On both sides of the Atlantic Ocean, there is an alarming political movement related to the growing strength of openly chauvinistic political parties and politicians: Donald Trump in the USA, Marine Le Pen in France. There are other names we can add to the list: Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán who advocates "illiberal democracy" or Jaroslav Kaczynski and his quasi-authoritarian Law and Justice party that now rules Poland.
Nationalist and xenophobic political parties were on the rise in many European Union countries long before Syrian refugees first arrived in noticeable numbers. In the Netherlands there was the politician Geert Wilders, the Flemish Bloc (now the Flemish Interest) in Belgium, the Austrian Freedom Party, the Sweden Democrats, the True Finns party, and the Danish People's Party, to name a few.
The reasons for the popularity and success of such parties vary greatly from nation to nation. But the starting points are similar. All those noises against the "system", the "political establishment" and the European Union. Worse, they are not only xenophobes (and, to some extent, Islamophobes), but more or less use the ethnic definition of the nation freely. In their understanding, political society is not a product of the loyalty of its citizens to the general constitutional-legal order; instead, as in the 1930s, belonging to a nation derives from common ancestry and religion.
Like any other form of extreme nationalism, this current one relies heavily on identity politics - which is the realm of fundamentalism, not reasoned discussion. As a result, his discourse turns aggressively (and often quickly) in the direction of ethno-nationalism, racism and religious war.
Where are the roots
The growth and popularity of extreme nationalism and fascism in the 1930s is usually seen as a consequence of World War I, which killed millions of people and filled the minds of millions with militant world views. The war also destroyed the European economy, leading to a global economic crisis and mass unemployment. Scarcity, poverty and misery made the people susceptible to poisonous politics.
But today's conditions in the West, both in the USA and in Europe, are, to put it mildly, different. If we take into account the wealth of those countries, the question must be asked: what motivates their citizens to move towards politics of disappointment, frustration?
First of all, there is fear, and obviously a great one. This fear is based on the instinctive understanding that "the world that belongs to the white man" (for nationalists it is a self-evident reality) is facing final destruction, both globally and in the West. Today's aggressive nationalists come to these conclusions because migration brings such a prognosis home to them (not just metaphorically).
Until recently, globalization was generally considered beneficial for the West. But now - in the period after the financial crisis of 2008 and the rise of China (which is now, in our eyes, growing into the leading power of this century) - it is increasingly obvious that globalization is a two-way street, and that the West is losing a lot of its power and wealth in favor of East.
Consequently, problems in the world can no longer be suppressed and eliminated, at least not in Europe. They are now knocking on her door.
On the domestic front, however, the "white man's world" is threatened by immigration, the globalization of the labor market, gender equality, and the legal and social emancipation of sexual minorities. In short, fundamental changes in traditional roles and ways of behavior are taking place in these societies.
Thirst for simple solutions
Because of all these profound changes, there was a thirst for simple solutions (put up fences and walls, for example, whether it was the US south or southern Hungary) - and strong leaders. It is no coincidence that in Europe, a new breed of nationalists sees Russian President Vladimir Putin as a beacon of hope. Of course, Putin will not find acceptance in the USA (the biggest power on the planet will not go against him), or in Poland or the Baltics (where Russia is considered a threat to national independence). Elsewhere in Europe, however, the new nationalists agree with Putin's anti-Western views and aspirations for a Greater Russia.
Just as the new nationalism threatens the process of European integration, France holds the key to that process. Without France, Europe cannot even be imagined, and if Le Pen becomes president, it will undoubtedly be a death sentence for the EU (and represent a disaster for its members and the continent as a whole). Europe will then go beyond the framework of world politics of the XXI century. This would inevitably lead to the end of the West on the geopolitical plane: the USA would have to reorient itself forever (toward the Pacific Ocean), and Europe would become the appendix of Eurasia.
The perspective of the end of the West is undoubtedly dim. We haven't gotten there yet. The only thing that is clear is that more depends on the future of Europe than even the staunchest supporters of European unification previously believed.
The author was the German Minister of Foreign Affairs and Vice Chancellor from 1998-2005; he played a key role in the founding of the German Green Party, which he led for almost 20 years
Translation: N: RADOIČIĆ
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2016.
Bonus video:
