Nonviolent Democratic Theory and the Future of Democracy in Europe
The rise of the far-right parties in the recent EU parliamentary elections represents a turning point in the European history of liberal democracies. Baruch Spinoza, the Dutch Jewish philosopher, wrote that without passion no human activity, though supported by reason, can prosper. The argument is a sound one, especially when applied to contemporary European politics. It is a fact; democratic citizens in Europe have given up on democratic passion by replacing it with the blind obedience of populism. It is true, with the fall of the Berlin Wall, liberal democracy triumphed against all standard systems of governance, but liberal democracy's political ascendency in Europe has not always been accompanied with the ascendency of democratic passion. Today, democratic man of Europe is no longer an animal of political passion.
Alexis de Tocqueville analysed this democratic crowd psychology brilliantly in his Democracy in America in 1835. According to him, "It is in vain to summon a people who have been rendered so dependent on the central power to choose from time to time the representatives of that power; this rare and brief exercise of their free choice, however important it may be, will not prevent them from gradually losing the faculties of thinking, feeling, and acting for themselves, and thus gradually falling below the level of humanity." Tocqueville's argument implies a wider problem of freedom as self-questioning, self-invention and self-determination. Elections in Europe show younger generations, with no memory of Nazism, Stalinism or the two World Wars, are increasingly apathetic to democracy. On the other hand, John Dewey’s dictum that politics is the shadow of big business that still erodes European liberal democracies. Given these issues, we are left asking the question: Is the European democracy, as a discourse and as an institution, in need of a moral leadership, rather than only a political expediency?
This brings us back to the relation between democracy and nonviolence in Europe. Election results show a lack of moral leadership among the political parties. Here, once again, we are confronted with different techniques of party organising and power shifting, rather than with what we can call the “art of ethically organizing the European society”.
Europe has a long tradition of civic virtue and ethical citizenship, starting with Socrates and ending with Zola. Socrates taught us that questioning is essential in politics. His approach shows us that living a life of excellence is transformative, underpinning democratic dialogue and shared responsibility. He believed that excellence breeds excellence. For the Greeks, the supreme task was to discover and achieve human “excellence”, a process they called paideia which enriched the human ideal. Striving for excellence for truth, beauty and goodness in education, was considered the only way to produce it. For Socrates, excellence was about values, ideals and character, rather than expertise, embodying the summum bonum of Greek civilization. In the high middle ages, European excellence was seen in sanctity and heroism, with saints and knights abandoning worldly success and material objects. The Emperor Charles V abdicated and entered a monastery. Al-Farabi, the 10th century Persian philosopher equated Plato’s Republic with an idea of the city of excellence led by a philosophic elite. Therefore, Europe’s idea of excellence evolved with its vision of the Socratic mind. Europe, at every level of its civilizational evolution, learned to live a life which is made of moral choices. This was closely related to a process of political questioning, which, according to a philosopher like Hegel, was also a learning process (Bildung). For Hegel, Bildung, while a formative movement of growth and education, was at the same time a process of political questioning within modern society. However, European philosophy taught us that political questioning must be undertaken with scrupulous moral concern, relying on civic virtue. Civic virtue is necessary for creating a political community. In other words, we cannot build a democratic community without morally enhanced self-examination and self-transformation.
Let us not forget that one of the pillars of nonviolent democratic theory is the idea of resistance against unjust laws and the failure of democratic virtue. Mahatma Gandhi’s theory of resistance exemplifies this, advocating the right to be loyal or disloyal to institutions. As he puts it: “There is no halfway house between active loyalty and active disloyalty… In these days of democracy there is no such thing as active loyalty to a person. You are, therefore, loyal or disloyal to institutions.” Here, the resistance is made possible by an ethical voice and an implicit questioning of the social and political institutions. Gandhi’s philosophy of nonviolent resistance, by his concept of ‘swaraj’, emphasizes enlightened self-rule, akin to Socratic political questioning. We can find herewith the reference to the Socratic questioning of the political, followed by the Gandhian conception of civic virtue.
Consequently, the element which links Socrates and Gandhi to a Dreyfusard intellectual like Zola is the mode of approach of this latter to the French public in their quest for truth, justice and resistance to fanaticism. This restless fight against fanaticism is the basic idea of Europe. It amounts to claiming that the EU-Value has a meaning. As Camus said, “The task of men of culture and faith, is not to desert historical struggles nor to serve the cruel and inhuman elements in those struggles. It is rather to remain what they are, to help man against what is oppressing him, to favour freedom against the fatalities that close in upon it.” For Camus, the main idea was to hold tight to the moral compass, in order to resist all forms of fanaticism and violence.
Today in Europe, the practice of nonviolent democratic theory against forces of populism and exclusion is certainly one of the great features of its moral and political leadership. The fundamental meaning of the European Parliament resides in the general opinion by Europeans that democracy can not function without respect for decency and dignity. This is what distinguishes democracy from populism. Democracy is the art of giving dignity to the people and creating a decent society. However, populism, with its murderous arbitrariness and its deadly meaninglessness, takes these values away. That is why, being a loudmouth populist in European politics is not necessarily a sign of political maturity and excellence. On the contrary, maturity replaces violence and fear with dialogue and understanding. Delving into the ethical content of politics is a great lesson of nonviolence, and it has been practised by many thinkers, writers and politicians of the European continent like Socrates, Erasmus, Voltaire, Zola and Camus. Its deepest roots are moral because it is a higher responsibility, expressed through common action, which asks for compassion and empathy.
Europe needs to return to nonviolence, not just as a political manoeuvre, but for the common good of Europe, and a reminder of the frailty and fragility of European democracy. Therein lies the ethical interrogation of the European Parliament which is confronted with the realism of political power. Today, the challenge for European citizens is to advocate nonviolence, not only as a matter of moral principle, but also as a political weapon against the fear of democracy.
So, the real question is: who is afraid of democracy today in Europe? And the answer would be the same as it was at the time of the trial of Socrates: only those who fear pluralism, diversity and differences are afraid of democracy. If pluralism is an appropriate modus vivendi and a valid modus operandi for the European political life, then those European populist parties who fear any nonviolent move toward democracy should fear more the consequences of their own pathological nationalism and the horrors it can produce, rather than the Socratic legacy of Europe. So long as Europe is faithful to its conscience, there is no danger of betrayal of its idea. As a result, every process of thinking consciously and courageously with its heritage of nonviolence could help Europe to pave the way to the construction of a new political era which will overcome the separation between politics and ethics.
About the Author
Prof. Ramin Jahanbegloo is a political philosopher and the Executive Director of the Mahatma Gandhi Centre for Nonviolence and Peace Studies, as well as the Vice-Dean of the School of Law at Jindal Global University in Delhi, India - a partner institution of the EU-VALUES Network. He earned his Ph.D. in Philosophy from Sorbonne University and has taught at various institutions, including the University of Toronto and York University. He has has written over 27 books and received several awards, including the Peace Prize from the United Nations Association in Spain and the Josep Palau i Fabre International Essay Prize.
Find out more about our partner here: O.P. Jindal Global University (JGU)
The opinions expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of EU-VALUES Network.