Excessive power and humble synthesis
Early Friday morning (Greek time), two men in pursuit of the US presidency held a television duel. Joe Biden and Donald Trump could not be more different in personality, methods and program, which means that the result of the November elections will have different and decisive consequences for the world: In one case, we will see a continuation of the efforts to mitigate the consequences of the climate crisis and inequality, to hinder the march of autocracy; in the other, every country, major company and dictator will be encouraged to try get away with whatever they can, without thought of the consequences.
On Sunday, the first round of snap national elections will be held in France. This sudden inspiration of President Emmanuel Macron could lead to the rise of the extreme-right and to great difficulties for the country and, consequently, the European Union. How is it that a tiny number of people can determine the fate of so many others who are not even their fellow citizens?
Our time’s uncertainty proves that despite the mutual dependence that globalization demands and fosters, humanity has still not learned how to govern itself adequately. Democracy is the most successful system of government, as it integrates the greatest number of people into the common struggle for survival and for the just distribution of duties and rights. But it also leads to problems. And one of these is that the voters and leaders of some countries, at some point, find themselves able to influence the lives of countless others.
In the past 100 years, the world developed in such a way that America, the greatest power, determines developments. It shapes the general outlook on international relations, the economy, academia and culture. And the course of this mighty democracy depends – to an excessive degree – on the personality of its president.
In post-war Europe, the Franco-German relationship developed from traditional enmity into a pillar of stability. As French institutions encourage radicalism, while Germany’s impose conservatism, we see that the thoughtless “grand gesture” and the inability to improvise are just as dangerous for the EU. We acknowledge the value of synthesis – that which leads to the selection of Europe’s collective leadership through horse-trading and balances. These uninspiring, humble compromises are, in the end, more effective, more democratic, than the dominance of one in a polarized field.
