Nicoletta PIROZZI

Head of Programme on European Union and Institutional Relations Manager at the Istituto Affari Internazionali (IAI)

From Kyiv to Gaza to Washington, the world we live in seems to challenge an integral part of what progressives traditionally stand for. The rise of populism and extremism is widespread, and fuelled  by both the increasing perception of insecurity in society and the malign influence of foreign actors and internal proxies spreading disinformation and propaganda in liberal democracies. The resurgence of imperialism and the recourse to the use of force have become the new normal after the Russian aggression against Ukraine and the declared disengagement of the US from European security.

Liberal cosmopolitan values are increasingly contested, not only by a plethora of actors outside the Western world, presenting them as instruments of Western domination and preservation of economic imbalances. But they are also questioned from within the group of countries hitherto seen as defenders of this system, as we have experienced in the first 100 days of the second Trump administration and the new American tech-oligarchy.

As a result, the multilateral system is weakened, common institutions have proven to be increasingly dysfunctional, and shared norms are constantly violated. This also created a destabilising vacuum in leadership, which has certainly increased the appetite of non-democratic players to fill the void and engage in regional or global parallel order-shaping.

In this context, the progressive international agenda grounded in Social Democracy, internationalism and pacifism risks being perceived as marginal, or even harmful to stability. It is fair to ask whether progressivism is still able to interpret current challenges and to imagine a credible way forward. Ultimately, it is legitimate to question whether progressivism is still fit for today’s times. 

In my view, the worst mistake progressives can make is to live in denial and continue to filter international reality only through the prism of their own idealism. I am not suggesting abandoning the ideal of peaceful coexistence, but in order to realise it, it is key to identify the conditions for peace in the present circumstances and imagine adequate measures to achieve them.

Excluding the possibility of war and indulging in antimilitaristic narratives will not help progressive forces to fight for and build peace. In a world characterised by imbalances of power, predatory military adventures such as Russia’s war in Ukraine can only be stopped, and prevented for the future, by building adequate defence and deterrence capabilities. The principles of non-aggression and territorial integrity are enshrined in international law, and it is the responsibility of the international community to defend them, especially when the responsible institutions, such as the UN Security Council, are not able to act. Increasing defence spending and investment in joint military capacities in Europe and with other like-minded countries does not mean adhering to a logic of permanent war. It is the precondition to preserve freedom and democracy, the ideals on which the European Union project is built, and many of its partners aspire to. Of course, to make military capabilities an effective instrument for restoring and preserving peace, a thorough reflection on strategic goals, proper institution-building and efficient decision-making is essential. 

The second worst mistake the progressive camp can make would be giving in to the wind of isolationism, protectionism and competition. People are still looking for a credible alternative that progressives can embody and implement. We can see that in the streets of Tbilisi, in the resistance of women in Iran and Afghanistan, and in the students’ protests in Serbia and US universities. Extremist forces propose a narrative steeped in ideological references, and their political platform appeals to tradition, control and closure. The model they aspire to is that of a fortress, which manages to keep out perceived threats through the protection of a unique and partial identity, a Europe of homelands that identifies national sovereignty as the only way to achieve the well-being of citizens. 

Progressives can revive the trust in internationalism and the quest for multilateral cooperation by appealing to positive examples. We are constantly confronted with transnational challenges, and the idea to retain control at the national level is futile and dangerous. The only chance to have an impact is through joint action at the supranational and international level, and for this we need common institutions, rules and instruments. The Covid-19 pandemic has shown us that only joint purchase of vaccines and solidarity instruments such as the NextGenerationEU could help nation-states cope with the health emergency and its socio-economic consequences.

In a mirror-like manner, the world is extremely interconnected and interdependent, and this reality cannot be radically changed, despite attempts to control trade through the imposition of tariffs, or migration by building walls. On the contrary, we can leverage these interconnections to promote a more sustainable and inclusive society, for example by concluding new-generation trade agreements that promote green transition and social standards, or by adopting migration schemes that benefit our ageing democracies and countries of origin.

But this should not be presented as opposing nationality and identity. An inclusive identity narrative that values national identity as part of the European and international family can help present European integration and internationalism as a source of cultural renewal rather than a loss, thus depriving nationalist and nativist forces of a powerful propaganda element.

Progressives can and should remain faithful to their playbook and advocate for pacifism and internationalism, but they must be pragmatic and ready to embrace reality. This means enlarging their political agenda to talk about and act for what people care about, including security and national identity in a way that is compatible with and beneficial for the advancement of social-democratic objectives.

Image credits: AI generated image (Google Gemini)