IRELAND’S CALL - POST LISBON
By Bobbie Gilmore SSC
The intense debate being conducted in all sections of the media after the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty makes one wonder why such debate was not given the same intensity before the referendum. While there is no shortage of the usual social and political pundits exposing themselves there is a definite deficit of new ideas as to the outcome or approaches to where Europe is headed. Publicly, there is muted respect for the "democratic" decision of the Irish people. However, between the lines there is obvious irritation that this outcome was decided at the ballot box rather than in the corridors of power. On the one hand blame is being directed at the splintered opposition to the treaty for upsetting the European fruit-cart and on the other there is the usual begrudgery at their success. Few seem to be looking at the kind of society Ireland is that voted the way it did. While all admit that Ireland is in an era of great change there is a hesitancy to expect the uncertainty that change throws up.
Many have been admitting, and rightly so, that Ireland has benefited from its membership of the European Union and that Europe and the world is a better place because of the Union. However, while this is so, seldom are distinctions made between the different characteristics of the Member States. There seems to be an assumption that all Member States of the Union are at similar stages of political, social, economic and cultural development and if not are on the way there. This is not the case. Some Member States were former domineering empires and oppressive colonisers. Some like Ireland were colonies in the past. Others still are recently liberated from twentieth century totalitarian colonisation and in which democracy is just taking root.
Until recently Ireland was a country that lost its energy band through emigration. Over more than half a century Ireland lacked the energy to change and reform. Now, Ireland has an energy band in its population due to foreign direct investment from Europe and beyond. Its economy has taken off at a rapid pace. Irish people have stayed at home. New people have arrived. Irish people have more money, access to material goods and the trappings of affluence. Sadly, there is the expectation that political, social and cultural change keeps pace with economic progress and responds accordingly. This was the disconnected expectation of many institutional leaders in the recent referendum. They and sections of the media assumed that because Ireland had an affluent economy it should, as a "mature democracy", go with the flow and agree with the disciples of economism. The acquisition of wealth does not guarantee political, social or cultural maturity particularly in a time of change when there is a longing for the past, uncertainty in the present and anxiety about the future. Why should a society like Ireland in a state of economic, social, political and cultural development not be allowed to reflect its tensions and send a message that others may need to hear and reflect on?
The wisdom of ages tells us that an economic order of itself does not satisfy the human spirit. Bread alone is inadequate. Past efforts at European unity failed on the assumption of the primacy of an economic order. Twice in the past century efforts were made to impose an economic order in Europe. Both efforts failed because they lost sight of a world of people who needed more than economics to satisfy the aspirations of the human heart. People are not economic gadgets. There was no participative, political order that reached people’s hearts, minds and enhanced their dignity. It is interesting to read an extract from a report made by an Italian Diplomat on his return to Italy from Germany in the early 1940s. He suggested that while a central administration was not unacceptable to Europeans there was an important factor that needed to be a priority in any such scheme. He explained that;
"They (Germans) have no idea that no economic order can rule if not based on a political order, and to make the Belgian or Bohemian worker work, is not enough to promise him a certain wage, but one must also give him the sense of serving a community, of which he is an intimate part, which he feels an affinity with and in which he recognises himself." (Luciolli. L. The Dark Continent)
Looking at the recent referendum and its aftermath it would seem that the present European endeavour is making the same mistake. Its spokespersons are looking at the European population only through economic lenses. They are left wondering; how could the Irish population that has benefited so much materially from Europe be so unappreciative. Some would say that the institutional leadership failed to present a factual explanation of the substance of the Lisbon Treaty. Others would say that the institutional leadership lacks credibility, are uncertain and ambivalent in regard to the European Union at a time of change and uncertainty in Ireland. In the midst of those is an elite segment of the wider European and Irish society that is dismissive of those who expressed their uncertainty and insecurity by not voting for the Lisbon Treaty. This elitist section of society that has access to the patronage of the networks of both Irish and European influence dismiss those who question this elitist wisdom. Regretfully, the institutional elite read no significance into the negative response to the Lisbon Treaty. They ask; why should a minority on the edge of Europe hold up the European enterprise? Unfortunately, they fail to recognise that the message sent out by Ireland in the recent referendum may have some resonance for the political and social tensions of the rest of the European population. Is it possible that the worker in Galway, Genoa, Glamorgan and Gdansk needs more than money in order to feel integrated and a sense of belonging?
The anthropologist, Victor Turner made an observation that may be relevant in the present impasse that has focused the European political/business mindset caused by a minority on the edge of Europe.
He wrote that people and societies in a liminal phase are a;
"kind of institutional capsule or pocket which contains the germ of future social developments of societal change." (Turner. 1982:45)
Ireland up to now a pearl in the European crown is looked on as an ungrateful beggar at the European fortress. Let’s hope that the germ of its present confusion can take root and its fruit digested for the common good at the heart of Europe. But European history is not on Ireland’s side. In the past minorities in Europe suffered all kinds of discrimination, dismissal, marginalisation and still do. Can Europe step out of its history in a gesture of equality and with a learning attitude from Ireland’s call? Let’s wait and see.
June 20th, 2008