A confederation of independent-minded (if not imperious) states does not work. It did not work in America after 1776. It was overturned by a new Constitution in 1789, and later tested by a great Civil War.
But the federal system endures in America, despite challenges by those who hold to supremacy of individual states. In Europe, 27 nations have joined together to try to forge a more perfect union, but the movement is hobbled by nationalist sentiments that may well fracture an already fragile European Union.
French-German suspicions, as well as leftover British attitudes from an imperial age, could stall any moves toward a stronger union. Similarly, devotion in some parts of America toward "states' rights" interferes with efforts by the federal government in Washington to coordinate social benefits.
Granted, the U.S. has the advantage of a recognized common language, as well as the convenience of a common currency and a centralized judiciary with sovereignty over the several individual states.
Europe has been moving slowly in a federal direction, gradually overcoming opposition by fiercely nationalistic figures such as Charles de Gaulle and Margaret Thatcher. In addition, there is French suspicion of German industriousness, British dislike of losing its own currency, and resentment among smaller nations of being told what to do and how to do it.
Sound familiar? It should, because many similar arguments (except for language and currency) are expressed by ultra-conservatives and Tea Party activists in America.
So which in Europe will succeed? Federalism, with a strong centralized government, or Intergovernmentalism, which recognizes the sovereignty of member nation-states?
In America, it took a Civil War to solidify allegiance to one nation, indivisible. Europe is still a collection of nations, each with its own culture, language and allegiance.
Many wars have already been fought over which shall be dominant.
No comments:
Post a Comment