Lea Ypi, political scientist: ‘The new European militarism threatens what made the EU great’

The world is living in a time marked by significant political upheaval in democracies and devastating armed conflicts. The year coming to a close has provided notable examples of these trends. Lea Ypi, Professor of Political Theory at the London School of Economics, offers her analysis of these turbulent times in an interview conducted during the Grand Continent Summit, organized by the pan-European magazine of the same name in early December in the Aosta Valley in the Italian Alps.

Ypi brings a particularly relevant perspective, both due to her insightful critique of the broad capitalist consensus that has prevailed over the past few decades — grounded in solid academic research — and her remarkable ability as an orator and storyteller. Her book Free has been translated into more than 30 languages. Today, the political scientist is concerned about what she terms a new European militarism, which, in her view, will empower the radical right and threatens the very ideals that made the EU a great project — a model, she says, for international relations based not on war and military force, but on peace.

Question. There seems to be a revolt of working classes against a system that is not working for them. We are witnessing this in many places in advanced democracies. What went wrong? Why do they feel betrayed?

Answer. This stems from a crisis of representation and the decline of party democracy — a democracy that traditionally sought to represent the diverse interests of citizens while offering differing ideas on how institutions could serve them. At its core, this is the enduring question of whether democracy and capitalism are truly compatible and what role social democracy plays in resolving that tension.

By the late 1970s through the 1990s, classical social democratic parties began to decline. This was due partly to being constrained by structural economic forces and shifting social conditions, and partly to ideological shifts within these parties. They moved away from representing citizens based on class and economic vulnerabilities. Instead, they embraced the idea that “there is no alternative,” a mindset that led to the ideological and social collapse of the left.

As a result, these parties adopted centrist policies that prioritized market-driven solutions — policies that echoed traditional liberal arguments but diverged sharply from the social democratic ethos. This ideological shift marked a retreat from addressing systemic inequities and left working classes feeling unrepresented.

Q. Maybe that’s the first step, and then the second one from traditional social democratic parties is to try to build a new political platform by being representative of different identities, an umbrella for different things, like feminism, minorities, etc. Do you think that was the case? And if so, do you think they are reconsidering this whole process and going back to the class struggle, to constraining capitalism, and its excesses?

A. Once they abandoned the project of transforming capitalism, they shifted focus to expanding citizenship rights and the rule of law. The aim became to grant representation to as many previously excluded groups as possible.

While this is a valuable project, it is also a fragmented one. Without a universal foundation of representation, the focus turned to abstract rights and legal frameworks, rather than addressing the underlying social and economic conditions that enable people to exercise these rights. This approach aligns more with liberal thought than the traditional left, which has always emphasized the need for a social basis to support rights.

In this context, the idea that “there is no alternative” to existing economic systems remains dominant. Unfortunately, I don’t see significant efforts by political parties in Europe to revisit and redefine what class means in the 21st century or to address systemic inequalities rooted in economic vulnerabilities. While we now see the effects of the interference of billionaires in political processes, for example, the structural critique of capitalism remains a taboo among mainstream left-wing parties.

Q. Let’s look at what is happening on the other side of the political spectrum. Oligarchs and demagogues are weaponizing democracy, taking advantage of the freedoms it guarantees to poisoning the public debate. What can we do about that?

A. There isn’t a quick or easy solution to this challenge. Freedom of speech is crucial, and I don’t believe censorship is the answer. Instead, the focus should be on educating citizens to develop critical thinking skills, discern information, and engage meaningfully in public debates.

However, the state has limited resources to invest in education and civic engagement, partly due to its increasing capture by capital. When public debates and budgets prioritize defense and militarization, it leaves little room to fund the kinds of educational and civic projects needed to counteract the manipulation of democratic freedoms.

Q. You admire Emmanuel Kant. What do you think he would suggest to achieve perpetual peace right now, while we have a brutal dictator trying to destroy the very idea of democracy in a neighboring country?

A. In many ways, Kant’s times were not so different from ours. He believed that enlightenment was the key to addressing authoritarianism — whether it was the authoritarianism of the church, monarchy, or today’s political regimes.

Kant defined enlightenment as the process of emerging from self-imposed immaturity, emphasizing the need for both individuals and societies to think critically about the challenges they face. This critical capacity must be applied not just outwardly — to other societies — but also inwardly to our own.

A concerning aspect of current discourse is the binary division of the world into “authoritarian” there versus “democratic” here. This oversimplification ignores the fact that the attitudes and ideologies enabling authoritarianism exist also within what we assume to be consolidated liberal democracies. The ethno-authoritarianism of Russia has many supporters — in Europe they are everywhere on the rise, and they threaten liberalism from within. For me, the key is to think of democracy as an ideal that we continue to strive for politically everywhere, not as the defense of existing institutions, which to my mind are closer to the classical Greek notion of oligarchy, understood as rule by the rich.

Q. And while we do this, do you think we should support militarily the defense of Ukraine?

A. We should condemn, unambiguously, violations of international law wherever they occur. But the answer to your very specific question depends on many complex considerations such as whether other non-military options have been exhausted, likelihood of success in remedying injustice, risks from further escalation and so on. I am afraid I don’t have the expertise to answer it, but what I can say is that I am wary of the rhetoric in European capitals that seems to normalize its remilitarization. The new European militarism threatens what, in my opinion, made the EU such a great project in the first place: a different way of thinking about relationships between countries — based not on war and military force but on peace. If the EU prioritizes militarization, it will strengthen the radical right everywhere and once they are in power not only the European project will be over but also any resistance to Russia. History reminds us of how nations, often unintentionally, slide into global war because of a combination of domestic and global factors — Stefan Zweig renders this poignantly in The World of Yesterday, explaining the start of World War I, to the dismay of many who thought it impossible. It’s a slippery slope, and we must tread carefully to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition