Because there seems to be great interest in the question of the future of nation states, I thought I should devote another article to the subject and take a further look at the appropriate passages from the Gergely Prőhle interview that appeared in Szabad Európa.
Prőhle would urge Hungary to be a cooperative member of the European Union because it joined the community of its own free will, knowing that it is based on a set of common values that it will have to observe and mutual benefits that it will enjoy. If we look a little further, however, we discover that Prőhle puts the interests of the nation state first, ahead of the European Union. Here is a good example from his description of the origins of the Union. “Let’s not forget,” he says, “that Germany regained its sovereignty after World War II by becoming part of the European Union. If we look at what Adenauer wanted with all this, how Schuman, Adenauer and De Gasperi put it together, we see that it was not just a matter of creating this European cooperation in the interests of a higher ideal. The agreement was based largely on the national interests of the three states.” The French wanted to repair their failing economy, while the Germans hoped to regain their sovereignty. That is why Germany always looks on the European Union from a strictly German point of view. “People used to say of Helmut Kohl that every time the chancellor talked about European interests he always thought of German interests.”
So, if we take Prőhle’s interpretation at face value, the primary motivation for the creation of the European Union was the national interest of France, Germany, and Italy. And interestingly, when he talks about Otto von Habsburg’s analysis of the reasons for the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, he says that, in Otto’s estimation, the Monarchy “should have allowed territories to be governed by the nation states or even smaller units where they could decide their own fate.”
Gergely Prőhle with Otto von Habsburg’s photo in the background
Prőhle maintains that “the idea of subsidiarity, the Europe of nations, is not a Eurosceptic approach but a consistent assertion that the national interest and the European interest are compatible.” This sentence was uttered only a few days after two national governments, champions of sovereignty and the Europe of nations, threatened the interests of the European Union allegedly in defense of their own interests.
And talking about the notion of subsidiarity (the principle of devolving decisions to the lowest practical level), which, according to Prőhle, is a guarantee of the survival of the European Union, I would be curious to know what Prőhle thinks of the highly centralized nature of the policies of Viktor Orbán. It would also be fascinating to hear his explanation for the destruction of self-government, an integral ingredient of democracy. It doesn’t really matter from what angle I look at Prőhle’s views on Hungary and its interconnectedness to the European Union, I find them incoherent and bearing no resemblance to reality.
The same is true of his views on Fidesz’s place in the European People’s Party. Not surprisingly, he is a strong supporter of Fidesz’s membership in the group, although he thinks that “certain members left the well-trodden paths,” meaning they became far too liberal. As for the Alliance of European Conservatives and the Identity and Democracy group, Prőhle considers both of them “a confused lot” but adds that all party groups are becoming ever more colorful. “It is difficult to see the principles of Adenauer or discover even Helmut Kohl’s concepts in the People’s Party. What I’m saying is that those other two groups are even more confusing.” But one could ask whether it is realistic today to hold the same views that Konrad Adenauer, born in 1876, held when he established the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) in 1946. Adenauer’s chief political concern was the battle of Christianity against communism and social democracy. In this respect, Viktor Orbán, nearly alone in the European Union, is a true student of the Adenauer of the post-World War II years. But these shouldn’t be the issues that occupy European politicians today. The domestic danger that threatens European and American democracy today is the presence of far-right, fascistic regimes. Therefore, it is not at all surprising that certain “strayed-away members” of EPP are adopting more liberal views.
In this context, Prőhle’s report of his encounter with Geert Wilders, the leader of the Dutch Freedom Party, sometime in the ’10s, is relevant. “Don’t get me wrong,” he says, “but this strange man, in the Dutch system, where there is a colonial past and a shrinking former greatness, yet a country still with great influence, has found a narrow edge where he can argue intelligently. And this is not some messy half-Nazi thing but a different situation, a different tradition. We cannot exclude him from our world. It is not enough to needle him and pass judgment on his ideas.” Instead, the more moderate right should maintain a “rational dialogue” with him. Again, it seems to me that Prőhle’s explanations for Wilders’ political views are more excuses than a fair assessment of the man’s opinions.
Prőhle says that he has no political ambitions, but, in addition to the interview in Szabad Európa, he gave two more interviews in the last few days: a television interview on ATV and an interview to the pro-Fidesz Mandiner. His message to Fidesz, of which apparently he is not a member, is that the government and the party shouldn’t fall victim to “defeatism” when it comes to its place in the community of Christian Democratic parties.