As the E.U. was heading toward
legislative elections in 2024, the shooting of Slovenia’s prime minister could have
served as a wake-up call concerning the silent benefits of having a union that
is political, and thus governmental, rather than merely an economic “bloc.”
Were civil war likely in Slovakia, given the aggressive political division
there, being a semi-sovereign state rather than a fully independent country
meant that explicit and implicit buffers existed that could stave off such war.
Considering that an assassination had been the trigger for World War I, having
a federal system that could quell aggression within a state is no small benefit.
In 2004, Slovakia became an E.U.
state, which means that some of its governmental sovereignty went to a federal
level. Slovakia’s velvet reputation for having split peacefully from the Czech
Republic in the dissolution of Czechoslovakia in 1993 may have masked the ensuing
stark political reality under Prime Minister Vladimir Merciar, when Slovakia “found
itself at a crossroads, stuck between becoming an autocratic regime with close
ties to organized crime or a state based on the rule of law.”[1]
In 1995, the country’s secret service kidnapped the president’s son. In 2004,
Robert Fico’s political career as a “social democrat fighting corruption and
unbridled neoliberalism” was just beginning.[2]
Yet after becoming prime minister for the first time in 2006, he was accused “of
graft and involvement in the Penta Gorilla affair, Slovakia’s biggest
post-communist corruption scandal.”[3]
In his second stint as prime minister, he and his government “mainly focused on
influencing the judiciary, . . . stopping corruption trials and silencing
independent media.”[4]
He spoke against the E.U. and Ukraine in the midst of the Russian invasion. With
all of the press that Viktor Orban of Hungary was receiving for taking the same
positions, it was easy to miss Fico’s stances in the E.U.
Together, Fico and Orban can be
viewed as a minority stance in E.U. foreign policy in favor of Russia. With
such policy requiring unanimity at the federal level, this minority had the
potential of hamstringing any foreign policy at the federal level
regarding Russia’s aggression. E.U. states would be free to work at cross
purposes, and the power of a united front would be missed. This is an argument for
applying qualified majority voting to E.U. foreign policy. Such a stance is
more evident than another benefit that the E.U. provides to the states—a benefit
highlighted by Slovakia.
The shooting of Fico in May, 2024
stemmed from a climate of hateful political polarization in the state. In the
wake of the shooting, some fear of a resulting civil war was voiced in the media.
Even though the European Steel and Coal Cooperative had been formed to stave
off war between states (most notably involving Germany), the less obvious
benefit of the E.U. in being able to step in to stave off war within a
state has received little attention. The potential benefit for Europe as a whole
resonates with the suggestion made by France’s Macron that the defense capability
of the E.U. itself be strengthened. For it to be any good, its deployment would
have to be decided by qualified majority vote rather than unanimity. Otherwise,
Hungary could use its veto to enable Fico’s party to put away its opposition
militarily.
A related benefit of the E.U.
with respect to Slovakia does not depend on any additional governmental
sovereignty being shifted to the federal level. The fact that some sovereignty
had already been delegated to the E.U. by its states means that the likelihood
of a civil war in a state is buffered, and thus reduced, simply by being in a
federal union that has a legislature, executive branch, and a supreme court.
Any one of these governmental branches could take action against Slovakia were
civil war to break out. Financial levers alone could do the trick, but so too
could informal conversations in the European Council, in which the states themselves,
through their respective governors, are the members. As nervous as the E.U. officials
are about a war just outside the E.U. is, the prospect of war within the
E.U. would surely be galvanizing.
Furthermore, within Slovenia, simply viewing itself as a state rather than a sovereign country could work against forces that would otherwise provoke a civil war. In other words, being a state in a political and economic union is itself a moderating force with respect to political polarization getting out of control. In the early U.S., Shay’s Rebellion in Massachusetts and the Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania were doubtless on the minds of the delegates at the Constitutional Convention in making sure that the U.S. president would be able to call the armies of the then-sovereign states into action to put down rebellions in the future semi-sovereign states. So, there is precedent for the E.U. calling on state militias to quell any rebellions in any of its semi-sovereign states, and even for bolstering a federal military force. As E.U. citizens and residents headed to the polls in 2024, it would be a shame were they to take the E.U. for granted. Going even further, it would be a shame were they to miss an opportunity to voice support for an ever more perfect, and thus strengthened rather than hamstrung, union.
2, Ibid.
3, Ibid.
4, Ibid.
