When Machiavelli reflected on the crises of his time—among them conflicts among major European powers, dissatisfaction with the civil service, and the collapse of the Catholic Church's legitimacy—he looked to the Roman Republic for inspiration. . When we doubt our values, he wrote, history is the only guide we have left. In his Discourses on Livy, he explained that the secret of Rome's freedom was neither its fortune nor its military might. Rather, the Roman's ability to mediate conflicts between the wealthy elite and the majority of the people, or, in his words, “i grandi” (the great) and “il popolo” (the people) It was there.
Machiavelli argued that the inherent tendency of the great is to accumulate wealth and power and dominate the rest, while the inherent desire of the people is to avoid being at the mercy of the elite. . Conflicts between groups generally pulled policy in opposite directions. However, the Roman Republic had institutions such as the plebeian tribune, which sought to empower the people and contain the elites. Machiavelli said that only by channeling this conflict, rather than suppressing it, can civil liberties be maintained.
Europe did not heed his advice. Despite its democratic rhetoric, the European Union is moving closer to becoming an oligarchic system. The European Union, overseen by an unelected group of technocrats at the European Commission, does not allow for public consultation or participation in policy. Fiscal rules that impose strict limits on member states' budgets protect the wealthy while imposing austerity on the poor. From top to bottom, Europe is dominated by the interests of the wealthy few, who restrict the freedoms of the many.
Of course, this predicament is not unique. Corporations, financial institutions, credit rating agencies, and powerful interest groups are launching attacks everywhere, severely limiting the power of politicians. The European Union is not the worst offender. Yet in nation-states, loyalty to a shared constitution allows the facade of democratic participation to be maintained. This argument is much harder to make in the European Union, where free markets are a founding myth.
Europeans' dislike of the bloc is often thought to be due to its multinational nature. But those who resist the current European Union do not do so because it is too international. Quite simply, and not unreasonably, they resist it because it cannot represent them. The parliament that Europeans are expected to vote on next month has little legislative power of its own and can simply stamp decisions taken by committees, to cite a clear example of the bloc's lack of democracy. There is a tendency to put it away. It is this representative gap that is being bridged by the radical right, turning the issue into a simple binary: you or them, the nation or Europe, white workers or immigrants.
