Europe is not at war, but nor is it at peace. Europe finds itself today in an interregnum between the end of old parameters – the Pax Americana – and the quest for a new system that is yet to come. In describing the current political dynamic, both in Europe and elsewhere, one new element prevails: the return of the question of identity. And that identity has strong religious overtones. From the re-awakening of Islam to the close ties between Putin and the Russian Orthodox Church, to the role of the evangelical churches in Trump’s re-election, and to the influence of Confucianism, Buddhism and Taoism on Chinese identity today (which echoes that of the Mao era), religion is key all over.
The risk is that the return of the identity and nationalist question will become for Europe yet another factor of disintegration from within, one which adds to the already clear weakness of Western democracies. This is essentially a problem of strategic vision and governance, and of the leadership that is needed to interpret them. Europe is not yet ready for a federal structure and is proceeding with enhanced cooperation and with some good functional examples, such as the CERN, the Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia in Genoa, the Human Technopole and the Italian Institute for Artificial Intelligence.
Today, decisions in Europe are increasingly being made by the European Council of Heads of State and Government, which establishes the line to be taken on important issues such as the budget, competition, defense, and foreign policy. And we cannot say that unanimity is the only problem, given that some qualified-majority decisions – like those on migration – do not always obtain the necessary number of votes. The Council has gained a pre-emptive influence over the Commission, which is losing power and being reduced, in effect, to a sort of secretariat general. The European Parliament, too, seems to be slipping into a second-tier position. On the tariff question, for example, it failed to convene any hearings with commissioners or ministers to examine and clarify Member States’ and European positions.
Defense, technological development, artificial intelligence, and energy are strategic issues on which Europe is falling behind: for example, on the Green Deal, the timescale is wrong; also, the lack of dialogue between Brussels and business has had adverse effects. Europe’s leaders need to shake themselves out of this situation of stalemate and torpor. They can start on a positive note: talks on Eurobonds, which could support defense spending, have resumed, while France and Germany have signed an important nuclear agreement. Politically, the “all-in” proposal for accession candidate countries, Ukraine included, has made progress, the aim being to avert any westward expansion by Putin.
And within the system of western democracies a historic taboo has been broken: Europe has understood that its over-reliance on the United States – keenly focused on its own domestic issues – cannot continue. America’s focus is on the economy, first and foremost. The outlook is fairly optimistic, not least considering that the fiscal incentives and budgetary-law measures have not yet come into force. Investment in the United States has grown by 8%, the tariffs have not yet caused inflation to flare up, and the restrictions on immigration have not had any major impact on the labor market, which continues to generate jobs, including better quality ones. After a 1% decline caused by inventory levels, the administration expects GDP to grow by 3.8% in the second half of 2025. Much less optimistic are the projections – of around 1.8% – made by the Federal Reserve Bank, other institutions, and research centers, which are talking of a secular stagnation over the next two years. But the Trump administration knows that only economic growth will make it possible, over that same period, to develop a new social pact.
And that is something that Europe too needs to do quickly. It needs to put in place active policies, because if the redistribution problem is not tackled it could cause the system to break down. Growth needs to be supported in today’s critical demographic setting, where the fertility rate has fallen to 1.2%. Young people have understood that it is they who will have to pay for older people’s pensions and they are opting – for that and other reasons – to move abroad. Given the demographic decline, the risk is not so much a lack of jobs but a lack of workers: there is a shortage not just in science, technology, engineering, and math but also in the hospitality sector. “Poor” jobs are increasing, with a quintessentially Italian paradox: one where employees are being paid little and working a lot, but badly.
The time has come for European – or, some would say, post-European – leaders to begin reading, or re-reading, in greater conceptual depth, the technological and engineering dimension that is currently being constructed around the world. The strategic analyses conducted by various organizations and institutions are currently based, essentially, on a mindset and an instrumentalist paradigm that underestimates the role of technology in the destiny currently being forged. Philosophers and politicians should, however, interpret technological innovations – starting with artificial intelligence – as creators of new institutions, of new frameworks for socioeconomic organization and coordination.
We are in the midst of a revolution and a fully-fledged crisis of the world’s democracies, of which there are 88 at present. These must be defended. As the German-born American historian and philosopher Hannah Arendt held, the success of authoritarian regimes often derives from the fact that in a world where chaos reigns, a totalitarian leader can easily lead the masses to believe whatever he or she wants and then immediately deny it. A tactical capacity to disregard any promises they may have made bolsters their power.
There is a need, therefore, for a new passion for democracy. That passion must above all be rekindled in young people, who seem not to accept the slow and complex decision-making processes of democratic systems. Today’s youth seem to forget that every leader in a democracy is subject – unlike authoritarian leaders – to the judgment of its voters. At which point, the always fresh “curse of Jean Claude Junker”, former President of the European Commission, comes to mind: “We all know what to do, we just don’t know how to get re-elected after we’ve done it”.