the argument must be made more forcefully that it will be much harder to protect our societies against the revolutionary terrorism of radical Islam without the active support of all law-abiding Muslims. Europe will not be safer under politicians who claim that we are at war with Islam. On the contrary, their influence will make life not only less civilized, but a great deal more dangerous.
Ian Buruma is Professor of Democracy and Human Rights at Bard College. His latest book is Taming the Gods: Religion and Democracy on Three Continents.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2010.
www.project-syndicate.org
For a podcast of this commentary in English, please use this link:
http://media.blubrry.com/ps/media.libsyn.com/media/ps/buruma42.mp3
You might also like to read more from Ian Buruma or return to our home page.
|
|
stavio 01:07 08 Nov 10
How about Europeans having more of their own children? This would call off the idea that Europe needs immigrants to maintain its current standard of living. Wouldn't it be more logical/natural for Europeans to bring into this world their own children to help themselves out in the old age than somebody else's from some African or Asian country? It would definitely lessen current interracial/interreligious tensions and anxieties and promote greater social harmony.
francoisbrun 12:45 08 Nov 10
Following Mr Stavio comment: Again, I would like to see figures, which might support the politically correct assertion (claimed by UNO, for example) that immigration is a MUST to keep Europe prosperity. When thousands of jobs are moving to India or China (look at the "made in..." on a growing number of items including basic ones), is there any need to keep the European population to its present number, and would it be so desastrous that it actually decreases? In addition, if there is a real problem in Germany, where the rate of birth is significantly less than needed to keep even its present number of people, the situation is not so "alarmng" in many other European countries. And, again, immigrants without any professional qualification, which constitute the larger part of the immigration as a consequence of the "human rights" which oblige to accept most of them because of an alleged familial regrouping, are just a burden, not a chance for Europe. I am getting really fed up with all these advices given by people who, for a large part, live away from daily contact with immigrants and share in fact nothing with them.
Sophia 11:43 01 Dec 10
I like this article and agree with what Mr. Buruma wrote, despite those comments above.
francoisbrun 01:22 01 Dec 10
Fine ! I suspect Mrs Sophia to live in some nice place well away from any nuisance caused by people less well off than she is, moving only with her own car (preferrably some kind of big SUV), ignoring mass transportation, etc. All in all it makes it easy to approve nice words which remain only words in her daily life.
Sophia 02:18 01 Dec 10
Hi francoisbrun, I don't want to argue with you and it doesn't matter where I live, it matters what attitude one has towards his or her daily life. People are different individuals with different views, if one wants to convince another, he/she has to have very convicing arguements. That is what I get from this article and I like the author's idea and suggestion. Would the solutions he proposed work in reality? We shall see. No, of course there are always people who do not share the same values, but with the effect of globalization, we cannot face our fears or deal with the dislike feelings by excluding them. It will not lead to a good solution, something diplomatic needs to be done. Hatred will only make things worse, because when you hate some one, that some one may also hate you the same much.
francoisbrun 03:56 01 Dec 10
There is no hatred of any kind in my comments. What I see is that encouraging "multi culturalism" without limits on the ground of the so called globalization has precisely the effect of generating hatred, because, when "enough is enough" people feel threatened in their way of living, their culture and so on. It is nice to say : "immigrants are welcomed", but if this is not associated with the obligation for these immigrants to accept that they are hosted in a new environment and that they must accept the constraints of that new environment, it is not surprising that there are adverse reactions ! In France where I live, people having left Poland or Italy to work in the mining industry after the first world war, or Portuguese after the second one to work in the automotive industry, are perfectly integrated. Also Vietnamese having fled after the communists had taken the power in their country. This is even the case for a large number of people from Africa who accept to behave as European when they come here. But why should we accept people who want to keep their own language, their habits like polygamy, etc, and come only to take profit of our system of social welfare ?
francoisbrun 01:37 19 Oct 10
What a nice politically correct chronicle! If I understand Mr Buruma properly, people in Europe are wrong to vote for those horrible "illiberal populist parties", and suspect that he could hardly restrain himself from adding: "people vote wrongly, we must change the people" !
We have also the usual "musical saw" according to which Europe must welcome higher and higher numbers of immigrants supposed to be indispensable to "maintain Europe prosperity". Even more, Europe must change "protective regulations so that immigrants can find work more easily". I would be most interested to see any figure supporting the first of his two sentences, and also to have any sensible recommendation as to cope with massive immigration of people who have no qualification whatsoever, and cannot (and sometimles do not make any attempt) to speak the language of the country where they should be welcomed, whereas at the same time, unemployment has reached very large figures, and industry massively emigrates day after day to India or China !
And finally, what does Mr Buruma think of what we should do about those Islamic people who claim that they are at war with us ?
I respectfully suggest that Mr Buruma take care of those Latinos who are coming to the US by large numbers, and leave Europe try (if it is still time) to save its culture and identity.
All the best to the students of Bard College!