Elite and populist have failed in Europe

It's a “major force” moment in Europe. In France, protesters “are already burning cars and destroying shops, accusing President Emmanuel Macron, the beloved man of pro-European Progressives, of an Alla Marie Angwanette arrogance and disrespect for the concerns of ordinary people. In the United Kingdom, failure to reach an agreement on Brex has turned into national tragedy. A few days ago, in an open letter to fellow countrymen, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte concluded that Britain had “exhumed the vase”, thus disrupting the country's delicate unity. He likens politicians who stir up divisions, to the “football players who scream from the sideline”, without thinking about the consequences of what they say.

Why, at a time when world challenges require their expertise more than ever, it is a question that has long plagued me. But that question leads to another: Why have populists, chosen during a wave of anger against elites, also failed to restore people's trust in politics? Their nationalist agendas have only succeeded in polarizing their societies.

As Macron explained in November, during the celebrations of the last centennial of World War I, soldiers who defended France's <x0-> universal values” 100 years ago were also putting aside the “segoism of nations that saw only their own interests. Because patriotism is exactly the opposite of nationalism”. But it is exactly this “egoism” that explains the failure of elites, not only in curbing nationalism, but also in demonstrating their “patriotism”.

“Major Force” is a legal concept that leads you out of a contractual obligation under extraordinary circumstances. It's also the name of Reuben Ostlund's film, a black comedy for a couple of professionals who go with their children to a high-striking ski resort somewhere in the French Alps, and face an unexpected “traume” that changes their relationship once and for all.

Everything goes perfectly until the family, while enjoying the sun's rays in an open mountain restaurant, sees an avalanche coming toward them. The big snow wave wraps up the restaurant. And without thinking, the father fled, leaving his family to save himself. Before long, everyone realizes that it's a false alarm. It was a subx0-ortect controlled” that was a little out of control. Nobody gets hurt. Father returns and acts as if nothing was important but his mother is angry. The rest of their journey remains tarnished by the moment of Father's instinctal selfishness and his refusal to admit the blame.

Ostlund's film is a perfect analogy for why the meritocratic elites have lost people's trust. Lehman Brothers' Kolaps was “ortek controlled” of the world and the best and the wisest fled quickly to save their money and banks, forgetting people who needed their help. They have never ceased denying them to do so. And as a result, not surprisingly, most people have seen the meritocratic elite as a mercenary elite, ever ready to leave the table. They lack the word “sacrifice” in their dictionary. They don't belong to the community, but they want to be respected, admired and needed.

Populists, on the other hand, do not offer a real alternative, nor are they egalitarians. Their appeal is based on the fact that they promise to reinstate the elites and tie them behind the chair. But what populists have actually accomplished are polarized and ungovernable countries. The Republic of Citizens has become a republic of fans, where the only civic obligation they have is to cheer for their team and hate everyone else.

Worshipful fans, not critical-minded citizens, are the main factor in how populism has transformed our democracies. Citizens are committed to their country, but their loyalty is conditional and critical. In fact, their willingness to criticize and correct the mistakes of the government is a sign of their patriotism. Citizens are willing to challenge their government if they believe it is betraying the country's principles. While the fan's loyalty is dogmatic, arrogant, aggressive, and uncritical. Their supportive calls reflect their sense of belonging. Critical reflection is replaced by patriotism. Those who refuse to cheer are classified as potential traitors. The populist parties manage to represent a part of society, at the cost of ignoring the rest of society. The populist parties feel no obligation to represent people who dislike them, even if they are citizens of the same country. They don't have the word “compromis” in their vocabulary.

Who, then, do people believe if they do not despise the Mericrats and ignore the populists? The answer, based on polls, is mysterious: today, the military turns out to be the most trusted institution in most European countries. Likely, it is not from a recent glorious victory or because Europeans love war.

Public confidence in military elites can be explained by the fact that they are the only ones who do not have a “major force” in their contract. For the army to serve, it must be sacrificed to others. That's exactly what people from the elite expect.

If leaders like Macro want to counter the division of nationalism, gripping their countries, they must regain public confidence. And to do that, they have to tie their hands behind the table to prove that when the avalanche hits, they won't escape.

/Ivan Krastev is president of the Sofia Centre for Liberal Strategy.
/The Washington Post world.al