Dialogue as a means of building a Europe united in solidarity
Dialogue as a means of building a Europe united in solidarity
✠ Mariano Crociata
Solidarity and dialogue are two words that are frequently used these days in almost all areas of public debate, not only in relation to Europe. And when words are overused, it is advisable to be more careful in their use, to avoid their devaluation and thus their loss of meaning.
Solidarity has had a structural function in the European lexicon since its inception, enshrined in the Treaties and Charters that summarise the identity and objectives of the European Union. On the other hand, dialogue as a method and tool for meeting and exchange has always been widely practised in the European Union’s activities, in a political and social sense, with citizens, young people, religious institutions, on agriculture, on the rule of law, to name but a few areas of application and practice.
On reflection, however, this kind of observation has the effect of revealing the weakness of a state of affairs that immediately measures the distance between the meaning of words and reality, leaving the field open to rhetoric. If the perception of the distance between ideas and reality is always just around the corner in any discussion of principles and values, it is even more true in times such as these.
If, with regard to the European Union, it has always been difficult to engage in dialogue and build solidarity, now, according to some, it seems to have simply become an impossible task. It is true that the overall picture of what we have known in terms of the balance of internal forces in Europe and external forces has been completely overturned – at least in recent years and particularly in recent months – the image we have inherited of our continent and the whole world. A brief review of the phenomena that dominate the European and world scene today may legitimately lead to despondency, but we cannot and must not stop there.
Consider the geopolitical tensions that have disrupted the balance that had existed for decades in Europe and the world, with the emergence of superpowers determined to assert their power over other nations to the point of subduing them or making them dependent, trampling on international law and multilateralism. Let us consider, for our continent and its member countries, the growing polarisation that has been underway for some time, which has seen the emergence of political forces whose goal is to dismantle and break down, but without any clear idea of what to build in their place. Alongside this, tensions between the various political parties seem to have lost sight of the collective good that should be the goal of all political action. It is striking to see forces emerging in the European Parliament and institutions whose agenda is to destroy the Union, with the implicit or declared intention of affirming only individual nations, at a time when the geopolitical strength of a country is little more than that of a small branch with respect to the dominant powers, not to mention its economic weight, which is largely surpassed by the smallest of the multinationals that dominate global finance and the economy.
If we look more closely at the European Union, there are many areas in which the logic of solidarity seems to be directly contradicted not only internally but also externally, as in the case of migration and asylum, or in the resistance to taking on the common debt necessary to finance the major investments in defence and technology that are essential for the very survival of the Union. This is all the more so given that, with the pervasive spread of the media and now AI, the areas of information and public communication seem increasingly threatened by disinformation, by the spread of false narratives and truths that manipulate opinions and consciences in favour of a populism that pursues deceptive simplifications created solely to lead the masses to credulity and favour the interests of the strong, or rather, the powerful of the moment.
Faced with such a bleak picture, albeit only briefly outlined, the task of solidarity through dialogue may seem unsustainable or even unrealistic. However, the perspective that comes from faith and its social projection allows us, and indeed requires us, to see things differently. In this perspective, we should bring into play the virtue of hope, which gives us the ability to see through the present a possible future shaped not by dreams or voluntarism, but by listening to a promise of good that is certain because of the word of the one who utters it and the faith of the one who hears it. The believer, hoping, sees what awaits with certainty and works to hasten it.
Faced with increasingly dramatic scenarios, what is lacking above all is trust in the power of good, in the acquired heritage of experiences of solidarity, in the presence of many people of goodwill on whom we can count. Most of the time, we ourselves line up with those who are afraid and are overcome by fear. And those who are overcome by fear have already lost everything. The first thing that is lacking is confidence in ourselves, in what we have inherited and carry with us, and in the ability to turn situations around that all this holds.
Alongside this inner strength, to which we should never tire of adding as many others as possible, we must also believe in the power of dialogue. Here, things are complicated by many factors, including ideology, which blinds and dulls critical thinking, and the equally blinds determination of willpower, to name just two of the main ones. On the first front, we must bring to bear concrete examples and experiences of solidarity that have been achieved, and at the same time the calm and tenacious will to raise arguments, raise doubts and fuel critical thinking. Not least, it is crucial to understand the reasons that motivate and generate social conflict, hatred and generalised rebellion. In this sense, inequalities, economic precariousness, and the sense of insecurity and fear in the face of local and global social tension, with all the consequences of personal and collective discomfort that it produces, must be evaluated and made the subject of social and political reflection and initiative.
On the other hand, with those who do not want to engage in dialogue, it is necessary to take a concrete stance for security and deterrence, but without ever abandoning the willingness to listen and meet. An attitude and image of weakness are no less dangerous than those of retaliation and threat. Strength, both moral and physical, clearly aimed at defence, is the condition for being taken seriously by those who do not want to listen to reason, and for this reason it must be accompanied tirelessly by initiatives for dialogue, in all the forms it can take, from personal to diplomatic meetings, from humanitarian collaborations to forms of encounter even at levels and in environments other than those strictly political and institutional.
The latter, however, needs to be cultivated with a tireless commitment to unity in diversity, in keeping with the motto of the European Union. In its institutions, political and economic interest groups dominate the debate. There should be a growth in “political and institutional” presences that have at heart “the whole”, the good of all and therefore of the Union as a whole. It is a question of instilling in all components of democratic debate the conviction that the soul of democratic institutions is not so much procedures as thought, aspiration and, ultimately, the will to pursue, together with legitimate partisan interests, the good of all. The unwritten rule that partisan interests should never be allowed to hinder or prevent the good of all should be enforced.
It must become possible to talk about and practise shared principles and values; we need to rediscover the value of relationships and solidarity in the face of an individualism that is destroying European societies. Dialogue is not just a technique or a practice of debate and discussion; dialogue has an intrinsically ethical structure, because it stems from the awareness and conviction that only together can we act as humans and bring about the good that each one of us seeks. In all this, all forms of dialogue that develop in civil society and between religions can have a particular weight, an essential contribution to the growth of true dialogue within institutions at the political level and between them and all the expressions of society, not least those of churches and religions, in accordance with Article 17 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union.
For this reason, culture and education are the soul of dialogue as the building of true and growing solidarity among communities and peoples. The sincere pursuit of both finds in the care of the hearts and minds of people, beginning with those who are growing up, and of communities, the secret to protecting national, continental and global society from the race towards barbarism.
H.E. Mgr. Mariano Crociata, Bishop of Latina-Terracina-Sezze-Priverno and President of COMECE (Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Union)