ABSTRACT: Document on Esperanto prepared for the 36th Congress of the Radical Party (Rome, Hotel Ergife, 30 April - 3 may) -----------------

Political federalism and linguistic federalism: the meaning of this contrast should be explained. Every federation in the sense of federal state (the United states, Germany, Switzerland, Canada, Australia, etc.) is political. Linguistic federalism will also be political, though less so. Where, then, does the contrast lie? In what is called political federalism, the federate states, members of the Federation, are not defined or delimited by the linguistic criterion but by quite a different criterion - by a geographic (as in the case of islands, for example), economic, and especially, as in the existing federations, historical criterion. The American States, the German Lander, the Swiss cantons, the Canadian and Australian provinces are entities - some of which are very old, others more recent - that have emerged not from a linguistic, geographical or economic subdivision, but from a historical development. In exceptional cases (Alaska and Hawaii) geography has played a role; in Switzerland religion explains

why the Appenzel canton is divided in two and is mainly responsible for the creation of the Jura canton. But all in all the formation of federate states has not emerged from any particular principle, but is the result of chance or the power games of history.

1. THE SUPERIORITY OF LINGUISTIC FEDERALISM

The disadvantage of the historical principle is that it sets apart as federate states political entities that are heterogeneous from the point of view of language and culture, and therefore generate minorities. The ethnic majority of the federate state will dominate the ethnic minority; because the inclusion of a federate entity in a federal state can only mitigate the domination not eliminate it. If we take the example of the French speaking state in the canton of Berne (1/7 of the whole population before the creation of the canton of Jura), we note that the existence of the Confederation over and above the canton of Berne has not managed to satisfy the inhabitants of Jura. Probably the fact that the canton of Berne is not a sovereign state, but is part of a federal state where there are also French speaking and Italian speaking cantons, mitigated Jura's fate, but did not decolonize it completely. In fact, Jura remained subject to the power of Berne, in other words, to the laws and regulations issued by a G

erman-Swiss majority. Historical federalism - i.e. political federalism in the sense of this paper - has no harmful effect in a monolingual federation (like the United States, Germany and Australia) but, in multilingual federations (Switzerland, Canada) there are (indigenous) linguistic minorities; and the federation, respectful of the responsibilities of its members, cannot defend them as it should. This is the main reason why we are spurred on to propose a linguistic federation of Europe. But there is a second dual reason. This is the importance of the Language Community (LC) that - before the French Revolution that replaced it with the people and then, inevitably, the state - that represented throughout the Christian Western world the true nation. Serious thinkers, from various disciplines - philosophy, sociology, ethnology, psychology and linguistics - have demonstrated the correlation that exists between the language and the way of naming things; there are many of them, from Herder and Fichte to the Eng

lish sociolinguists, from the heralds of the Risorgimento or from Georges Mounin and Francois Fontan. If the LC is bound by such powerful intellectual, emotional and spiritual ties, it would be vain to ignore it in the institutional construction of Europe. We can see its strength in the current that has swept over central and eastern Europe, and that we call the revival of nationalism. But the institutional sanctioning of the LCs is not only motivated by factual observation; it is also normatively motivated, if we realize that languages are values; they are values in themselves and for the different cultures they generate. Great minds have discovered and proclaimed this. No majority LC would deny this. Indifference and scorn are reserved for other people's languages, particularly minority languages. These are the reasons for a Europe of languages. And this Europe is not utopian, because the world already has federations of linguistic entities under the name of ethnic federalism: the Indian subcontinent, Czec

hslovakia and, after the latest reforms, Belgium. To become a perfect federation this state must have its regions and communities - which have been created according to the linguistic principle, and enjoy great autonomy - participate in the central power. Of course, people will say, we have seen the failure of two ethnic federations: the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. We could discuss this at length. But let us say here that the USSR, could only be a false federation, since it was a totalitarian dictatorship. Moreover, Russia's domination of 14 federate republics was so strong that, even if it had been democratic, it would not have been a true federation. Yugoslavia was more balanced and, after Tito's schism, more democratic. But we know that Serbia dominated the army and the federal public function. And there was a great dividing line between the Catholic part, influenced by central Europe and Italy, and the Greek Orthodox part, the Balkan area, which has today become like a geological rift, capable of displa

cing continents. The USSR and Yugoslavia could not serve as a model for linguistic federalism. And I would have said this even before these two false federations collapsed. However, there remains an objection to linguistic federalism. Why choose it when Switzerland, which is not an ethnic federation, but a political federation, works so well? I mentioned the problem of Jura, which has not been completely solved. Ticino complains of German-Swiss influence; and the Romans language (38,000 speakers) is threatened with extinction. But seeing that it is difficult to attain perfection in this world, these seem minor faults. However, they would be elimited if the Swiss federation followed Maspoli's idea and transformed the 26 cantons into four ethnic groups: German, French, Italian and Romans Switzerland. I should like to add that Switzerland was built in 700 years and we do not have 700 years to build Europe. If we conceive Europe as a political federation (Federation of the Current States), a large number of mino

rities will disappear. Therefore if we want to preserve this rich variety - and recognize the right to life and liberty of each indiviual group of the population - it is urgent to create the European federation of LCs. The second part of this paper proposes a model and describes the procedures for implementing this.

II MODEL AND PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE EUROPEAN FEDERATION OF LCs A. MODEL

In order for linguistic federalism not to remain a chimera, and to succeed, it must take into account the aspirations of today's Europeans. Apart from respect for the different languages and cultures, these include the aspiration for a more human democracy; and this can only be a regional and municipal democracy. The Europe of the LCs must therefore be combined with the Europe of the Regions. These two prospects do not contradict but complement each other. The reason is that true federations are balanced or they do not exist. When a member state dominates the other federate states - such as Prussia in Germany or Russia in the Soviet Union - the federation is federal in name only. Of course, there are not these great differences between the European states - except if Russia is included - but it can but be an advantage to reduce the inequality between large and small states. By making the regions direct members of the Federation, the difference between large and small LCs diminishes, and at the same time Eu

ropeans are given a more human democracy. We will sum up the conditions for a good federation:

1. Reducing the minority situation as much as possible: this requires linguistically homogeneous federate states. 2. Institutionalizing the LCs.

3. Ensuring a balance between member states.

4. Offering citizens a more human democratic framework closer to their interests. In dealing with these four requirements we shall consider different models of a European federation.

a) A political federation, or rather, a federation of states as they are at present. This does not meet any of the four requirements:

1. It does not eliminate the minority situation.

2. It breaks up the majority language communities.

3. There is great inequality between its members.

4. It does not completely satisfy regional requirements (despite progress made within many states).

b) A Federation of Language Communities (LCs)

1. It meets the requirement by eliminating minorities. Only scattered minorities will inevitably remain, and these could be given territorial independence. They will enjoy cultural autonomy based on statutes. 2. It fully meets the second requirement, since the federation is the common house that the LCs have given themselves. 3. But the plan ignores the need for balance: how much political weight do the Albanian, Danish, Estonian and Slovenian LCs have, compared with the Italian, German and Russian LCs? 4. It also ignores the regional requirement since the regions do not become direct members of Europe.

c) A Federation of Linguistically Homogeneous Regions

This is almost perfect: it meets three out of the four requirements: eliminating minorities, a balanced federation, regionalism. But sacrifices the LCs, at least the large ones (German, English, Italian, Spanish, French) by splitting them up into many regions.

d) A Federation of LCs and (linguistically homogeneous) Regions This model has the advantages of the one above and eliminates its disadvantage. Now we must see how the federation can have two categories of members: the LCs and the regions. This is made possible by the division of responsibilities into political and economic responsibilities on the one hand and cultural responsibilities on the other. The European federation and the regions will be the heavy elements; the LCs will be the light element, since they are responsible for defending languages and promoting national cultures. They could also be given what in Belgian law are called personalizable responsibilities, in other words social affairs that require solutions adapted to different sensibilities and practices. The direct - political and economic - link between the regions and Europe will obviously be combined with an indirect, mediated link for cultural affairs. In fact in this field the region will have to go through the language community.

B. PROCEDURES

In the initial phase, the political federation - the federation of the current states - appears inevitable. And it has the best chance of succeeding via the European Community. How do we go further?

The answer is to be found in the generalized application of the peoples' right to self-determination (SD), a right sanctioned by more than one international document (e.g. Article 1 of the International Pacts on Human Rights), but which the practice of the Chancelleries, until the fall of the USSR and Yugoslavia, had reserved for overseas countries. The federal constitution of Europe must carry out all the procedures necessary to make the right to SD available to peoples and minorities. Via SD the borders of the states will gradually adapt to the borders of the LCs. It is evident that states like Switzerland will still be able to exist. Noone can or must be forced. The federation of LCs will therefore include a certain number of multi-ethnic states. In this case the various LCs that they include will be part of the LCs to which their language links them at a European level. We have described the SD procedures in detail in various articles, but for reasons of space we cannot go into them here. A Europe of LCs

and regions is truly, if not the best, at least not the worst of the models. And it reflects the real situation, since the growth of nationalism proves that it is vain to hope for the dissolution of the nations. The supporters of the historical states sometimes say that this model is based on apartheid. This means they have not understood a thing or they do not want to understand. The historical states, their sacred frontiers, their sovereignty and their armies are so dear to them! The model proposed is the most democratic because it is based on regional autonomy, within the framework of a European federation, where every citizen will have equal rights and be able to move freely and settle where he chooses. This model will find its place via self-determination. What more can we hope? Moreover it relentlessly breaks nationalism by making the nation a purely cultural and spiritual entity. Defence, diplomacy, economy, territorial planning, ecology - we underline this - will no longer be the reponsibility of na

tions but of the Federation or the whole of Europe, of the regions and municipalities. We cannot propose a model that goes further in disembodying the nation. Thus a decisive step is taken towards the federal Revolution, according to the doctrine of global and libertarian federalism, whose number one enemy is still political power.

The premise of a good understanding between the European language communities does not only rest on the fact that each of them may prosper, without obstacles being put in their way, in their own traditional geographical area, without spreading out and dominating others, but also implies facilitating the many exchanges in the world today. The language communities must not - and cannot - live an isolated existence, but for practical and cultural reasons, must begin the twenty-first century in a stronger spirit of cooperation. We therefore need a means of communication that permits these necessary and ever-increasingexchanges. In our opinion this means of communication must be a neutral and easy language. Neutral because if all Europeans use a language like English as a second lingua franca they place themselves in an ipso facto situation of linguistic and cultural colonization. When a whole nation uses the same foreign language, it is already half-way towards corruption and assimilation. Not to speak of the ex

ternal influence the United States would continue to have and exercise via a language that is also theirs. Easy because a lingua franca can only work if every inhabitant of Europe can learn it rapidly and easily. Now the solution is available to everyone thanks to Esperanto. Zamenhof's brilliance consisted in creating a rational language, with a vocabulary mainly based on Latin-Germanic and Slav languages, which can be learnt in a few weeks. All we have to do is to make it compulsory to teach it in all the schools in Europe so that every pupil learns it. And let noone say that "Esperanto is not poetic", that "it is dry", that "it is lifeless" etc. I don't know if original poetry has already been written in Esperanto. But this is not its function: there are ethnic languages, national languages, for this. "Dry?", "Lifeless?". Obviously Esperanto does not have a national past. But this is an advantage when people want to understand each other without prejudice. Esperanto is for daily life and scientific exchang

es, from this point of view its colourless nature is not a disadvantage but a great advantage. The states, ethnic groups and international organizations must understand its importance and urge the spread of Esperanto.