(with some remarks on Plato)
I. What is the sense in this topic?
1. The European constitution and the Athenian democracy
The text of the first European constitution has been signed from the heads of the 25 member countries in June 2004 (1). At the end of 2004 it has been ratified firstly by Lithuania and since then the process of the ratification is going on in Europe - either by the parliaments, or via referenda.
The constitution begins with a short preamble, expressing the political will of these countries to establish a union with an uniform legislature and pointing to some of the reasons for the creation of this union. The preamble itself starts with a motto - a phrase by Thucydides (II, 37), which says: "Our constitution is called democracy because the power is in the hands not of a minority, but of the whole people". (2)
The mere choice of this motto will mean, that the contemporary European Union will look for its ancestor in the Athenian democracy (or in the community of the Greek states in the pre-Hellenistic epoch). It looks like declaration for participation in a tradition in the same manner, as the usage of elements from the ancient temple architecture in countless European buildings from the Renaissance till the present day. This is also declaration for participation in a certain tradition. The motto may serve as occasion for a discussion of the relation between this contemporary political project (in which we also participate as citizens of countries, connected in various degrees with the EU) and the Greek political theory and practice. Anyway, if we want to approach this topic from its very beginning, we will have to say a few words about the more general grounds for the thinking of a connection between Europe and ancient Greece. It couldn`t be a case, when we have just one name - the fact, that some Greeks had said: we are in Europe.
To begin with, every political or cultural project needs a paradigm - either a contemporary one, which could be imported from somewhere, or a traditional one, which yet had been documented somehow, or one, invented as purely intellectual undertaking. Europe has the confidence of a place with traditions and is still remembering the time, when it had been the leader of the world. It is still a leader in some respects - for example, the number of states with high living standard (see HDR 2005 of the UN). This means that it wouldn`t accept to import external paradigms or that it wouldn`t agree, that it is doing this. Here we will already find a sure resemblance with Greece, and particularly with Athens. The whole phrase by Thucydides, from which has been excerpted the text, quoted above, says: "Our constitution does not copy the laws of neighbouring states; we are rather a pattern to others than imitators ourselves. Its administration favours the many instead of the few; this is why it is called a democracy (translated by Richard Crawley). (3)
On the other hand, its political experience from the past 200 years is reasonable enough, the continent to be intimidated by a purely speculative political project. What is left is to face the tradition.
2. Greece as a political paradigm
But why Greece can be a political paradigm?
It is sometimes said, that the culture of Europe - this is the antiquity and the Christianity. However, the church shouldn`t propose political projects. Its task is different, as every ecclesiastic would agree: it is not occupied with the changes in this world, because of the fact, that the state, which is in the thoughts of every Christian as such, is not from "this world". Hence, the paradigm might come from Rome and its immediate continuation to the East - Constantinople. Such attempts had been made, but nowadays Europe - the one after the Second World War and after the Cold War - is longing to be democratic and non-imperial; whereas Rome had acted imperialistically even in the times, when it had still been democratic. Therefore, what remains is classical Greece.
What is there in Greece, besides democracy, with which it can boast (not only in Thucydides, but before him in Herodotus, and after that in Demosthenes)? What is the reason Europe in the XX and the XXI century to seek a connection with it? Here we reach to a point, whence we get immediately in a heated debate in the Union today. According to the Greek authors from the epoch, Europe (with the community of the Greek polises as its leader) is not-Asia; it doesn`t spread far beyond the Aegean, and even less beyond the Mediterranean sea, although, on the other hand, it wishes to settle on their east costs and thus to posses them as internal boundaries. Today the adversaries of the expansion should speak of the �natural boundaries� of Europe. Still, even in the Greek fifth century Europe had had something as natural boundaries - the utmost point, reachable by sea.
Secondly, the beginning of the historical and cultural documentation is in Greece; later on it had been accessible to every educated European. This means that the Greeks had been unable to quote a single author earlier than Homer, but all the Europeans after that were able to read Homer, and the later authors, who know him, as well. A written monument from a non-Greek (or non-European) origin becomes accessible for the participants in this tradition only in the III century B.C. - the translation of the 70-ies.
Hence, if the European wants to distinct oneself from the Christian or the Jewish tradition (and there are different reasons for that), the earliest important text, which could be reached by him, will be Homer. In this case, the beginning of the tradition, creating through the centuries a community of people, reading and thinking with words, and referring to common texts, will be in Greece.
Lastly, there is a third reason, approached by us in the upper lines. There is nothing in Greece, which to resemble a church, and to unite the people with common theses (the Credo of the faith, for example) regarding the question what they are. Obviously, the church would like to unite all the people around certain theses, because it claims, that they are the truth. But in the mundane Europe the political influence of the church (or the churches) is explicitly limited. No one is expected to confess one or another religion, or whatever faith. The situation in Greece is similar - it is secular.
In conclusion, it seems plausible to say, that Europe is referring to Greece upon necessity (thence, with the exception of the Bible, come the oldest texts, read by every generation), or because it finds there what it wants to be (democratic, mundane), yet remaining culturally and spatially confined (non-Asian). It might occur to someone that the limit could be put to the West, as well, and this also had been invented in Greece - Europe would like to be non-American, just like Plato had fancied Greece as non-Atlantic.
Nevertheless, we should keep in mind, that:
a. Greece, although standing in the tradition, does not offer Europe only one tradition (because in Greece there is not only democracy and tolerance, but also enough of tyranny, oligarchy, and also xeno- (barbaro-) phobia and all kind of discrimination); nor it is the only beginning of the European tradition (the Jewish-Christian is older).
b. Also it is not clear whence comes the obligation by all means to begin with the oldest in the incessant tradition (there is no general agreement to think, that we are or that we ought to be what we had been in the initial times).
II. What kind of Europe is suggested in the project for the European Constitution
1. The reasons for the appearance of the Constitution
Now, we have to say something about the causes, which lead to the idea of the EU and for its successful (for the time being) 50-years long development.
I would like to dwell on one of them: this is the shared desire of the most and the more powerful states (supported, obviously, by the societies, whose states they are) to handle with political means the great political uncertainty, which is going on in Europe for more than 200 years. This uncertainty is derived, firstly, from a disputation as old as Europe itself: how to discover and how to reach the just social order? And secondly, it is derived from another dispute, the solution of which is no easier: which are the European communities, which have to posses their own states; which are the nations?
During the last 200-220 years Europe has survived the following kinds of collisions: civil wars aiming at the change (or the preservation) of the political establishment; wars between the states; collapse of the states and appearance of new states; dictatorships and totalitarian regimes; genocides. I have in mind mainly: the French revolution and the Napoleon`s wars; the shaping out of big states as Germany and Italy; the dissolution of the Ottoman empire and the appearance of many small independent states on the Balkans; the Soviet revolution. And still: the two world wars and, besides them, the emergence of totalitarian, dictator`s or simply non-democratic regimes in Italy, Spain, Germany, the Soviet Union; the deletion of million Armenians and Jews in the beginning and in the middle of the century by the Turkish and the German rulers (respectively); the deletion of million of Soviet citizens by their own government; the division of Germany; the creation and the dissolution of the Soviet Union; the creation and the disintegration of Yugoslavia.
The initiative for the creation of the European Union, which now reaches the attempt to establish, via the constitution, a union, resembling a state, aims at the counteracting to this rather prolonged, tragic and at first glance desperate tendency. Someone might dislike the comparison, but the situation in Europe during these two centuries differs slightly from the situation in the Near East during the second half of the XX century. Even if it differs, I wouldn`t dare to claim, that the comparison would be in favour of the Europeans. For all these things, which I tried to remind you with a few words, there is an allusion in the preamble of the constitution with the very reserved expression "bitter experiences". (4)
This is the task of the EU, which is now aimed at through the constitution - to stop the process of the fall and emergence of states and to announce the solution of the question, "which one is the better political/social order".
(follows)
(1) This text was read at the symposium "Rights and Values in Expanding Europe: A Mutual Enrichment through Different Traditions", June 3-4, 2006, organized by the Italian Cultural Institute in Sofia, Goethe Institute, Institute for Axiological Research - Vienna, Sofia University - Graduate Programme in Philosophy Taught in English.
(2) Here I quote the text and its translation in the way they are written in the constitution. The Greek text is: ...
(3) ...
(4) See the "Preamble".
I. What is the sense in this topic?
1. The European constitution and the Athenian democracy
The text of the first European constitution has been signed from the heads of the 25 member countries in June 2004 (1). At the end of 2004 it has been ratified firstly by Lithuania and since then the process of the ratification is going on in Europe - either by the parliaments, or via referenda.
The constitution begins with a short preamble, expressing the political will of these countries to establish a union with an uniform legislature and pointing to some of the reasons for the creation of this union. The preamble itself starts with a motto - a phrase by Thucydides (II, 37), which says: "Our constitution is called democracy because the power is in the hands not of a minority, but of the whole people". (2)
The mere choice of this motto will mean, that the contemporary European Union will look for its ancestor in the Athenian democracy (or in the community of the Greek states in the pre-Hellenistic epoch). It looks like declaration for participation in a tradition in the same manner, as the usage of elements from the ancient temple architecture in countless European buildings from the Renaissance till the present day. This is also declaration for participation in a certain tradition. The motto may serve as occasion for a discussion of the relation between this contemporary political project (in which we also participate as citizens of countries, connected in various degrees with the EU) and the Greek political theory and practice. Anyway, if we want to approach this topic from its very beginning, we will have to say a few words about the more general grounds for the thinking of a connection between Europe and ancient Greece. It couldn`t be a case, when we have just one name - the fact, that some Greeks had said: we are in Europe.
To begin with, every political or cultural project needs a paradigm - either a contemporary one, which could be imported from somewhere, or a traditional one, which yet had been documented somehow, or one, invented as purely intellectual undertaking. Europe has the confidence of a place with traditions and is still remembering the time, when it had been the leader of the world. It is still a leader in some respects - for example, the number of states with high living standard (see HDR 2005 of the UN). This means that it wouldn`t accept to import external paradigms or that it wouldn`t agree, that it is doing this. Here we will already find a sure resemblance with Greece, and particularly with Athens. The whole phrase by Thucydides, from which has been excerpted the text, quoted above, says: "Our constitution does not copy the laws of neighbouring states; we are rather a pattern to others than imitators ourselves. Its administration favours the many instead of the few; this is why it is called a democracy (translated by Richard Crawley). (3)
On the other hand, its political experience from the past 200 years is reasonable enough, the continent to be intimidated by a purely speculative political project. What is left is to face the tradition.
2. Greece as a political paradigm
But why Greece can be a political paradigm?
It is sometimes said, that the culture of Europe - this is the antiquity and the Christianity. However, the church shouldn`t propose political projects. Its task is different, as every ecclesiastic would agree: it is not occupied with the changes in this world, because of the fact, that the state, which is in the thoughts of every Christian as such, is not from "this world". Hence, the paradigm might come from Rome and its immediate continuation to the East - Constantinople. Such attempts had been made, but nowadays Europe - the one after the Second World War and after the Cold War - is longing to be democratic and non-imperial; whereas Rome had acted imperialistically even in the times, when it had still been democratic. Therefore, what remains is classical Greece.
What is there in Greece, besides democracy, with which it can boast (not only in Thucydides, but before him in Herodotus, and after that in Demosthenes)? What is the reason Europe in the XX and the XXI century to seek a connection with it? Here we reach to a point, whence we get immediately in a heated debate in the Union today. According to the Greek authors from the epoch, Europe (with the community of the Greek polises as its leader) is not-Asia; it doesn`t spread far beyond the Aegean, and even less beyond the Mediterranean sea, although, on the other hand, it wishes to settle on their east costs and thus to posses them as internal boundaries. Today the adversaries of the expansion should speak of the �natural boundaries� of Europe. Still, even in the Greek fifth century Europe had had something as natural boundaries - the utmost point, reachable by sea.
Secondly, the beginning of the historical and cultural documentation is in Greece; later on it had been accessible to every educated European. This means that the Greeks had been unable to quote a single author earlier than Homer, but all the Europeans after that were able to read Homer, and the later authors, who know him, as well. A written monument from a non-Greek (or non-European) origin becomes accessible for the participants in this tradition only in the III century B.C. - the translation of the 70-ies.
Hence, if the European wants to distinct oneself from the Christian or the Jewish tradition (and there are different reasons for that), the earliest important text, which could be reached by him, will be Homer. In this case, the beginning of the tradition, creating through the centuries a community of people, reading and thinking with words, and referring to common texts, will be in Greece.
Lastly, there is a third reason, approached by us in the upper lines. There is nothing in Greece, which to resemble a church, and to unite the people with common theses (the Credo of the faith, for example) regarding the question what they are. Obviously, the church would like to unite all the people around certain theses, because it claims, that they are the truth. But in the mundane Europe the political influence of the church (or the churches) is explicitly limited. No one is expected to confess one or another religion, or whatever faith. The situation in Greece is similar - it is secular.
In conclusion, it seems plausible to say, that Europe is referring to Greece upon necessity (thence, with the exception of the Bible, come the oldest texts, read by every generation), or because it finds there what it wants to be (democratic, mundane), yet remaining culturally and spatially confined (non-Asian). It might occur to someone that the limit could be put to the West, as well, and this also had been invented in Greece - Europe would like to be non-American, just like Plato had fancied Greece as non-Atlantic.
Nevertheless, we should keep in mind, that:
a. Greece, although standing in the tradition, does not offer Europe only one tradition (because in Greece there is not only democracy and tolerance, but also enough of tyranny, oligarchy, and also xeno- (barbaro-) phobia and all kind of discrimination); nor it is the only beginning of the European tradition (the Jewish-Christian is older).
b. Also it is not clear whence comes the obligation by all means to begin with the oldest in the incessant tradition (there is no general agreement to think, that we are or that we ought to be what we had been in the initial times).
II. What kind of Europe is suggested in the project for the European Constitution
1. The reasons for the appearance of the Constitution
Now, we have to say something about the causes, which lead to the idea of the EU and for its successful (for the time being) 50-years long development.
I would like to dwell on one of them: this is the shared desire of the most and the more powerful states (supported, obviously, by the societies, whose states they are) to handle with political means the great political uncertainty, which is going on in Europe for more than 200 years. This uncertainty is derived, firstly, from a disputation as old as Europe itself: how to discover and how to reach the just social order? And secondly, it is derived from another dispute, the solution of which is no easier: which are the European communities, which have to posses their own states; which are the nations?
During the last 200-220 years Europe has survived the following kinds of collisions: civil wars aiming at the change (or the preservation) of the political establishment; wars between the states; collapse of the states and appearance of new states; dictatorships and totalitarian regimes; genocides. I have in mind mainly: the French revolution and the Napoleon`s wars; the shaping out of big states as Germany and Italy; the dissolution of the Ottoman empire and the appearance of many small independent states on the Balkans; the Soviet revolution. And still: the two world wars and, besides them, the emergence of totalitarian, dictator`s or simply non-democratic regimes in Italy, Spain, Germany, the Soviet Union; the deletion of million Armenians and Jews in the beginning and in the middle of the century by the Turkish and the German rulers (respectively); the deletion of million of Soviet citizens by their own government; the division of Germany; the creation and the dissolution of the Soviet Union; the creation and the disintegration of Yugoslavia.
The initiative for the creation of the European Union, which now reaches the attempt to establish, via the constitution, a union, resembling a state, aims at the counteracting to this rather prolonged, tragic and at first glance desperate tendency. Someone might dislike the comparison, but the situation in Europe during these two centuries differs slightly from the situation in the Near East during the second half of the XX century. Even if it differs, I wouldn`t dare to claim, that the comparison would be in favour of the Europeans. For all these things, which I tried to remind you with a few words, there is an allusion in the preamble of the constitution with the very reserved expression "bitter experiences". (4)
This is the task of the EU, which is now aimed at through the constitution - to stop the process of the fall and emergence of states and to announce the solution of the question, "which one is the better political/social order".
(follows)
(1) This text was read at the symposium "Rights and Values in Expanding Europe: A Mutual Enrichment through Different Traditions", June 3-4, 2006, organized by the Italian Cultural Institute in Sofia, Goethe Institute, Institute for Axiological Research - Vienna, Sofia University - Graduate Programme in Philosophy Taught in English.
(2) Here I quote the text and its translation in the way they are written in the constitution. The Greek text is: ...
(3) ...
(4) See the "Preamble".
No comments:
Post a Comment