Keynote: Gordon Bajnai (Patriotism and Progress Foundation; former Prime Minister, Hungary)

Moderator: Dr Leonard Novy (Institute for Media and Communication Policy, Berlin)


In his opening speech “Europa Countdown”, the Austrian author and essayist Robert Menasse made a strong case for more Europe. The central idea of his speech was that the European crisis could be overcome by a post-national democracy. The current supranational Europe based on national democracies from the 19th century was not going to be permanent. The solution was in developing a supranational democracy.

The former Prime Minister of Hungary, Gordon Bajnai, in his ensuing keynote “The Crisis of Crisis Management”, criticized the EU’s poor crisis management: “The next crisis will be a crisis of democratic legitimacy.” Politicians not only had to manage the financial crisis, but were also faced with many other challenges. This included, for instance, the shrinking economy due to globalization, regressive social policies (“Revolutions are not started by those who are poor but by those who are disappointed”), a continuously aging population, the comeback of famous “isms” such as nationalism and populism, and the global imbalance as a drawback of globalization. Just recently, Europe had tried to handle the financial crisis by increasing its spending. However, according to Bajnai, as soon as the crisis was over, Europe would have to find a solution for how to reduce its gigantic mountain of debt. In practice, austerity programs and the implementation of reforms meant nothing other than to ask for more money from the voters and to interfere in their everyday lives. The unpleasant changes have been felt by everyone. Bajnai painted a dark picture of the consequences: Political instability and the rise of radical parties. Actually, it was clear what politicians in Europe had to do, he said and quoted Jean-Claude Juncker, the President of the Euro Group: “We all know what to do, we just don’t know how to get re-elected after we’ve done it.”

Just as Menasse had called for more European integration, the founder of the Patriotism and Progress Foundation argued in support of more European solidarity. “Everyone” was responsible for the crisis and that’s why “everyone” should pay their fair share for overcoming it, he demanded. After all, there wasn’t one single scapegoat. “Everyone should take a look at themselves in the mirror before they accuse others of being guilty of the crisis.” At the same time, he also made an appeal to limit solidarity to a healthy level. No country should be expected to sign a blank check for the purposes of European fraternity. Bajnai further pointed out that – realistically – the Greeks could not be expected to pay all their debts back. They just did not have sufficient means to do that. He suggested halving the debts instead, to show the Greeks a “light at the end of the tunnel”.

He also used his speech to make an appeal to European politicians. It was their task to openly and honestly explain to their voters the possible consequences of a European collapse. Only when the people really understood what kind of consequences an EU failure would engender would there be hope for gathering enough support for the European project from the population. Europe had to find a way out of the “tsunami of globalization” and save and develop its unique heritage. The people would have to tolerate the enacting of necessary measures such as rapid structural reform; it was necessary to achieve a social stability that did not allow an about-face in society, and politicians had to be honest to the people. Europe had to create institutions that were capable of operating over the long-term and of preserving continuity instead of working in four-year cycles.

In the following discussion, the Hungarian called for long-term policies: “Many of the projects do not fit into a four-year cycle.” Considering the changes caused by elections, it was necessary for government structures to ensure continuity. Regarding Robert Menasse’s proposition of doing away with the European Council, Bajnai advocated a more moderate approach: “Today, the European Council plays the role of a lower house of a parliament.” He saw the European Parliament as an upper house. Hence, he called for balancing the European institutions instead of abolishing the European Council: “I would argue for a strengthened European government with a long-term mechanism that ensures continuity on the major topics, as well as for direct democratic legitimacy that makes it possible to control the government.”

Robert Menasse made it clear in the discussion that he did not want his call for “more Europe” to be misunderstood. Specifically, he was not asking for a kind of European “United States of America”. The USA had been formed with the clear aim of building a nation state. The exact opposite was necessary in Europe, Menasse emphasized. He was arguing for a completely new Europe, a post-national Europe that didn’t take the form of a big nation state but rather was an association of free regions. There were voices from the audience asking if this was even realistic. After all, it had not even been possible to stage a pan-European debate during the financial crisis, as Mathew Kaminski from the Wall Street Journal of New York remarked, asking how Menasse, considering the many different languages, imagined a supranational Europe would work. Menasse made it clear that the demand for one common language was a nationalist demand: “This is exactly what we do not want!” Not to mention the fact that there were many examples of states with several official languages, such as Switzerland. In conclusion, Menasse pointed out that many Europeans identified more closely with their regions than with their national states. Mary Dejevsky (The Independent, UK) noted that to create a new Europe it was also necessary to change the connections and interdependencies between politicians, entrepreneurs, and the media.