‘Waiting for the Contemporary Barbarians’: How the 'fall' of the Roman Empire is exploited to justify a contemporary nationalist and discriminatory political agenda.
An increasing number of mainly conservative and/or far-right politicians and thinkers in Europe are exploiting the history of the Roman Empire to legitimise strict border policies. This argument is made by PhD researchers Luuk Winkelmolen and Paschalina Garidou, along with Professor of Political Geography and Geopolitics Henk van Houtum in an article recently published in the Journal of Borderlands Studies.
Johnson's Roman Dream
The most recent example of this trend is that of the former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Boris Johnson. Standing on the foundations of the Colosseum in Rome, he advocated for strict border and migration policies against climate refugees, "as the Romans did." According to Johnson, the 'tragedy' of the 'fall' of the Roman Empire shows how important it is to address the climate crisis. He argued that both in Roman times and today, the survival of civilization depends on the weakness of its borders. Johnson attributes this 'historical tragedy' of the 'fall' of Rome to 'uncontrolled immigration'.
In itself, this interview may seem like only a superficial, whimsical interpretation of the complex and long history of the Roman Empire, which Johnson cunningly links to the climate crisis. However, Johnson's interview in Rome is not an exception. On the contrary, in recent decades, more and more conservative and/or far-right politicians and thinkers in Europe (such as Wilders, Baudet, Rutte, Le Pen, Ferguson, Gauland, Mitsotakis) have used the ancient Roman empire in their political rhetoric to reinforce their phobic and extremely nationalist views on border security, migrants, and Muslims.
Anachronistic Glorification of the Past
In this political landscape, where leaders strategically misuse the past, classical borders and ancestors are glorified to fuel and justify contemporary nationalist agendas. The so-called 'barbarians' from the East (during the late Roman Empire) are in that narrative the people fleeing the consequences of climate change. The fact that climate refugees are not welcomed by those who significantly contribute to the climate problem itself is not only hypocritical and paradoxical, it is also inciting, condescending, and discriminatory. Moreover, this populist strategy, glorifying borders and border systems from the past, is anachronistic (in Greek ana: against and chronos: time) and selective. Politicians like Johnson select mechanisms and/or ways to categorise and control certain groups of people from the past, and project them onto their desired future. It is literally taking an element from one time and then sticking it onto a situation in another time. This selective historical memory and glorification presents the Roman 'civilisation' from the past as an example for the values of the self-constructed (national) identity in the present. In doing so, politicians like Johnson knowingly conceal the broader historical and geographical context and socio-political relations of the time, as well as the constantly changing social and (geo)political realities in the meantime. Nor is there any talk about the dark pages of the so glorified Roman 'beacon of civilization' – think of slavery, killing people for entertainment in 'games', and slaughtering countless villages to satisfy their hunger for territory and power. In other words, Johnson uses the 'fall' of the 'mighty' Roman Empire due to 'barbarian invasions' as a doomsday scenario to exploit the fear of 'uncontrolled immigration' for the benefit of his political agenda. The purpose of this anachronistic glorification of the past: normalising the necessity for strict border policies, particularly at times of self-created 'crises'.
History and Geography as Weapons
By zooming in on key moments from Johnson's speech, we can get a better understanding of the bigger picture of such cunning misuse, in which history and geography are made handmaids of (geo)political agendas. Whether it's a speech, a campaign video, a supposedly funny remark in parliament, or a subtle, hidden reference by a politician on social media, these dog whistles are ubiquitous. And precisely because of the repetition of these seemingly innocent events and allusions, a political message is internalised and normalised, even for the recipients. And with repetition comes the gradual acceptance of this ethno-nationalist and discriminatory discourse and deadly border policy. In this way, the persistent violent border politics that politicians like Johnson normalise may lead to new tragedies in the future.