‘Ένας «μοναχικός»
Γερμανός φιλόσοφος, ο Jürgen Habermas αγωνίζεται, μάταια νομίζω, να σώσει την
Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση από τον κακό εαυτό της αλλά και την Ελλάδα που καταγράφεται ήδη
ως «παράπλευρη απώλεια».
Ευγενής η προσπάθεια αλλά χωρίς ελπίδα να τελεσφορήσει, αν και η παρέμβασή του έχει τη διδακτική και ηθική της αξία. Ας δούμε γιατί:
Η ΕΕ, στην παρούσα της δομή και λειτουργία, δεν μπορεί να επιβιώσει. Θα συνεχίσει να ολισθαίνει προς την αυτοδιάλυσή της. Αντίθετα από το όραμα των ιδρυτών της, είναι μια Ομοσπονδία Κρατών. Δεν είναι Ομόσπονδο Κράτος, όπως για παράδειγμα οι ΗΠΑ, Ο Καναδάς, η Αυστραλία. Είναι και, όπως φαίνεται, θα παραμείνει μια απλή Νομισματική Ένωση αλλά όχι Πολιτική Ένωση. Στερείται κοινής οικονομικής, εξωτερικής, αμυντικής και κοινωνικής πολιτικής και άρα κοινωνικής συνοχής.
Με τα ιδεώδη των ιδρυτών της ως σημαία και τις ασαφείς έως εντελώς θολές συμφωνίες, τα οικονομικά ισχυρά κράτη-μέλη επιβάλλουν πολιτικές λιτότητας και χρηματοπιστωτικής ασφυξίας που, βραχυπρόθεσμα έστω, εξυπηρετούν τα δικά τους συμφέροντα εις βάρος των μικρών και αδύναμων, αγνοώντας ότι αυτή η τακτική οδηγεί και στη δική τους καταστροφή.
Η ΕΕ χτίστηκε πάνω σε σαθρά θεμέλια και κυβερνάται, κυρίως, από ανεπαρκείς έως εντελώς ανίκανους πολιτικούς (με τη βοήθεια ικανών αλλά αδιάφορων τεχνοκρατών) και, βεβαίως, από κυνικά άπληστες αγορές. Και σαν να μην έφταναν όλα αυτά, έρχεται η προσφυγική κρίση να εντείνει και να αναδείξει με θεαματικό τρόπο αυτές τις αδυναμίες, με αποτέλεσμα να ευτελιστεί πλήρως η έννοια της Ευρωπαϊκής αλληλεγγύης και να αφεθεί η Ελλάδα να παλέψει μόνη της την ευρωπαϊκή πλέον ανθρωπιστική κρίση.
Είναι πια ξεκάθαρο ότι χωρίς ριζοσπαστικές αλλαγές στις αρχές, στις αξίες και στις συμπεριφορές και χωρίς θεμελιώδους σημασίας μεταρρυθμίσεις, η ΕΕ είναι καταδικασμένη να οδηγηθεί σε αργό θάνατο.
Θα μου πείτε όμως, οι Ευρωπαίοι καλά να πάθουν αλλά η Ελλάδα και οι Έλληνες τι φταίνε και πληρώνουν ένα τόσο ακριβό τίμημα;
Ευγενής η προσπάθεια αλλά χωρίς ελπίδα να τελεσφορήσει, αν και η παρέμβασή του έχει τη διδακτική και ηθική της αξία. Ας δούμε γιατί:
Η ΕΕ, στην παρούσα της δομή και λειτουργία, δεν μπορεί να επιβιώσει. Θα συνεχίσει να ολισθαίνει προς την αυτοδιάλυσή της. Αντίθετα από το όραμα των ιδρυτών της, είναι μια Ομοσπονδία Κρατών. Δεν είναι Ομόσπονδο Κράτος, όπως για παράδειγμα οι ΗΠΑ, Ο Καναδάς, η Αυστραλία. Είναι και, όπως φαίνεται, θα παραμείνει μια απλή Νομισματική Ένωση αλλά όχι Πολιτική Ένωση. Στερείται κοινής οικονομικής, εξωτερικής, αμυντικής και κοινωνικής πολιτικής και άρα κοινωνικής συνοχής.
Με τα ιδεώδη των ιδρυτών της ως σημαία και τις ασαφείς έως εντελώς θολές συμφωνίες, τα οικονομικά ισχυρά κράτη-μέλη επιβάλλουν πολιτικές λιτότητας και χρηματοπιστωτικής ασφυξίας που, βραχυπρόθεσμα έστω, εξυπηρετούν τα δικά τους συμφέροντα εις βάρος των μικρών και αδύναμων, αγνοώντας ότι αυτή η τακτική οδηγεί και στη δική τους καταστροφή.
Η ΕΕ χτίστηκε πάνω σε σαθρά θεμέλια και κυβερνάται, κυρίως, από ανεπαρκείς έως εντελώς ανίκανους πολιτικούς (με τη βοήθεια ικανών αλλά αδιάφορων τεχνοκρατών) και, βεβαίως, από κυνικά άπληστες αγορές. Και σαν να μην έφταναν όλα αυτά, έρχεται η προσφυγική κρίση να εντείνει και να αναδείξει με θεαματικό τρόπο αυτές τις αδυναμίες, με αποτέλεσμα να ευτελιστεί πλήρως η έννοια της Ευρωπαϊκής αλληλεγγύης και να αφεθεί η Ελλάδα να παλέψει μόνη της την ευρωπαϊκή πλέον ανθρωπιστική κρίση.
Είναι πια ξεκάθαρο ότι χωρίς ριζοσπαστικές αλλαγές στις αρχές, στις αξίες και στις συμπεριφορές και χωρίς θεμελιώδους σημασίας μεταρρυθμίσεις, η ΕΕ είναι καταδικασμένη να οδηγηθεί σε αργό θάνατο.
Θα μου πείτε όμως, οι Ευρωπαίοι καλά να πάθουν αλλά η Ελλάδα και οι Έλληνες τι φταίνε και πληρώνουν ένα τόσο ακριβό τίμημα;
Φταίμε και πολύ
μάλιστα. Επί δεκαετίες, βιώσαμε μια εικονική πραγματικότητα ευμάρειας, χωρίς να
παράγουμε, χωρίς να εκπαιδεύουμε για την παραγωγική αγορά εργασίας, χωρίς να
εξάγουμε, ζώντας και σπαταλώντας τα δανεικά που παίρναμε, χωρίς ελπίδα να τα
ξεπληρώσουμε.
Φταίνε οι πολιτικές ηγεσίες, τα μιντιακά συγκροτήματα, οι συνδικαλιστές, οι συνεταιριστές, οι λειτουργοί της δικαιοσύνης και της δημόσιας διοίκησης, αλλά και εμείς οι πολίτες που τους ψηφίζαμε και τους ανεχόμασταν, ή ακόμα επιδιδόμασταν σε ένα αμοιβαίο εκμαυλισμό και εκφαυλισμό υφέρπουσας ή και απροκάλυπτης διαφθοράς. Φταίμε όλοι αν και δεν φταίμε όλοι το ίδιο.
Φταίνε οι πολιτικές ηγεσίες, τα μιντιακά συγκροτήματα, οι συνδικαλιστές, οι συνεταιριστές, οι λειτουργοί της δικαιοσύνης και της δημόσιας διοίκησης, αλλά και εμείς οι πολίτες που τους ψηφίζαμε και τους ανεχόμασταν, ή ακόμα επιδιδόμασταν σε ένα αμοιβαίο εκμαυλισμό και εκφαυλισμό υφέρπουσας ή και απροκάλυπτης διαφθοράς. Φταίμε όλοι αν και δεν φταίμε όλοι το ίδιο.
Το ότι δεν είναι αθώοι οι δανειστές - Ευρωπαίοι και μη - που
εκμεταλλεύονται την κρίση για να
εξυπηρετήσουν τα κακώς εννοούμενα εθνικά τους συμφέροντα αλλά ούτε και τα
διεθνή χρηματοπιστωτικά συγκροτήματα που αναίσχυντα αυξάνουν τον πλούτο τους
πάνω στη δυστυχία του ανυπεράσπιστου Έλληνα εργαζόμενου, άνεργου, συνταξιούχου
και μικρομεσαίου επιχειρηματία δεν μας απαλλάσσει από τη δική μας ευθύνη.
Ας κατανοήσουμε επί
τέλους ότι η σωτηρία μας βρίσκεται μόνο στα δικά μας χέρια και στα χέρια
κανενός άλλου.
Παρά τις δυσοίωνες προβλέψεις, κάποια συμφωνία θα υπάρξει μια και το
αντίθετο δεν συμφέρει κανέναν. Δεν θα είναι όμως ευνοϊκή για μας, εξ αιτίας και
του ερασιτεχνισμού της άπειρης κυβέρνησης, της ασυνεννοησίας μεταξύ των
στελεχών της, των προκλητικών δημόσιων δηλώσεων, της δια τηλεπαραθύρων
διαπραγμάτευσης και των άνευ αντικειμένου τσαμπουκάδων που έστρεψαν όλους τους
"εταίρους" εναντίον μας.
Ας παραδεχτούμε επί
τέλους ότι η κρίση είναι δική μας. Εμείς την είχαμε προκαλέσει με την
ανεύθυνη διαχείριση των δημοσιονομικών μας πραμάτων και είχε ήδη συντελεστεί το
2008. Η κρίση δεν είναι αποτέλεσμα των
μνημονίων. Τα μνημόνια είναι αποτέλεσμα της κρίσης μας. Μιας κρίσης που
επιδεινώθηκε εξ αιτίας της στυγνής λιτότητας που μας επιβάλλουν οι δανειστές
μας αδιαφορώντας για την εξαθλίωση του λαού μας και την απώλεια της δυνατότητας
για ανάκαμψη και ανάπτυξη στης οικονομίας μας.
Δια ταύτα: Ώρα να σοβαρευτούμε, να νοικοκυρευτούμε, να δουλέψουμε
ενωμένοι, παραμερίζοντας τα μικροκομματικά και προσωπικά μας συμφέρονται, σε
μια πανεθνική προσπάθεια για τη σωτηρία της πατρίδας και για το μέλλον των
παιδιών μας. Δεν υπάρχει άλλη διέξοδος
ΣΗΜΕΙΩΣΗ: Η ανάδειξη με μαύρα γράμματα ορισμένων σημείων στο κείμενο του Georg Diez που ακολουθεί στο οποίο παρουσιάζει το προφίλ του Jürgen Habermas, έγινε αυθαίρετα από τον υπογράφοντα.
Habermas, the Last European: A Philosopher's Mission to Save the EU
By Georg Diez
By Georg Diez
Jürgen Habermas has had enough. The philosopher is doing all he can these
days to call attention to what he sees as the demise of the European ideal. He
hopes he can help save it -- from inept politicians and the dark forces of the
market.
Jürgen Habermas is angry. He's really angry. He is
nothing short of furious -- because he takes it all personally.
He leans forward. He leans backward. He arranges his fidgety hands to illustrate his tirades before allowing them to fall back to his lap. He bangs on the table and yells: "Enough already!" He simply has no desire to see Europe consigned to the dustbin of world history.
"I'm speaking here as a citizen," he says. "I would rather be sitting back home at my desk, believe me. But this is too important. Everyone has to understand that we have critical decisions facing us. That's why I'm so involved in this debate. The European project can no longer continue in elite modus."
Enough already! Europe is his project. It is the project of his generation.
Jürgen Habermas, 82, wants to get the word out. He's sitting on stage at the Goethe Institute in Paris. Next to him sits a good-natured professor who asks six or seven questions in just under two hours -- answers that take fewer than 15 minutes are not Habermas' style.
Usually he says clever things like: "In this crisis, functional and systematic imperatives collide" -- referring to sovereign debts and the pressure of the markets.
Sometimes he shakes his head in consternation and says: "It's simply unacceptable, simply unacceptable" -- referring to the EU diktat and Greece's loss of national sovereignty.
'No Convictions'
And then he's really angry again: "I condemn the political parties. Our politicians have long been incapable of aspiring to anything whatsoever other than being re-elected. They have no political substance whatsoever, no convictions."
It's in the nature of this crisis that philosophy and bar-room politics occasionally find themselves on an equal footing.
It's also in the nature of this crisis that too many people say too much, and we could definitely use someone who approaches the problems systematically, as Habermas has done in his just published book.
But above all, it is in the nature of this crisis that the longer it continues, the more confusing it gets. It becomes more difficult to follow its twists and turns and to see who is responsible for what. And the whole time, alternatives are disappearing before our very eyes.
That's why Habermas is so angry: with the politicians, the "functional elite" and the media. "Are you from the press?" he asks a man in the audience who has posed a question. "No? Too bad."
Habermas wants to get his message out. That's why he's sitting here. That's why he recently wrote an article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine newspaper, in which he accused EU politicians of cynicism and "turning their backs on the European ideals." That's why he has just written a book -- a "booklet," as he calls it -- which the respected German weekly Die Zeit promptly compared with Immanuel Kant's 1795 essay "Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch."
But does he have an answer to the question of which road democracy and capitalism should take?
A Quiet Coup d'État
"Zur Verfassung Europas" ("On Europe's Constitution") is the name of his new book, which is basically a long essay in which he describes how the essence of our democracy has changed under the pressure of the crisis and the frenzy of the markets. Habermas says that power has slipped from the hands of the people and shifted to bodies of questionable democratic legitimacy, such as the European Council. Basically, he suggests, the technocrats have long since staged a quiet coup d'état.
"On July 22, 2011, (German Chancellor) Angela Merkel and (French President) Nicolas Sarkozy agreed to a vague compromise -- which is certainly open to interpretation -- between German economic liberalism and French etatism," he writes. "All signs indicate that they would both like to transform the executive federalism enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty into an intergovernmental supremacy of the European Council that runs contrary to the spirit of the agreement."
Habermas refers to the system that Merkel and Sarkozy have established during the crisis as a "post-democracy." The European Parliament barely has any influence. The European Commission has "an odd, suspended position," without really being responsible for what it does. Most importantly, however, he points to the European Council, which was given a central role in the Lisbon Treaty -- one that Habermas views as an "anomaly." He sees the Council as a "governmental body that engages in politics without being authorized to do so."
He sees a Europe in which states are driven by the markets, in which the EU exerts massive influence on the formation of new governments in Italy and Greece, and in which what he so passionately defends and loves about Europe has been simply turned on its head.
A Rare Phenomenon
At this point, it should be mentioned that Habermas is no malcontent, no pessimist, no prophet of doom -- he's a virtually unshakable optimist, and this is what makes him such a rare phenomenon in Germany.
His problem as a philosopher has always been that he appears a bit humdrum because, despite all the big words, he is basically rather intelligible. He took his cultivated rage from Marx, his keen view of modernity from Freud and his clarity from the American pragmatists. He has always been a friendly elucidator, a rationalist and an anti-romanticist.
Nevertheless, his previous books "Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere" and "Between Facts and Norms" were of course somewhat different than the merry post-modern shadowboxing of French philosophers like Jacques Derrida and Jean Baudrillard. What's more, another of Habermas' publications, "Theory of Communicative Action," certainly has its pitfalls when it comes to his theory of "coercion-free discourse" which, even before the invention of Facebook and Twitter, were fairly bold, if not perhaps naïve.
Habermas was never a knife thrower like the Slovenian thinker Slavoj Žižek, and he was no juggler like the German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk. He never put on a circus act, and he was always a leftist (although there are those who would disagree). He was on the side of the student movement until things got too hot for him. He took delight in the constitution and procedural matters. This also basically remains his position today.
Habermas truly believes in the rationality of the people. He truly believes in the old, ordered democracy. He truly believes in a public sphere that serves to make things better.
He leans forward. He leans backward. He arranges his fidgety hands to illustrate his tirades before allowing them to fall back to his lap. He bangs on the table and yells: "Enough already!" He simply has no desire to see Europe consigned to the dustbin of world history.
"I'm speaking here as a citizen," he says. "I would rather be sitting back home at my desk, believe me. But this is too important. Everyone has to understand that we have critical decisions facing us. That's why I'm so involved in this debate. The European project can no longer continue in elite modus."
Enough already! Europe is his project. It is the project of his generation.
Jürgen Habermas, 82, wants to get the word out. He's sitting on stage at the Goethe Institute in Paris. Next to him sits a good-natured professor who asks six or seven questions in just under two hours -- answers that take fewer than 15 minutes are not Habermas' style.
Usually he says clever things like: "In this crisis, functional and systematic imperatives collide" -- referring to sovereign debts and the pressure of the markets.
Sometimes he shakes his head in consternation and says: "It's simply unacceptable, simply unacceptable" -- referring to the EU diktat and Greece's loss of national sovereignty.
'No Convictions'
And then he's really angry again: "I condemn the political parties. Our politicians have long been incapable of aspiring to anything whatsoever other than being re-elected. They have no political substance whatsoever, no convictions."
It's in the nature of this crisis that philosophy and bar-room politics occasionally find themselves on an equal footing.
It's also in the nature of this crisis that too many people say too much, and we could definitely use someone who approaches the problems systematically, as Habermas has done in his just published book.
But above all, it is in the nature of this crisis that the longer it continues, the more confusing it gets. It becomes more difficult to follow its twists and turns and to see who is responsible for what. And the whole time, alternatives are disappearing before our very eyes.
That's why Habermas is so angry: with the politicians, the "functional elite" and the media. "Are you from the press?" he asks a man in the audience who has posed a question. "No? Too bad."
Habermas wants to get his message out. That's why he's sitting here. That's why he recently wrote an article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine newspaper, in which he accused EU politicians of cynicism and "turning their backs on the European ideals." That's why he has just written a book -- a "booklet," as he calls it -- which the respected German weekly Die Zeit promptly compared with Immanuel Kant's 1795 essay "Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch."
But does he have an answer to the question of which road democracy and capitalism should take?
A Quiet Coup d'État
"Zur Verfassung Europas" ("On Europe's Constitution") is the name of his new book, which is basically a long essay in which he describes how the essence of our democracy has changed under the pressure of the crisis and the frenzy of the markets. Habermas says that power has slipped from the hands of the people and shifted to bodies of questionable democratic legitimacy, such as the European Council. Basically, he suggests, the technocrats have long since staged a quiet coup d'état.
"On July 22, 2011, (German Chancellor) Angela Merkel and (French President) Nicolas Sarkozy agreed to a vague compromise -- which is certainly open to interpretation -- between German economic liberalism and French etatism," he writes. "All signs indicate that they would both like to transform the executive federalism enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty into an intergovernmental supremacy of the European Council that runs contrary to the spirit of the agreement."
Habermas refers to the system that Merkel and Sarkozy have established during the crisis as a "post-democracy." The European Parliament barely has any influence. The European Commission has "an odd, suspended position," without really being responsible for what it does. Most importantly, however, he points to the European Council, which was given a central role in the Lisbon Treaty -- one that Habermas views as an "anomaly." He sees the Council as a "governmental body that engages in politics without being authorized to do so."
He sees a Europe in which states are driven by the markets, in which the EU exerts massive influence on the formation of new governments in Italy and Greece, and in which what he so passionately defends and loves about Europe has been simply turned on its head.
A Rare Phenomenon
At this point, it should be mentioned that Habermas is no malcontent, no pessimist, no prophet of doom -- he's a virtually unshakable optimist, and this is what makes him such a rare phenomenon in Germany.
His problem as a philosopher has always been that he appears a bit humdrum because, despite all the big words, he is basically rather intelligible. He took his cultivated rage from Marx, his keen view of modernity from Freud and his clarity from the American pragmatists. He has always been a friendly elucidator, a rationalist and an anti-romanticist.
Nevertheless, his previous books "Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere" and "Between Facts and Norms" were of course somewhat different than the merry post-modern shadowboxing of French philosophers like Jacques Derrida and Jean Baudrillard. What's more, another of Habermas' publications, "Theory of Communicative Action," certainly has its pitfalls when it comes to his theory of "coercion-free discourse" which, even before the invention of Facebook and Twitter, were fairly bold, if not perhaps naïve.
Habermas was never a knife thrower like the Slovenian thinker Slavoj Žižek, and he was no juggler like the German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk. He never put on a circus act, and he was always a leftist (although there are those who would disagree). He was on the side of the student movement until things got too hot for him. He took delight in the constitution and procedural matters. This also basically remains his position today.
Habermas truly believes in the rationality of the people. He truly believes in the old, ordered democracy. He truly believes in a public sphere that serves to make things better.
