Bronislaw Geremek (1932-2008) deserves to be remembered by the federalists because his life is an exemplary demonstration of how a sincere democrat, thanks to his coherent and constant commitment to active politics, managed to follow the difficult course that led him to the natural harbour of European federalism, starting from a Europe divided by the Cold War.
Geremek – who survived because he escaped from the ghetto of Warsaw during the second world war – could have been satisfied with his academic success. He was an internationally renowned historian of the European Middle Ages. Nonetheless, he was not, because he felt obliged to actively support Solidarity against the oppressive Polish and Soviet communist regimes. He also went to prison for a short period under general Jaruselski’s regime. After the end of communism, he became the Foreign Minister of a democratic Poland and, in that position, he realised how important it would be for his country to become a member of the European Union in order to consolidate feeble Polish democracy. After the eastern enlargement of the Union, Geremek took part, as a member of the European Parliament, in the construction of European democracy, to link the fate of his home country with that of other European countries more closely. From this position, he bravely reported the demagogic and persecutory attempt of the Kaczynski government against citizens who were suspected of having cooperated with the previous communist regime. Geremek, as a sincere liberal and democrat, was ready to denounce the violations of individual freedom, wherever they came from.
During this difficult political journey, Geremek advocated democratic and patriotic positions, but not federalist ones. On the contrary, as Foreign Minister he initially defended the principle of national sovereignty, maybe as the heritage of the past condition of Poland which, in the framework of the Comecon, considered the safeguarding of national sovereignty the only line of defence against the hegemonic politics of the USSR. However, he was able to rid himself of this viscous past. His independent discovery of federalism is an exemplary demonstration of how a democrat, devoted to his cause, without compromises with national power, finally recognises the need for the Union to be transformed into a federation.
There are two episodes, happened shortly before his death, which show without question Geremek’s convergence of thought with European federalism. The first, which clarifies the cultural background within which his political action can be understood, is the evaluation of the process of European unification and in particular, of the enlargement, which he expressed during a recent conference in Milan (16 June 2008). Geremek claims that “unlike national communities, Europe is a community of choice”. With this comment, he demonstrates how he deeply understood the mystification generated by nationalism, for which one is Polish, French or German by birth, as if nationality were a natural fact and not the imposition of a sovereign power. The national state imposes a closed and monolithic identity, which is incompatible with other identities. The European Union frees citizens from this cultural prison, widening the range of their life choices. Europe has allowed the young generations, those who have no memory of the wars and concentration camps, to conceive their future in an open space without borders. Europe, as Geremek correctly remarks, “is a community in which, more than anywhere else, citizens have the chance to say that they want to live together”.
As far as the enlargement is concerned, Geremek refutes the thesis of those who claim that it is the cause of the weakening of the European spirit and of the birth of Euroskeptic populism. Rather, this cause should be sought for in the return of nationalism in new forms, whereas the enlargement must be considered a success, for the purposes of the advancement of European integration. As a matter of fact, Geremek observes, it is even more evident today, in the Europe with 27 members, than it was in the more limited Union, that there is no progress if the principle of unanimity in decisions is not overcome. “Even though at times it is necessary to accept that one’s own Country represents a minority relating to this or that issue of European interest, the majority vote would be the expression of this community of interests”.
The second episode concerns his reaction to the negative outcome of the Irish referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon, which Geremek considered necessary to allow the Union to face the present day challenges. As a matter of fact, in his opinion the Treaty would have enlarged the range “of the community method which has been the basis of all the EU successes”. In order to overcome the obstacle of the Irish “No”, Geremek proposed, as had the Italian federalists shortly before, the organisation of a European referendum on the occasion of the next European elections. “What cannot be implemented on the basis of existing treaties – Geremek claimed – can be submitted to popular consultation at a European Union level, organised on the same day in all member countries. One or two precise questions concerning the European voting system, an informing campaign on the theme, a debate throughout Europe on the issue, and the Europeans would be called to vote (it could be done on the occasion of the next elections for the European Parliament): the Council and the Parliament would know what to do after a similar consultation” (see Le Monde, 28 June 2008). This proposal, mainly aimed at his colleagues in the European Parliament, seems to have fallen on deaf ears. Not all Members of European Parliament have the same courage and freedom of thought. Nonetheless, concerning this, it is worth recalling a remark by Jean Monnet: “When an idea corresponds to the need of its time, it no longer belongs to the men who invented it and it is stronger than those who must fulfil it”. The need to overcome the gap of confidence between citizens and European institutions is clearer and clearer. One can thus hope that the proposal for a European referendum to call European citizens to decide on the future of the Union will not be dropped and that it will be imposed on European politicians.
Geremek accurately pointed out the heart of the matter that needs to be solved by Europeans and he made brave proposals to overcome the impasse in which European construction finds itself. His goal was realistic, it conjugated interests and ideals: he proposed to “federate Europeans in common policies which place the focus on European interest”. A tragic fate has prevented him from asserting and achieving his political aim. But, if an avant-guard group of European democrats, within and outside the European Parliament, commits itself to continuing his lucid march towards supranational democracy, the European Federation will come into being.
