National revival.

European nations are subjected to a form of double think. Their citizens are sometimes Europeans and sometimes nationals. One day they are told they belong to a 26-member metastate where the rich help the poor and a mega market where the big fish eat the small. The next day they must guard their country’s borders and their jobs against all foreigners. This schizophrenic split is particularly noticeable at the moment, in the run up to the French presidential elections. Two years ago, politicians were extolling a European constitutional treaty. Today, the same are promoting French flags, French identité and French préférence for jobs, housing and commodities.
Two years ago, a majority voted against the treaty and against the politicians and the media, who were overwhelmingly in favor of this largely symbolic step towards a European federation. Those who campaigned against the treaty were to the left and right of the main stream governing parties. The Left’s objection was the insufficient guarantee of social rights. But they rallied a wider spectrum than usual, beyond their trade union backing to include women and gays and innumerable activists concerned by everything from climate change and world poverty to organic vegetables. They called themselves the Alternative Left and tried to rally again for this year’s elections, without success. The Right’s objection to the treaty was that it infringed national sovereignty. This weird agreement managed to unite a majority of voters against the opinion of just about everyone institutional in the country.
The result of the referendum turned out to be of no consequence, which may have been a measure of its inadequacies. Nevertheless, the nation’s representatives had been disavowed and no one knew exactly which argument had been decisive, the sovereignist or the social et al. So far, the four main presidential candidates have talked more of national values than of social ones. This may be the result of confidential information on last year’s vote, or it might just be that nationalist rhetoric is simpler in its formulation. It could also be that national executives and parliaments rely on the Nation for their very existence. In these times of globalization, politics at the national level often seem inept and powerless, hemmed in by supranational conventions which leave little room for legislative and executive action. They can legislate on smoking and drinking and head scarves and dog or TV licenses, but VAT is a European matter.
National elections must play on nationalist sensibilities. Their nature makes this unavoidable. But xenophobia seems more and more out of place in a multiethnic/cultural/linguistic world. Health and wealth, climate and fossil fuels, war and peace, all the great challenges have become global. Subsequently, the nation-state faces redundancy. However, the prestige and the perquisites of government make it highly desirable for those jostling at the gate. And, hence, European nationalism may yet stage a come back before the final curtain.