Constitutions

Three score and four years ago, a war that devastated the face of Europe -- and the entire globe -- came to an end. A plan was put in place to ensure such a war would never happen again. Yet another war had already begun, more subtle in some ways, more devastating in others. A score of years ago, that other war ended. All of Europe began to unite following the path laid out in the Marshall Plan.

There is a question facing this great Union, a question that is not adequately being addressed, nor is it adequately being raised by any of the relevant players.

In 1865 another war came to an end. It was the bloodiest war to ravage North America. Contrary to popular belief, the war was not about slavery. True, slavery was an issue, but only in so much as it was a focal point of the much larger issue.

One of the biggest issues facing any great political union -- The United States of the 1860s, the European Union of today, the unions of Latin America and Africa in the decades ahead -- is which entity has greater authority: the organization overseeing the union itself, or the member organizations that comprise the union? In the terms used in the United States, it is a question of states' rights vs. Federal authority.

It is interesting that the issue affected the United States. Despite having immigrants from all over Europe at that time -- not to mention the Chinese and slaves from Africa - the United States had a relatively homogenous culture. To this day, there is still no official language, yet everybody has learned English. With the exception of Louisiana, the laws of the individual states are effectively interchangeable with the laws of all other states: they are based generally on Common Law, and specifically on English law. The culture itself is more or less homogenous. The main cultural differences -- again, apart from slavery -- are the same culture differences found elsewhere: urban and industrial in one group, rural and agrarian in another; wealth and education; racial tensions. These all are found in every culture. Clearly there was a cultural difference in the attitude towards slavery. It was such a significant difference, that states seceded from the union because the residents of those states did not want some far away group of bureaucrats telling them that they should find slavery abhorrent.

The question of whether a state had more authority than a central (or federal) government led to the Civil War. It is a pity that they war was fought over slavery in terms of a state right, rather than the underlying racism in terms of individual, human rights. Unfortunately, laws have little effect on the human condition. In the end, a stronger, central power -- in the form of the United States Federal government -- was determined to have the greater authority. In fact, this was codified in the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution.

The European Union does not yet have a formal, codified constitution, although plans are currently in motion. The drafts that have been presented so far are hundreds if not thousands of pages in a single language. The Magna Carta, the United States Constitution, even the European Convention on Human Rights, are all significantly shorter, but are no less powerful for it.

The European Union seems to be trying to follow the model of the United States: a strong, central, pan-European authority. The authority has homogenized the currency and monetary systems of the individual states. There is ongoing effort to homogenize the post-secondary education system (and ultimately the primary and secondary education systems, eventually). Roads, weights and measures, train timetables... these are all homogenized according to a strong central authority.

Examining the language policy of the European Union revelas the real issues facing a unified Europe. A passport issued by any of the EU member states is printed in no less than a dozen languages, for example. How does a legislative body discuss laws covering numerous majority languages and a multitude of minority languages? And languages represent majority and minority cultures, peoples, identities. As Europe continues to expand, the issues are only going to get more complicated.

Europe is not an homogenous society, at least not in the way the United States is. This is exemplified not only in the languages of Europe. The way you greet somebody in France is different than the way you greet somebody in Germany, even though they are neighboring countries. Some legal systems date back a thousand years, others only a few decades. Many of the local economies are still transitioning from a strong state-controlled system to a more free market system, but everybody is moving at different rates. Within the states, there are minority populations who don't want to lose their culture, like the Basques in Spain and France. There are minority cultures who have no state, like the Romany. There are historical empires, all of which ended in 1945; yet some people still hold on to this idea.

Belgium can be considered the heart of the European system. It is where many of the European Union institutions are situated. In Belgium, there is a clear distinction everywhere: there is the Waloonian side, and there is the Flemish side; only in Brussels shall the twain meet. A few years ago, it took the better part of a year to form a government after an election. Yet, everything continued to function; power was devolved to more local authorities. Despite the strong separation in Belgium, the country and its infrastructure work.

When the United States Federal government -- or even the state governments -- fail to reach a budget, things stop. The trash is not picked up. Retired people and others living paycheck-to-paycheck do not receive their Social Security checks. Nothing is devolved to more local authorities. The results of the 2000 Presidential elections were rushed through the legal system for fear the the country would not be able to run without a full Executive already in place by January 20.

The United States is Europe's child. Yet Europe refuses to learn from its child. A parent who refuses to learn from its child is arrogant, indeed. The United States is far from perfect. But that does not mean the parent cannot learn from it. The United States faced some of the same questions over 200 years ago that Europe is facing today. Some of those questions weren't resolved until the Civil War. Some still aren't resolved. Europe can draw on the United States. It can use the US Constitution as a model, which outlines the relationship of one federal institution to another. It outlines the makeup of those federal institutions. Other decisions are left to the individual states to decide (10th Amendment). Just because it is written down, does not mean certain rights are now taken away (9th Amendment). Europe can learn something from the Federalist Papers, the Articles of Confederation, Thomas Jefferson's diary, the diaries and notes of all Enlightenment thinkers. These were the scratch pads of the Constitution.

The individual states of Europe have functioned successfully without the pan-European constitution. The countries have maintained relatively civil discourse with one another without the pan-European constitution. They continue to do so. The legislators of Europe should not be looking at how to bring Europe together under a single authority. Instead, they should be looking at how to maintain individuals' rights and states' rights, how to enhance these rights to strengthen Europe. Europe should try to celebrate its diversity and its history, not try to cobble it all together into a single bureaucracy.