Speech of Pavel Fischer, member of the Czech Senate, at the Meeting “Friends of Together for Europe”, Prague, November 16th, 2018 – “THE THREE CHALLENGES”
Dear friends,
You came to Prague to work together on the topic of how to live and engage “Together for Europe”. What country have you come to? And what is the state of Europe today, one hundred years since the First World War? You have come to the Czech Republic, a country that declared itself a republic a hundred years ago.
During the celebrations of this year’s centenary, I was intrigued by the ideas put forward in in his speech by the President of the Constitutional Court. He heads the institution whose task is to ensure that the most basic rules are adhered_to in this country. Its president, Pavel Rychetský, attempted to diagnose the state of our contemporary society. Let me paraphrase his basic thesis. In his opinion globalisation has intensified the feeling of loneliness and hopelessness among people. People feel that they are becoming lost in the global world. There has been a blurring of the contours of their identity, and they are sinking into anxiety and fear. Indeed, fear has become a breeding ground for those who create for them an image of the enemy. The enemy might be a richer neighbour, an immigrant, or a person with a different skin colour. In this country, sometimes the European Union itself is identified as the culprit.
In their despair, people are now looking for change, and better still, for some sort of messiah because traditional political parties no longer represent them effectively. Is it even possible to stop such toxic development? And how do you redress a distorted value system? The president of the Constitutional Court sees hope in a greater degree of emancipation of civil society, awakening its self-confidence and restoring the principle of citizen sovereignty. Citizens who stand up for themselves because political representatives are there to serve the general wellbeing of the nation or they should not be in power at all.
Let us take another look at the key terms he used in his speech. Loneliness, hopelessness, identity, fear, enemy, general wellbeing, self-confidence, sovereign citizen. If we look to the best references to European thinking, based on the wisdom of Jewish scholars, Christian mystics and rational thinkers, we can find a spiritual dimension for each of them which could put them in a different light. When articulated in this way, the diagnosis of contemporary society has great information value. But I also believe that we can all see these phenomena in a hopeful light too. And that we can endeavour to do something ourselves.
So where should we start? What should we do first and what, on the contrary, should be left as it is? Let us now take a brief look at the three challenges facing Europe today.
The First Challenge: Emotion
People are equipped to experience emotion. And not only their own emotions, but also to be emotionally connected to others. So even though we can tell ourselves repeatedly that people are rational and sensible creatures, we would eventually come up with a whole range of examples that would illustrate how often we behave irrationally. And that’s actually a good thing.
To understand some of the situations in European politics, it is important to admit that emotions are crucial. Let us remind ourselves of the struggle to solve the eurozone crisis, which manifested itself in finding a solution to how to draw up Greece’s state budget when the economy was in a critical condition. If we work on the basis that a human being is not only a homo economicus, i.e. he/she is not only a consumer or a market player but also a citizen bestowed with dignity and freedom, then the struggle that led to the so-called Greek crisis was very significant.
While citizens were forced to tighten their belts and literally did not have any money to spare, some banks managed to safeguard their earnings relatively well throughout the entire crisis. While in Brussels the solution to the crisis was handled by the implementation of austerity measures, citizens in Greece saw this as rubbing salt into their wounds. Emotions ran high, disgruntled citizens turned against the government, the European Commission and the bankers. And, for instance, against Germany, and even Chancellor Angela Merkel herself.
This atmosphere of intense emotion was something the Greeks primarily experienced among themselves. It was inaccessible to others in terms of language. From a cultural point of view, it was connected to their history, to images from history, and this meant that other European citizens often lacked not only the tools to understanding the Greeks and sympathizing with them but also to helping them in some way: perhaps in retrospect we could have offered a holiday to Greek children in our homes. This would have given their parents a break, and we would have forged links that would also make sense in the future.
Similarly, we could remind ourselves of the emotions experienced by the citizens of other EU member states. It is as if our own political and social struggles have remained limited to the territory in which our mother tongue is spoken. There is a shortage of strong media, a lack of intermediaries which means we have remained somewhat alone with our emotions. And nonetheless, I am convinced that even the best journalist, the most skillful diplomat or the most interesting politician would not be fully able convey the misery, the fear or the hope and expectations we experience in our linguistic communities. Because it is true that those who have a common mother tongue can very quickly understand one another.
When I was younger, I played violin and traveled for many years around Europe with an orchestra. Time and time again I can see that experience as a musician before my very eyes. Even today, I must admit that musicians are more able to communicate and convey a message among our nations than the best political speeches. Indeed, art and emotions work hand in hand. With pictures and expressions, for which we often cannot find words.
And this means that in today’s world we not only need new institutions, but also artists so that they can communicate to us the issues that are possibly only just raising their head now but are nonetheless urgently preoccupying the minds of the people and causing them to worry. Artists can escape the trap of the translator. Artists can work with what would otherwise be cut by the censors who monitor politically- correct words. Looking back again at the sad legacy of the big crisis that began in US banks in 2008, we will see that in many instances the budgets of cultural institutions also had to be cut.
But if the world we live in today is so emotionally disconcerting or unnerving, perhaps now is the time to do the exact opposite. Return art to public spaces. Help the public to figure out what they are experiencing with the help of artists. And give children the tools they need to understand art, otherwise every one of us will remain a little bit alone with his/her emotions, keeping them bottled up inside. Or everybody will remain a little bit alone, if we are talking about the atmosphere in the country as a whole.
The second challenge. Citizen or consumer.
Sooner or later we have to ask ourselves the question – what do we understand by the term ‘human being’? Whether we take it to mean an actor in the economy, a market participant, a consumer or a citizen.
From the very outset, European cooperation has placed an emphasis on economic cooperation, and this was certainly the most effective and sensible thing to do. At the time, it helped to establish collaborative processes without having to talk about some issues or even have them decided by referendum. The founder of European integration based the method on real life experience. Frenchman Jean Monnet, who worked in London during the war, saw with his own eyes the inability of the Allies to coordinate among themselves the supply of troops.
However, the emphasis on the economy cannot only be observed within the EU today, but also in our individual countries. But once again we have to ask ourselves what we actually understand by ‘human being’. If we understand a human being to be a consumer, then our goal will be to provide the highest quality at an affordable price. But we can also understand human beings differently. And by this I mean as an individual graced with dignity, as a free being, as a person with individual responsibility who has the need to form relationships with others. However, a free independent person, living in isolation, cannot be our ideal. After all, loneliness is one of the phenomena of contemporary living, which greatly weakens our society. Loneliness means a poverty of relationships. And there is an abundance of it around. And if individuals remain alone, they can also fall victim to various predators, be it disseminators of information and misinformation, or even economic predators, who sell them things they don’t need at all.
An individual cannot be happy without solidarity and without community and companionship. And at society level, we can see that it is those societies that are capable of living together, engaging in dialogue, coming together to find solutions to problems, and, at local level, forming relationships which involve helping others, solidarity and reciprocity. Such a society is ultimately more resilient. In the face of a threat, people can help themselves and others, find their place in society, provide assistance to those most in need.
But we’re not going to allow ourselves to be deceived. We have been at this crossroads many times before, and not just during the elections. The economy is most certainly of utmost importance for the management of our countries. And without rational and responsible national economists, we would not even be able to draw up the state budget. But let us also ask ourselves how those who want to make the decisions understand the individual. Perhaps they understand the individual as a consumer, that is, for one-time use and until the next election. But, by contrast, it could also happen that they regard the individual as a partner, a teammate, a citizen. So let us put our trust and confidence in that kind of politician.
The Third Challenge. Community or crowd.
The third challenge we observe in today’s societies is the expansion of social networks… [continues]
Speech of Jaroslav Šebek, historian, Czech Republic, at the Meeting “Friends of Together for Europe”, Prague, November 16th, 2018 – “The Churches in the Czech Republic and the challenges of these turbulent times”
The events of November 1989 and the collapse of the communist totalitarian regime in Czechoslovakia opened, for the first time in over forty years, a broad range of options for action by the Church and by Christians in general. They brought major positive changes and new opportunities, but also problems and related challenges. Following the ‘miracle year’ of 1989, the Christian churches entered the new political landscape with a great moral track record. Their positive rating was down to the role they had played during the communist regime, when they were subject to great persecution but at the same time represented an understandable alternative to the prevailing Marxist ideology.
One of the things in the post-1989 period we can certainly describe as a considerable success, is the progress made in ecumenical contacts. For instance, a way forward was found through the divisions over Master Jan Hus, whose legacy was assessed objectively at a 1999 symposium in Rome by Church representatives and experts from different traditions and the secular world. At the symposium, the then Pope John Paul II (1920-2005) had asked upon the opening of the Holy Year 2000 for forgiveness for the suffering of the reformer Hus, who had been convicted in 1415 during the Council of Constance and burned at the stake, and also for the suffering of his followers. The Pope said: “Today, on the eve of the Great Jubilee, I feel bound to express my deep regret for the cruel death of Master Jan Hus and for the resulting wound, a source of conflict and division, that this created in the minds and hearts of the people of Bohemia.”
Ecumenical aspects of reflection and further research on the significance of Master Jan Hus were also mirrored in early January 2000 in the joint statement of the then Archbishop of Prague, Cardinal Miloslav Vlk (1932-2017), and the Synodal Senior of the Evangelical Church of Czech Brethren, Pavel Smetana (1937-2018), on the legacy of Jan Hus for Czech Christians. The Rome conference contributed to further recognition of shared views of the importance of Hus and to rapprochement beyond denominational boundaries, allowing coordinated preparation of the 600th anniversary of the death of Jan Hus in 2015.
In the relatively short space of a few decades, there was a sea change in perceptions of the importance of Jan Hus, with much of it shedding the potential for conflict and intransigence. This positive trend was affirmed most recently with the ecumenical commemoration of the legacy of Master Jan Hus on 15th June 2015 in the Vatican. Its highlight was undoubtedly the meeting with Pope Francis. Alongside Cardinal Miloslav Vlk, among the participants were the senior representatives of the two non-Catholic Churches with largest membership: the Synodal Senior of the Evangelical Church of Czech Brethren, Joel Ruml (1953), and the Patriarch of the Czechoslovak Hussite Church, Tomáš Butta (1958). In his address to the Czech delegation the Pope said many disputes of the past must be re-evaluated against the new context in which we live. In the light of this approach, there is also a need to study without ideological bias the figure and the work of Jan Hus, for so long a subject for disagreement among Christians but now a motive for dialogue. The focus of Francis was also significant in his emphasis at the meeting on the need to work together in a joined-up way and in his affirmation of considerable openness to the non-Catholic churches.
In the Christian church, major areas of conflict emerged, however, after the political tide had turned. Soon after those revolutionary changes, images were rekindled of Catholicism as the enemy of progress and patriotism, images lingering in Czech collective consciousness through the works of 19th century liberal nationalist literature and nurtured during the First Republic and of course by Communist propaganda. The authority of the Catholic Church waned gradually but swiftly in Czech public life, and that still holds today. The relationship between society and the Catholic Church is undoubtedly one of the starkest areas of difference between the Czech Republic and other post-communist countries of Central Europe, especially Poland and Hungary. Yet they do have some tendencies in common. State and society in former Soviet bloc countries are in fact facing similar issues and challenges in the transition to non-authoritarian systems of order: the economic impact of transformation, building a new political culture, and the creation of space for democratic dialogue.
A common feature of post-communist central European states is the declining attractiveness of European Union membership. After 1989 and the fall of the Iron Curtain in the former communist bloc, the majority (and it was no different for us) spontaneously called for a “return to Europe”. The tempting reason was that enticing dream of Western prosperity, the standard of living we could see beyond our borders. The refugee crisis, though, created a crucial watershed for the future of European integration, with differing ideas colliding and once again the East standing symbolically against the West. The refugee crisis signals growing risks to the economy and security, and at the same time it is broaching the topic of the defence of Christian values, especially in the post-communist East.
The Czech case is particularly interesting now because in such a highly secularised nation people began talking about Christian roots, admittedly mostly in terms of ideology. Proponents of the view that Christian and European values must be proclaimed and spread, do not even really know or define what values they have in mind. In the Czech Republic, faith has wilted and so we find under the banner of Christianity an ideology driven by fear of the influence of Islam and other cultures. Typical opinions of church circles on refugees are a balancing act between solidarity and voiced fear of cultural fallout. One of the common causes of a crisis is the lack of a clear vision based on ideals. Today’s European Union no longer relies so much on the persuasiveness of ideas, but solely on technocratic solutions. The weak authority of the European Union is often rightly associated with the lack of credibility of the leaders and their inability to engage in robust ideal-based reflection on the issues. In Czech society, however, there are other challenges that I would describe as Christian responses to the signs of the times.
In the younger generation, a new outlet has appeared for the “torrent of anger” from a section of the public and for dislike of the social elite: the social media networks on the Internet. These allow the frustrated and the angry to shout anonymously all their malice and reinforce each other in their negative worldview. In these murky waters, Czech populists fish for their followers and their ideal opportunity came with the immigration crisis of recent years. The populists have managed very often to turn understandable concerns into a hysteria of fear and hatred while posing as saviours. In recent times, through the social media, communications have become compartmentalised, generating filter bubbles that do not actually communicate with each other. These include communities sharing a meaningless or conspiratorial view of the world easily manipulated by cleverly disseminated propaganda masquerading as truth. In the communist era we had an information desert. Today we are in an information jungle. Yet the result is the same: disorientation, greater susceptibility to manipulation and distrust of everyone and everything. People get together in small virtual communities with the same shared world view, but do not communicate with other groups and, to exaggerate slightly, they live in parallel worlds.
In the current situation we see around us growing disintegration of the securities and interpersonal relationships we previously enjoyed and a withdrawal into ‘communication ghettos’ through new technologies, accompanied by a growing sense of fear and an increasingly aggressive tone of discussions which is in turn the catalyst for further divisive opinions in society. In this situation it is almost a question of survival to seek common interests that the members may articulate together, but with a European emphasis.
This fact is especially important today, where it seems that the whole project of European integration and the creation of formative models of unifying values are in jeopardy. The impact of the migration crisis and related cultural crisis on opinion trends is aiding the success of populist/nationalist movements throughout most of the “old continent”.
I suspect the power of populism is related to the lack of faith in our society. By faith I mean something far deeper than just agreeing with dogmas or attending religious services. I am thinking of faith as a direction in life. Living faith is therapy for fear. Where there is little faith, there is much fear, and where there is much fear, there is much spiritual blindness and aggressiveness, and where there is much spiritual blindness and aggressiveness, that is a gain for the demagogues who increase the fear exponentially, exploit the blindness and seek suitable targets to unload the “torrent of anger” – once they were the Jews, the Germans, then under the communist regime, the farmers and tradesmen, today they are the refugees and Muslims – and when the populist has properly fuelled fear and the feeling of being threatened, he presents himself as a saviour. That is why it is interesting to note how in our divided Czech society, the Catholic Church itself and its representatives struggle for direction. The church representatives are also incapable of speaking clearly about our membership of the EU. Above all, they criticise “neo-Marxist” tendencies in the gender debate and Europe’s lack of cultural distinction. Some bishops therefore side with politicians who, as I said, profess Christian values but in reality, only use them as ideological ornaments, so that Christianity is only used as an ideology and is not part and parcel of spiritual identity. This is where many church dignitaries in the Czech Republic differ from Pope Francis, and so the views of believers are divided in their evaluation of the current Pontiff. Compared to his predecessors, Francis represents a turning point in the fact that his words ring true and are a sign of his general openness. His actions in public – washing the feet of refugees, refraining from ostentatious pomp and luxury – show that he wants to change the image of the papacy and be closer to “ordinary people”. Of course, this polarises even more the way he is perceived in the ranks of the Church. In fact, it is in a Protestant rather than Catholic context that we find a far more profoundly considered view of the current problems of Czech society. Witness the recent debate on whether to welcome Syrian orphans where, unlike Protestant leaders, Cardinal Duka mainly followed the political line.
In wrestling with populism, fear and prejudice and the arrogance of amoral authority, what we need is faith that reflects ethical and universal values. The core of faith is what the Gospel calls metanoia – turning away from superficiality, from being drowned by the noisy megaphones of propaganda, and turning instead towards depth, towards the inner soul, the temple of conscience, which should be combined with a perspective based on reason. In this atmosphere of social unrest, the Christian churches should work closely with civil society across Europe to take a crucial role in improving the situation.
The frost over Prague this evening seemed to melt as thousands upon thousands of candles were lit by passers-by on the streets that witnessed the “Velvet Revolution” of 17 November 1989.
And whilst people were celebrating, listening to music in the squares or admiring the evening lights of this beautiful city from Charles Bridge, young people and adults, parents with children and babies in their arms, pause to reflect so as not to forget.
For us too, a small group who stayed on in Prague after the meeting of Together for Europe friends, we were completely absorbed by the atmosphere; and sharing impressions of what we had lived during these days heightened our joy.
170 people were on their way to various destinations taking with them an unforgettable experience: “if we understand who Jesus is, we will understand the truth”; “I have understood the difference between the individual and the person: the individual always leads to individualism, the person leads to communion”; “we are citizens! We need to put fraternity into society!”; “Among the many languages I learnt the language of hearts for unity”; “You, the adults are role models for us young people!”
These impressions still resonate in our minds as does this one from the last day: “Together for Europe is a vocation.” To be faithful to it, we need to keep our eyes fixed on the goals we wish to reach whilst being immersed in the reality we are living. What are these goals?
That of being aware that our Churches, each Movement and Community, have already formed a multicultural network between themselves that goes beyond the borders of Europe, languages and barriers. We are the prelude for a European people.
Each Movement or Community is an expression of the Gospel, from which its specific charism emerges as a response to a particular challenge of our times.
Together we are a European laboratory of unity in reconciled diversity, with mutual love at the basis of our actions and Jesus in our midst. In this individualistic society, where the culture of ‘disconnection’ reigns, we look to Him who on the cross united Heaven and earth, and we work for a culture of ‘together for’.
Convinced that we are children of the one Father, we are open to every person, so as to live and be an expression of universal fraternity.
For the common good of our cities, countries and continents, Together for Europe is working with politicians and people of culture to make one Europe a reality: “House of nations and Family of peoples.”
It is said that the lay people in Churches are a “sleeping giant”. “Taking responsibility is the answer” – to quote Václav Havel. By taking responsibility for the society around us, we can become the answer with our lives!
In greeting us, someone reminded us of the famous Letter to Diognetus, in which he declares that Christians represent the leaven of the world. “I thought: that’s just how it is! In a small way Together for Europe has already restored the soul of Europe. The ‘starter culture’ – to use a culinary term – is ready and is informing society bringing hope that something new and good will be created! Fantastic!”
