While Minsk takes advantage of migrants on the border with Poland only to exert overwhelming pressure on Europe, and while NATO, committed to surviving itself, limits itself to sounding multiple alarm signals, the Union, once again, remains immobile, overwhelmed by its own functional and structural incapacity, and therefore unable to respond to the repercussions of the Lukashenko regime.

In short: to say it all, we must admit, in spite of ourselves, that it is precisely the migration crisis on the eastern borders that reveals the double-faced hypocrisy of European policies, and the one and only constant recurring seems to be indifference to lives of migrants. In essence, the emergence, in Eastern Europe, of a political front that is the expression of a model of "illiberal democracy" which is entirely suitable for questioning what were, and should have remained, the founding values of the European construction , and, at the same time, the thorny question of relations with the countries directly facing the controversial European borders, whose process of democratic transition seems to have undergone, partly by choice, partly by circumstances, an inglorious joke. arrest, constitute the warning light on whose conceptual core two of the most important ideological-practical questions would seem to find entry and abode: what could possibly be the role of the “European Union of nationalisms” in a multi-ethnic globalized context? That is: on what political dynamics do the many souls that support the action of the Member States that are more independentist and are very unwilling to submit to ever more intense transfers of sovereignty survive and are agitated? The "soft power", as an instrument of "gentle persuasion", did not serve to guarantee the dissemination of what should have been a "European model" of internal and external "institutional organization" to individual Members, also, and above all, in more unstable areas of recent acquisition.

The "Union of Communion of Intent" and expansionist integration towards the eastern world, has given way to the "Union of Divisions", highlighting the ontological fallacy of the great community postulate, that is, the one for which the common belonging to the complex Union could have contributed to "standardize" the various adhering countries not only on the economic level, but also on the political level through the elaboration of ever more advanced forms of "liberal democracy". But then, in such a context, where, in fact, the decisions qualifying the action of the various Members are taken within the European Council, as a forum for the expression of the "illiberal democracies" of Europe, as it can still be today, the value and binding force, of procedures, such as that of Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union, which expressly regulates the sanctioning intervention to the detriment of a Member State that has made itself lawful, or becomes lawful, to contravene the " fundamental values ”of the European Union? Can deformed forms of "alternative democracy" still exist? Each response is directly consequent, especially when it is decided to frame it on a bitter reflection of fact on the objectives, or more correctly, on the "interno mentis", of the so-called circumstantial pro-Europeans, of the "parvenus" in the context of the democratic reference model. who, rather than affect the crumbling of the Union complex, which has become a primary source of income for the same, would instead like to re-establish it on "other" assumptions than those that have so far supported the difficult, and obviously bankruptcy, process of integration.

If this, therefore, appears to be the state of the art, or rather, of the supranational political-institutional structure, what interest can still justify the permanence of the so-called "rogue" countries (wanting to use improper terminology on the internationalist legal level, but suitable to render the concept) within the European borders when, their very permanence, is well suited to affect the generalized climate of mistrust towards any form of democratic institution? What future awaits us in a context where "democracy" appears chained to a rigid relationship with the territory, understood as a materialized border of the "minor" state context, and as an apparent border of the sociological involution that seems to favor the personal interest of the individual organizations through the creation of micro-systems tending to exclude the multi-lateralistic instances that should dominate the supranational level of relations between member states? Why should we continue to rely on an organization, such as the European one, which, although driven by the need to found a communion of complexities, has instead contributed, conversely, to underline social inequalities and a sense of common precariousness? Can this European Union still limit itself to "functioning", or can it really embark on a path of progressive "transformation"? Despite everything, I believe so. Especially when individual Members want to recognize once and for all that the re-foundation of the European democratic model cannot ignore popular activism and, consequently, the affirmation of a deliberative democratic model as opposed to the current representative model, in the context of which the so-called "Popular deliberation" can become the founding premise of political decision: without trick and deception, not only would that ideal of direct participation of the People in the government of the national and supra-national territory be fulfilled, which constitutes the greatest lacuna of contemporary politics, but the necessary conditions would be fully realized to guarantee that consensual process of social reform capable of avoiding any compromise contrary to the expression of the freedom of individuals in their moment of participation in the life of institutions.

Giuseppina Di Salvatore

(Lawyer - Nuoro)

© Riproduzione riservata