Page 46 [46]
44 | Tamás Dezső Ziegler
if people simply get lonely in a capitalist state and do not feel they belong to
their society any more (anomy can cause disintegration in societies). So, to
a certain extent, how the EU, or any regional organisation (like the OSCE or
CoE), works is guite similar to how national societies and governance function.
In the EU, and in other international organisations, just like in the Member
States, contradicting rival values are present. When they are not effective
(like, for example, when they are unable to enforce respect for human rights),
this fact does not necessarily mean that these systems and organisations lack
values, but it can also mean that sometimes they contain values which are in
a conflict with each other: to put it simply, they incorporate too many values,
instead of having none.
For example, while Europe portrays itself as an inclusive continent, as
explained later in this book, the EU and its Member States did a lot to deter
refugees during the migration crisis. Or, to give another example, while the
Union fights against discrimination, in fact, third country nationals are treated
very differently from EU citizens in many ways. One could cite hundreds
of cases that are based on a cognitive dissonance in these societies, political
organisations, and legal systems.
If we look into the epicentres of contemporary key political debates, we find
that in most of them two fundamentally different traditions collide. The first
one is the tradition of Enlightenment, which advocates for equality, rationality,
the rule of law, human rights, and mutual respect and cooperation between
countries. This tradition has been described in detail by many authors, which
I do not intend to repeat here (see e.g. Berlin 1979; Der Spiegel 2014; Pinker
2018; Sternhell 2010; Sternhell 2018; Waldron 2014; Ziegler 2021).
I interpret political pluralism as a direct outgrowth of the French
Enlightenment, i.e. modern democracies and their institutional systems are
based on Enlightenment values. If you give human beings human rights, they
will form communities (including parties), create democratic parliaments
and elections, limit the power of authorities through checks and balances,
and the state will also respect other nations. Moreover, in my opinion, the
social state is also an upshot of the Enlightenment’s humanistic ideal: if you
respect the human in people, you try to give them equal opportunities, some
basic rights (through supporting social mobility), and help them through
easing poverty.
However, in the West, there has also been a different tradition, which
goes against these values: the anti-Enlightenment counter-tradition, which,
according to Zeez Sternhell, functions as its complete opposite (Sternhell
2018). This tradition maintains that human beings are not equal, difference
can be made on the basis of race, ethnicity, or religion, and anti-discrimination
measures can be harmful to society’s general interest. It disrespects human
rights, and bases itself on social Darwinism in and outside society.
Asa result, in most of the cases, it promotes a kind of predatory capitalism
to create extreme competition in all spheres of society. Furthermore, it