What is the relation between culture and populism? What should we know about EU cultural policy? And what is the role of philanthropy in shaping modern culture? Leszek Jazdzewski (Fundacja Liberte!) talks with Isabelle Schwarz, the Head of Public Policy at the European Cultural Foundation (ECF) in Amsterdam. Previously, she was the Director of ENCATC (European Network of Cultural Management and Cultural Policy Education), the President of the Thomassen Fund (focus on Eastern and Central Europe), and the founder of the Nordic-Baltic Platform for Cultural Management. Earlier, she held research and project management positions with the UN World Commission on Culture and Development, the Council of Europe, the Foresight Department of the Ministry of Culture of France, foundations, and NGOs. Tune in for their talk!
Leszek Jazdzewski (LJ): What should we make of the election results in France and are we seeing a turn toward the right wing?
Isabelle Schwarz (IS): We are terrified with the outcome of the first round of elections. Although it is shocking, it was actually anticipated to some extent, because for the last 20 years, we have been constantly observing the rise of extreme parties – not only in France, but also in other parts of Europe.
With each election, we were relieved when the extreme forces have not come to power yet. But it was an obvious step that at some point, they will be very, very close. Now, we are at this juncture, where it might be the first time in the modern history of France that we will be governed by an extreme right-wing government. Currently, three of the founding members of the European Union – France, the Netherlands, and Italy – so very important players, might now all be led by extreme right-wing forces.
However, even if we saw it happening, we all have not been active enough in terms of counterbalancing these forces. The European institutions, the governments, including the liberal governments, as well as foundations and civil society, we still very much work fighting our own battles, but we have not been doing enough in a much more synergetic way. We need to work much more strategically together for democracy, solidarity, and a much more open-minded Europe than the direction we are taking now.
LJ: What is the relationship between culture and populism? Is there a link between the two? Do you think that culture can play any role in countering the forces that might be now conquering major European democracies?
IS: It is actually two sides of the same coin – the positive and the negative way of looking at it. On the on the negative side, we can see that the extreme right-wing forces are actually extremely strategic in working with and through culture – in a very broad sense, including media and audio-visual content. When right-wing forces are in the leadership position, this is the kind of portfolios that they really go for first.
Meanwhile, in liberal democracies, this is really kind of the last portfolio you would go for – instead, you go for finance and economy, foreign trade, international relations, but when it comes to culture nothing is left, while the extreme right-wing populists really know how to can reach people and influence their hearts and minds. This is essential in the formation of convincing narratives.
On the European level, the positive appropriation of culture and using that potential of culture to influence hearts and minds has not arrived yet to the right spaces of the political spectrum. Therefore, this is a fight that we will continue to fight for. Because indeed, culture is definitely the fundament of the European Union, but also the essential part of who we are, how we think, how we engage and with whom, how we live, how we consume, and how we travel.
All of the key challenges of Europe – ranging from climate change, AI, international relations, and social cohesion – have a very strong cultural dimension. However, this dimension is not translated into farsighted policies and budgets.
LJ: Nostalgia for the imagined national past seems to play an important role in countering the European integration by populist forces. Do some of these messages need to be incorporated into the cultural future of Europe? Or should a more unifying counter-narrative be created? Where will the battle for European culture take place?
IS: The battle is already very actively taking place, especially in the digital sphere. That is a very concrete example of how culture plays out here – it is very much about polarized ideas, battles of ideas, and competing narratives. The culture of Europe and everything around Europe (including the idea behind Europe) is based on the notion of cooperation, dialogue, and learning to listen to each other to progress through dialogue.
Meanwhile, there are these competing narratives that end up actually in their own bubble, not really talking to each other. This phenomenon is also translated in physical spaces like today’s politics – we do not really talk about finding common projects that bring us further, together with citizens, and make us dream again. It is rather about fighting each other on television, which is really appalling.
In terms of the nostalgia for the past and populism, there are parties that were associated with fascism which are now knocking at the door of power and becoming mainstream. In this regard, culture helps us better understand the past and interpret it. It also helps us critically assess the present. At the same time, through creativity and an imaginative angle that culture brings, it also helps us project ourselves into a different future than the one we see now rather than only trying to address immediate problems – that is a dimension that is very much missing.
Because of the rapidity of transformations that citizens are struggling with, we do not have enough space (both physical and imaginary) to project ourselves into that different future. In this light, it has become much more about the costs of living, the purchase power of images, the energy crisis, and no longer about what kind of cultural social project do we, as citizens, want to build together. And here, culture comes in.
LJ: To what extent should culture become more political? Or does it have a different role to play? How should we balance this tension?
IS: First of all, culture is by definition political, because it has a certain vision and a model of societal organization. Therefore, it has a political ingredient. I would absolutely dissociate the idea of the arts being there only to be beautiful, to please, or to create a dream. Nevertheless, arts and culture are absolutely essential in that political projection.
There are different intensities of engagement of the arts and culture – we have seen this with artists or cultural institutions. In times of war or conflict (in the Balkans or in Ukraine), we may see what an important role culture plays as a force of resilience and resistance. There are cultural institutions which are very much engaged in the battles of society. Therefore, culture should not be extracted out of society and, instead, we must give it some kind of a privileged position – because so far, it has not been the case.
Culture is an ingredient and the cement of our society. Therefore, for me, culture and a political vision totally go hand in hand.
LJ: What is the role and the mission of the European Cultural Foundation (ECF)? And what is the role of culture within the European project as such?
IS: The European Cultural Foundation has the same founding father as the European Union – Robert Schumann. In 1954, in cooperation with others like Denis de Rougemont, a Swiss philosopher, and HRH Prince Bernhard, the European Cultural Foundation was created. The founding fathers were convinced that if you were to build a union, a community, there needs to be cultural education at the core of this community. And in this, the force of projecting yourself into the future demands cultural education at its heart.
Since then, we often refer to the so-called ‘Cathedral Mission’, which is the promotion of a European sentiment among European citizens. And Cathedral Mission, in a way, is a very long-term horizon. You start building, but you never know when the Cathedral is actually completed. And what we see now in today’s Europe is that it is every day’s work and a never-ending project. If we think about the nourishment, the seeds for that European sentiment to unfold among European citizens, it is very, very much a challenging task – challenged by both internal and external forces.
However, the idea at the core of the European Cultural Foundation was that you need transnational cooperation as an experience of Europe. Therefore, basically, you need to have three opportunities in order to allow that European sentiment or a sense of belonging to emerge and grow.
First of all, you need the capacity to imagine a Europe that is able to share resources, projects, and aspirations. You also need the experience of the European project. One of the most successful European projects and programs that we co-developed with the EU in a public-private philanthropic partnership perspective, was the Erasmus program.
The ECF was at the cradle of Erasmus, having developed educational transnational cooperation projects. The EU wanted such a program to unfold but did not have the capacity and the resources to actually program and manage it. Therefore, we did this right at the beginning, with great results and very successful outcomes. Today, more than 15 million citizens of Europe have gone through Erasmus, which allows an individual to experience Europe, what it can offer, and better understand what it stands for by means of sharing common European space and values.
All those who went through Erasmus are different when they come home. You gain a very different approach to Europe, understand more, and often acquire a new foreign language. You gain the capacity to imagine what it means to live in a different country, you are exposed to different priorities and challenges, but you still want to grow together as a community.
At the ECF, we believe that everyone, every single citizen of Europe, should have this privilege, the chance to experience Erasmus. There are already different types of Erasmus programs – not only for students, educators, and entrepreneurs, but others too. Still, we should find a way (maybe again in a public philanthropic partnership mode) to allow every single citizen to have that experience. I hope that ‘Erasmus for all’ will at some point be available.
LJ: That is a magnificent vision. You have mentioned the role of philanthropy. What do you think should be the division of powers between nation states, the EU, and philanthropic organizations? What is the role of philanthropy in developing culture in Europe?
IS: The challenges that we are all facing are so big, that none of those players can solve them individually. This is why we have come to the point of history where the different resources we have should be used in a synergetic and in a much more strategic way – and that includes culture. In this light, we cannot compare the power of the EU or member states to that of philanthropy or philanthropists. However, philanthropy still has assets that both the EU and member states do not have.
For example, philanthropic organizations are working very locally, addressing local challenges, being pretty flexible, agile, rapid, and independent. Having that capacity in the case of the ECF, you can make a bridge from the local to the European level (and back). This is the area where the European Union and member states are struggling, trying to break the argument of how can local solutions benefit the advancement of Europe? And how can European policies serve addressing also local disparities?
If we look at assets of foundations in Europe, they amount to 510 billion. A certain percentage of that funds could be used toward that cause. For example, if we have been campaigning for 1% of the spending of foundations in Europe (which is around 600 billion per year), you would have 600 million you could use. If we had some very pragmatic, but ambitious instruments that you could design together with the institutions – and possibly also with member states – that would send a significant signal that it is not about different competitors anymore, but about addressing challenges together.
Nevertheless, as far as European institutions are concerned, the framework of cooperation is not made in a way that is conducive to forming these partnerships. There are very big, strong hurdles – barriers of legal, fiscal, and financial nature – that hinder that cooperation. Even if there is interest now (also in the money from philanthropy, but not only), the existing financial regulations do not allow for such cooperation. This is why now is really the time to think how to change the financial regulations if they do not fit the needs anymore.
LJ: This brings us to the last question. Why do we need the Cultural Deal for Europe?
IS: The origins of the Cultural Deal for Europe go back to when three civil society organizations (Culture Action Europe, European Cultural Foundation, and Europa Nostra) came together at the time of the COVID-19 pandemic. At that time, culture and cultural heritage were one of the sectors that were the most massively hit by the pandemic.
We wanted not only to show the power of culture for individuals during the times when culture served sometimes as a lifeline for citizens, but also for culture to be included in the recovery of society and the recovery plans in general. Hence, in November 2020, the three organizations launched the Cultural Deal for Europe, calling the EU and the 27 member states to include culture in their national recovery and resilience funds with a 2% target – and we achieved that target on an accumulated level. This meant 12 billion for culture, cultural heritage, and creative industry, which was extremely successful – although not at the same level in all 27 member states (some did not include it at all, some did it more).
Nonetheless, the battle needs to continue because now that brings us back to the issue of populism across Europe and extreme right wing being at the decision-making level in national governments. This is the case in the Netherlands (and possibly France and Italy), and also Austria. We see how these political shifts very quickly impact culture in the broad sense – including the media.
We see how spaces of freedom of expression (both physical and online spaces) are being stifled or closed down. We see cultural funding being heavily reduced. Here, in the Netherlands, there is much discussion about lottery funding, and how much of the lottery funding can actually be allocated to good causes – including culture. So, there will be a significant cut there.
Then, there is the increase of VAT on cultural products – like 21% on books, for example. This means that the whole access to culture will be substantially hindered. That is extremely worrisome. Here, again, the easiest way out – which is not the right path, and we have witnessed this already – is that people come to philanthropy and say, well, can you compensate for that?
The idea is not to compensate, it is not to step in. It is to imagine that policy, that culture project from the scratch together as the European Union, as the liberal member states, foundations, and civil society, and then to associate your resources. That would make a big difference.
This podcast is produced by the European Liberal Forum in collaboration with Movimento Liberal Social and Fundacja Liberté!, with the financial support of the European Parliament. Neither the European Parliament nor the European Liberal Forum are responsible for the content or for any use that be made of.
Continue exploring:
EU Elections Results and What Do They Mean for the EU Green and Global Agenda with Pat Cox [PODCAST]
