Click on the flag to choose the language.

To see articles and comments in other languages, click on the flag. You can comment in the language you want.


   At the beginning of May 2018, Viktor Orban was sworn in as Prime Minister following another clear victory after the parliamentary elections in Hungary. His subsequent speech contained the following key message: "The era of liberal democracy is over." It had proved unsuitable for defending human dignity, freedom and physical security. His answer and that of the Hungarians is "to have to build the Christian democracy of the 21st century instead of the shipwrecked liberal democracy". "We are Christian Democrats and we want a Christian democracy."

     The historical passage we are going through is described, on the political level, by a lexicon dominated by the binomial sovereignty/populism, with which we try to mean a radical change in the balances and dynamics with which we build the political decision, especially within democratic and liberal institutional systems. However, this semantic choice, which takes as its qualifying trait the emphasis placed on the absolute primacy of the interest of the sovereign people, resorts to concepts that now belong to the history of the previous century and that are not able to fully restore the radicality of a historical change in which we are directly involved.

"Politics is based on the fact of the plurality of men... it is about the coexistence of the different... it is born among men... it is born in the infra and is affirmed as a relationship". Luciano Manicardi quotes H. Arendt in the opening pages of "Spirituality and Politics", adding that "in the empty space between men, between me and the other, between me, the other and the third, between us and the others, therefore in the interpersonal and social space, politics also meets the spiritual dimension".

What are we talking about when we talk about populism?

Populism is on everyone's lips. For better or for worse. Some people hate them. Others, although they don't like the term, applaud its pretensions. Populism has several components. In these lines I only reflect on the opposition of populisms to what they call elites, who would only seek their own profit, in front of the people, good by nature, subjugated by them.

    The elections for the renewal of the European Parliament next May will mark the Union's path in depth. The citizens of Europe who are called upon to vote are at a crossroads, which may lead to the relaunch of the project of political unification or to its sinking, which is likely to be definitive. That is why it is not enough to acknowledge the mistakes of the recent past, due to the lack of solidarity between the Member States, the excessive confidence placed in the instruments of economic, monetary and financial unification alone, and the blatant short-sightedness of the ruling classes.

This 2019 will be the year of Europe. The spring elections will inevitably mark either the relaunch of the European political project or its sinking, probably definitive.

The mistakes of the past are there for all to see and the consequences are being paid for dearly. These errors are linked to a lack of solidarity between the Member States of the Union and a lack of foresight on the part of the ruling classes, the result of the will to collect, from time to time, an immediate electoral gain, to be spent at national level only. The humiliations reserved for the peoples, the Greek people among others, show how history has taught little or nothing: the lesson of the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century, born under the ashes of frustration and humiliation, seems to have been in vain.

 The responsibility of Christians.

That Europe is seriously in crisis is an obvious fact. The crisis is particularly worrying because it is part of a global framework of strong tensions that threaten peace. Today it is urgent for Christians to reflect on the words of Pope Francis: "Good politics is at the service of peace", and it is only so if it is lived as "service to the human community".

Peace must, therefore, commit us as Christians, and this becomes all the more true that it appears evident that this action of fraternity cannot simply be delegated at the moment when the political practices take an orientation contrary to human rights, justice, social solidarity. Today it is necessary to reflect and to support a good culture that opposes the prevalence of the principles of individual and national selfishness. We have a duty to react to these practices.

1989 was a success because of the civic movements in Central Europe. These actors who are the real heroes of the change. Which lessons?

1  Don’t accept to be unified from above, which means accept the differenciation due to the cultures. Don’t destroy the piano of Chopin.

2 In his article “Living in truth”, Vaclav Havel tells us that in the communist time, when there was no confidence in the politic system, it was necessary to invest in the civil society, to have an “antipolitics” movement in the civil society, able to give a moral impulse. Not to criticize the global system but ask oneself, which moral values to introduce in the system.