Are nation states necessary

Refuge Society Germany

Europe is clinically dead. This is how the French newspaper "Le Monde" summarized the situation in the context of the current refugee crisis at the end of February 2016. If this is the case, different actors have actively assisted in euthanasia or are refusing to provide the necessary emergency assistance. But Europe cannot die. Languages, cultures, communities, nations, relationships, industries, the people, the long history - everything will continue to exist. The European Union as a political form of self-organization of this large ensemble, as a new and independent form of political socialization, but Europe as a political society can come to an end, can go under. There are many reasons to defend against this possible downfall - political, economic, cultural, social.

The European present is shaped by the existence of a specific ruling association. This depends on the relationship between unity and unity, between sovereignty and solidarity. If the nation states rely on unity and sovereignty, Europe acts as a society by means of increasingly risky unification and endemic solidarity that can be negotiated. Unity and sovereignty must constantly be brought into relation with unity and solidarity. Crisis was and is the normality of such an association. It is, I would like to argue, the factual political, legal and social possibility of the downfall, of the exhaustion of Europe as a society, which defines its special position, its otherness, even the logic of its form of political socialization. In the crises that have become existential, first of money and now of refugees, that is, the acceptance or non-acceptance of people, the foundations of the political form are not only up for discussion, but also for disposition. Europe as a - political - society always has an existing alternative for all member states, the nation state and its institutions.

Post-fundamental, post-sovereign, non-existential

European society is fundamentally criticized in its political form and the consequences associated with it, as we live in it today, in the structures of post-sovereign and post-fundamental society. It becomes visible and open to criticism as a dominant, economic and cultural context. A criticism of Europe based on an analysis of the political and social situation in the process of profound social change is not made by referring to the nation state as an existing institutional and organizational alternative. The nation-state as a sovereign state had failed, and yet it was the only existing form of thinking about statehood. Democratically founded, exemplarily in an act that has become a myth (e.g. revolution) or nationally different acts, he was and is referred to a process of democratization of democracy (Catherine Colliot-Thélène). In and of itself, it was not democratic in terms of procedures and institutions.

Europe, on the other hand, is a ruling association that cannot refer to a founding act or to an existing or to be realized people. Europe is not based on a myth. It is precisely this non-identitarian constitution of Europe and its illegitimate constitution from the perspective of a people-related foundation are in question in a situation in which a crisis of the constituted European society is becoming apparent. [1] There is much to suggest that it is no longer one of the many and perhaps the last crisis of the long development phase since 1950. The Europeanization - see market, currency, law - is far advanced, there is a European one polity as an organized economic, political, but also social context. Europe has become more than the process of its creation. Europe exists as a political society. The neoliberal restructuring of Europe that has advanced since the 1970s has failed.

The being of Europe, the form of its existence differs from national forms and still has these as a basis. In addition to being unfounded in act and people, the essential difference is the non-existential form. In other words: the question of the existence of Europe can practically always be asked. This is expressed, among other things, in the fact that the member states can contractually withdraw from the association. Nobody knows what the consequences would be: capital flight, rising prices for imports, rising national debts, rising interest rates and political insignificance are feared, self-determined exchange rates, individual reactions and leveling at a level appropriate to the national economic structures are hoped for. The only thing that is certain is that, unlike national states, leaving would not mean civil war, as is almost necessary with them. Nation-states have established their existence, even if they had to and must live with the irrevocable difference between the people as a political body and the real people, and sometimes neither wanted nor did. The price to (attempted) to eliminate this difference was violence, annihilation and, ultimately, self-dissolution.

The political form of Europe is not based on the unified organization of a people. Nevertheless, it is not just a "group of people living together somehow". [2] It is a post-fundamental political form. The still visible foundations, the appeal to the fiction of homogeneity, unity and sovereignty and the assertion of an immediate, simple representation of the many, are no longer alone. No continuously meeting, at which everything is discussed, can be thought of as direct representation, no revolution and no original scene of the people can be elevated to a myth. The real people do not form into a European mass, the European peoples remain divided into national ones.

In contrast to the nation, Europe is not intended to be final, so it must constantly justify its justification. [3] The ties to what has traditionally been called a European community but has long since become a political society must be clarified. Are there connections in contexts that cannot assert themselves as almost always existing, as necessary, as natural or as deeply rooted culture? Is solidarity not secured by law or tradition the appropriate term that stands for the loose connections in society? The "loose connections" must be taken seriously politically and socially.