WHAT'S HAPPENING IN EUROPE? - THE FAILURE OF THE DEBATE

By Gerrit Jan Bouwhuis

Introduction

In the first article I described the changes that took place in post-war Europe. The two most important were: immigration and the formation of the European Union (EU). Did those changes lead to open debates? Hardly. Particularly a respectful debate on migration proved to be difficult.

This article has two parts. First I describe how the debate developed. Second, I present my own ideas about the possible design of a respectful democratic debate.

Developments in Europe until about 1990

After the “reconstruction” in the 1950s, the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s saw a period of unprecedented prosperity: comfortable houses, televisions, washing machines, cars, annual holidays, et cetera, and this for everyone. In addition, there was the cultural revolution of the “sixties”. Internationally, the context was the Cold War. Domestically, politics was first about expansion and later about control of the welfare state.

In the meantime, the two important changes occurred. The European Economic Community (EEC) was built from the 1950s on: from 6 states in 1957* to 12 states in 1986. After that, further integration. More about the EU in a later article. The growth of prosperity brought more than full employment. And that led to the import of “guest workers”, Turks to Germany, Moroccans to France, both groups to the Netherlands and Belgium. The UK mainly had immigration from the former colonies. The composition of the population changed in all countries, especially in the cities.

 Initially there was little discussion about these changes. The construction of the EEC was mainly a matter for specialists. Logically: the beginning was not controversial. That came later. Things were different for immigration. At first there was little discussion about that development as well. People were too busy with their new prosperity… There was also no policy. It just happened. At first it was seen as temporary. But even when the families came, the question was not: do we want this? Conditions? Integration? And so a multicultural society emerged. This pattern of uncontrolled development applied to all countries. This changed in the 1980s. Resistance arose. In some countries (the Netherlands, Belgium, France) political parties on the “right” emerged. They protested against immigration. But a ‘normal’ discussion turned out to be impossible. Protests against immigration were judged as racist, especially by “progressives”. That set the tone. This occurred in all countries. How did that happen? This leads to the concept of “political correctness”.

Political correctness

 Around 1990 the term “political correctness” came up. That term has a long history. Around 1990 the term took on its current meaning, in my words: the designation by conservatives of a “progressive consensus” with a claim to general validity and thus a moral blocking of other views. The 1987 publication of Allan Bloom's book “The Closing of the American Mind” is widely regarded as the birth of the term “politically correct.” Bloom described the intellectual development that he believed was taking place in American universities. The term was adopted by many, broadened to a general social phenomenon and in that sense also ended up in Europe. It appeared that a consensus had formed among “progressives” that immigration is a positive phenomenon, that the multicultural society is an enrichment, and above all that resistance to it is morally reprehensible. The latter is the new and crucial element. Of course, political discussions about economics and income distribution were also often heated, but those discussions were not burdened with a judgment of moral reprehensibility, at least not in that generic sense. That largely happened with the migration discussion. Those who questioned immigration were placed morally out of order as "racists, "fascists, "extreme right-wing", "reactionary", etc. There was therefore a "limitation" of the debate that was considered permissible. I consider this “limitation” (“closing of the mind”) of the public debate to be a tragic development.  Of course, the “progressives” didn't see it that way. They felt they were “defending democracy”. The “conservatives” experienced it differently: their concerns and questions were taboo, outside the moral order. And so an undercurrent of dissatisfaction developed that led to the rise of protest parties from the 1990s onwards.

What is the explanation for this “political correctness”, for this embrace of the “multicultural” society? I see only one explanation: the Second World War, the moral low point in the history of Europe, with racial ideology and genocide at its core. The Second World War is an absolute moral beacon. Rightly so. How could Western civilization fall so low? Never again. Be alert. Be careful with terms such as “nations”, “peoples”, “nationalities”, “cultures”, “religions”. Using those concepts can mean “playing with fire”. This vigilance is justified, but we have gone to another extreme. A balance has not been found. That's tragic. And for this Western democracies are now paying the price of increasing polarization and decreasing cohesion.

Where should the balance lie? All citizens are equal before the law. That border is clear. Never distinguish between races or other groups again. But all other questions must be legitimate: what demographic development do we want?; what are the advantages and disadvantages of labor migration, both for receiving and for “supplying” countries?; what adjustments may be asked of newcomers?; who is considered a refugee?; how much cultural heterogeneity a country can handle? Et cetera. These are all normal questions about which a normal discussion should take place. That turned out to be only possible to a limited extent. In the 1990s there was sometimes recognition of the failure of the multicultural project (Bolkestein and Scheffer in the Netherlands). This did not lead to an effective approach. And so the dissatisfaction remained.

Developments in Europe after 1990

What happened next with the two major changes (immigration and Europeanization) and the debate about them? The EEC was transformed into the EU. The Euro was introduced. Agreed economic criteria were not maintained. This created a source of tension between “North” and “South”. Subsequently, a European “Constitution” was proposed. And then there was discussion. The Netherlands and France rejected the “Constitution” in 2005. Opposition to the formation of a “super state”. That did not stop the EU from introducing  the Treaty anyway with some small changes. The Euro was caught up in the Greece crisis of 2011. Painful discussions. The developments related to the EU and the Euro were a catalyst for protest parties. It created them (AfD in Germany) or strengthened them (many other countries). From then on, almost all protest parties had two themes: in addition to immigration, also the EU. Climate and woke were recently added (more on this later). The expansion of the EU from 2004 to include Eastern European countries brought extensive new labor migration. But about that was little criticism: the benefits were also evident. This was completely different for asylum migration, for two reasons: much migration was actually “economic” (safe countries) and much migration was Islamic. The many attacks in Europe by radical Islamists since 9/11 have fueled fear, discontent and resistance. Resistance to immigration also, or even mainly, became resistance to Islamization. And with that, the asylum discussion took on an extra cultural dimension, and became more difficult, more polarized, between “progressives” and protest parties. And here we are now: the protest parties are growing; the “progressives” warn of a “return to the 1930s.” And so the EU heads to the European elections in June.

The design of a respectful democratic debate

The democratic debate is based on the right to freedom of expression. This right is an essential part of democracy. That is why it is laid down in Constitutions and in International Treaties. The wording is broad, but there are limits. Boundaries concern: State Security, harm to others and insult/hate (towards an individual or a group). The latter is especially important in discussions. That's where the judiciary comes in. In practice it is a struggle. In the Netherlands, the politician Geert Wilders was convicted (not punished) for the “fewer Moroccans” statement. Rightly so: distinction between citizens. The comedian Van Gogh, who made a sport from insulting Jews, Christians and Muslims was convicted once in seven trials. He was murdered by a radical Muslim. In Denmark there were the Mohammed cartoons. In France there was Charlie Hebdo. Many argue for the “right to offend”, politicians of the “right” prominent among them: our freedom!

Could it be different? For years my thought is that it could be done in another way. I didn’t find my idea anywhere. My thought is that we need to distinguish between content and form. The content concerns the view as such on a political or social subject. The form concerns the manner in which the content is presented. I consider these to be two completely different aspects of the principle of freedom of expression. And I believe that completely different rules should apply to both.

A healthy democracy requires that a very broad spectrum of views can be expressed in terms of content. Voltaire's attitude: “I strongly disagree with you, but defend your right to say so to the utmost”. In democracy, power opens itself up to criticism. This means she radiates strength. No cramping. Are there limits? Yes two: State security and damage to fellow citizens due to incorrect facts.

In my opinion the rules for the form are completely different. That is related to the purpose of the public discussion. I see only one meaningful goal: seeking connection; convincing each other; finding a solution together. Nothing else. The purpose of the public discussion should not be to hurt or ridicule the other person – it does not convince the other person. Revulsion and hatred grows. Cohesion decreases; it becomes more difficult to live together. And so: only listening dialogue and courtesy. And therefore: the murder of Theo van Gogh and the attack on Charlie Hebdo were gruesome and reprehensible, but in my opinion van Gogh did not make a meaningful contribution to society and I wondered about Charlie Hebdo, whether they were not immature teenagers. I think the “freedom to offend” is a sad freedom. I do not want to defend this freedom (NB: this is not a mitigating circumstance for the murders/attacks). This is my idea.

What should be included in the law? In my opinion only the boundaries for the content. As for the form, I would like to see society itself (journalists, politicians, everyone who participates in public discussion) arrive at a generally accepted code of conduct for a respectful public discussion.

Closing remark

In both, content and form, we are further than ever away from an open but respectful democratic debate, as just outlined. The current situation is determined by the culture battle about “woke”. About that next time.

---

*Editor’s Note: The ‘founding members’.

About the author: Gerrit Jan Bouwhuis (1948) was advisor to the Minister of Finance in the Netherlands. After his retirement he made study trips to Africa and Eastern Europe. Since 2018, he has been an international election observer in Ukraine, Iraq and Turkey). ​