In any political contest including elections the dividing lines between parties and policy propositions become more acute. It is not surprising and in itself unproblematic for particular campaigns to portray the EU in a negative way and argue for alternative ways to run a nations external relations and development.

What is surprising though is the meek response to such propositions by some of those parties standing in the recent elections in the Netherlands, and forthcoming in France and Germany, which overall endorse the principles on which the EU is built: openness and equality in mutual relations, commitments to human rights and standards of welfare, cooperation on matters of common interest, conflict prevention through collaboration, participation and subsidiarity in political decision making.

Instead of producing a positive vision for strengthening the core principles which underpin the positive achievements of the EU, also many of those critical of nationalist and in some cases authoritarian propositions of running the world on the basis of competing ‘me first’ policies, seek to counter these simply with an attitude of containment of the worst and marginal amendment of misguided nationalist policies.

In this kind of electoral positioning these parties are guided by a self-inflicted fear and sentiment of inferiority of their fundamental values and their realisation in Europe. As if their inability to convince voters in previous electoral contests (often working with similar ‘snipping round the edges’ attitudes to change) had gutted them of their ability and will to propose an aspiring project and a positive world to build. In contrast many of them have moved into a defensive response mode, and abandoned an activist stance in politics which is the only way to change opinions and build support and trust in the ability to govern.

One has every reason to be exasperated: building on three earlier decades of existence of the European integration project, the regional institutional framework and goodwill between nations has delivered not only 60 years of peace. Over the past 20 odd years it has helped to overcome largely peacefully the post WWII division of Europe, enabled the successful reunification of Germany as part of a growth and integration of the EU, given rise to new opportunities of access to education, cross-border and cross-cultural experience for countless young people, created economic growth as well as improvements of employment, health and social care, as well as improved environmental conditions in the vast majority of old and new EU member countries.

These achievements were built on the benefits of the common market: open borders enabling the free movement of goods, services, people and money, as well as learning from each other and agreeing common standards, plus EU subsidies for some of its structurally weakest regions from East to West. All of these liberated the home grown economic development efforts especially of the more marginal regions with Europe and its newer members in Eastern and Central Europe. Also externally European integration has generated benefits, for instance by the EU being one of the motors for the shaping of international policy to combat climate change, its commitment to development and humanitarian aid, and human rights advocacy.

Certainly the years since 2001 have brought their fair share of international challenges in terms of global security and migration triggered by continued global inequalities and disenfranchisement, the inevitable shifts of power centres beyond the old patterns, and a lack of regulation of the worst impacts of unfettered globalisation. Also within the EU there are important differentials of economic wealth as well as massive variations in individual and national resilience to economic shocks and change in the nature of work, social relations and trade. One can argue whether the EU has always excelled at addressing all these challenges. Yet compared to many other settings of major economic and political tensions in the world, the EU has managed to navigate these challenges without rise and entrenchment of significant violence within its member countries, or between EU states. The EU is even coping with the choice of an important member state to withdraw from its political and potentially also its economic structures. Given the complexities of coordinating 28 or in the future 27 national positions for a common EU policy, plus seeking to align and agree approaches with other multilateral bodies and even individual powerful nations, this is a feat. Compared to the evident blockages in other multilateral processes such as the UN system, the focus and speed at which the EU acts, and its ability to reach some decisions despite wide internal differences of opinion at the outset of many debates, is startling.

Yet there is currently somehow a mood of laying the blame for all ills of national inequalities, tiredness of politics, and other social problems of some EU members as well as others in the world at the feet of the EU, despite there being only limited responsibility of the EU for these dynamics, nor much capacity of the EU to address the fundamental problems in some countries without effective and nationally accountable government.

At the core both the spreading nationalist approach to politics, and the lack of opposition to it from some competing political movements may be some form of jealousy: jealousy of national governments who have failed to provide equitable opportunities and welfare for the majority of their own citizens in their own countries and see the EU model by and large charting out a different and more productive vision for citizens, jealousy of the power that the combined EU is able to bring to the table of international processes and negotiations, and feeling their own visibility as actors eclipsed by those spearheading the joint initiatives.

With all of the shortfalls and needs for improvement in the EU accepted, if key national leaders in EU countries (and some others) were willing to positively acknowledge the broader performance of the EU for its 450 million citizens, a comparative benchmark for their own record, positive and negative, would become more visible to their national electorate.

For those leaders who have little to point to in terms of national achievements  or visioning this is a risk. So the approach to get rid of the competition of the EU by hyping up the ability to manage one’s affairs better alone rather than together with others sounds logical.

Yet it is only of short term benefit to citizens and over time it will further diminish the credibility of the existing political class. The complexity of the world is going to catch up, and expose both the fallacy of the nationalist and competition based approach to international relations, and the failure of those who had the opportunity to propose a different route, but were too concerned about their dwindling electoral chances to put up a fight and be visionary when needed.