All together, these events are stark reminders of the dangers of identity politics; the politics of ethnicity, tribalism, nationalism, patriotism and exceptionalism, and what could happen if one dominant party conspires to make all the rules, and seeks to enforce them by any and all means possible.

If South Africans, especially our leaders and the toxic intellectuals organically linked to the ruling power, cared to step out of the certainty of our own righteousness, we might learn from the mistakes of the Europeans. We might also learn about the benefits of co-operation for the common good, not just for the good of a select or exclusive part of the population.

There ought to be no doubt that the current crisis has shaken Greek society. As European leaders convene, over and again, over the coming days to try to prevent a Greek exit from the euro zone, the people and institutions of Greece should be the first order priority. In concentric circles, with Greece at its centre, are its immediate neighbours in the Balkans, and the beyond that lies the greater EU. What seems clear, and fairly unanimous is that the Greek crisis cannot be resolved outside the context of the EU. There is too short a distance between Greece abandoning the euro, leaving other institutions of the EU, and withdrawing altogether – although this seems improbable. There is too much at stake to even consider this.

The idea of the EU was built, precisely, on the need to prevent a return to the wars of the first half of the past century that ripped the innards out of communities and societies on the continent, destroyed the infrastructure of cities across Europe – and left tens of millions of people dead. Indeed, if the history of Europe is anything to go by, the continent cannot be allowed to return to the constellation of powers and interests that provided the world with some of the most gruesome wars in the history of the modern world – at least until 1945. The very history of Europe, the British Historian Michael Howard wrote, was written on the anvil of war. This was no exaggeration.

From the 100-year war between 1337 and 1453, to the end of the Second World War, Europeans seemed to have been at war almost perpetually, with some of the most brutal cases of mass slaughter and genocide. During the first half of the 20^th century alone, as many as 90 million people may have been killed in European conflict. Since the end of Second World War, since the creation of the EU, Europe has, however, been one of the most stable, prosperous, and peaceful regions of the world. Until the early 1990s, that is, when Yugoslavia (not part of the EU) tore itself apart, and when political and leaders manipulated the ethnic tendencies and persuasions among one of the most diverse societies in Europe. (Disclosure: Yugoslavia was one of my favourite countries, so I might be biased) From Yugoslavia emerged independent nation-states of Croatia, Slovenia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Serbia, and Kosovo – which remains a disputed territory.

One of the catalysts for the conflict that followed the collapse of Yugoslavia, was a rise in almost messianic beliefs of national and ethnic superiority, and a settling of old scores. This settling of old scores in South Africa is a key point, but for another column. Accompanying the rhetoric of superiority when Yugoslavia was coming apart were cultural rallying calls; folk songs that celebrated the heroism of ethnic groups, and the popularisation of national or ethnic heroes. What has all this to do with South Africa? Well, for starters, the next time we hear ‘Awuleth’ Umshini Wami’ being sung by our leaders, and messianic references to Jesus by our rulers, it would probably best serve the country, if we turned our backs on them.

Leaders play powerful and decisive roles in interpreting history, manipulating emotions, defining threats, enhancing the exclusivist dimensions of ethnicity, and setting the boundaries of inside-outside politics. By the things they say, leaders can set in motion quite powerful forces; especially nationalism or ethnic pride or blind and uncritical patriotism. There are times when the things that political leaders say may be construed as calls to arms. One of the lessons from the Srebrenica massacre of July 1995 is this: It does not matter which side of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia you come out on, but everyone will agree that when the population, or groups within society are exhorted to stand up against others, you light a fuse. That fuse is very short if all criticism of leaders are conceived as traitorous. For instance, over the years before the collapse of Yugoslavia, in response to Slobodan Milosevic’s exhortations, some Serbs cried out in dangerously emotive terms: ‘Slobodan, we are all yours – only traitors are against you’.

Let’s bring this back to South Africa. Last week the Secretary General of the South African Communist Party, Blade Nzimande called for the death of the Economic Freedom Fighters. He appealed to SACP cadres to engage the EFF ideologically, politically and ‘engage them on the ground’. Who will guarantee that this engagement ‘on the ground’ will not turn violent? Our collective memory of how more recent appeals for foreigners to leave South Africa turned into gruesome violence is still very fresh.

In South Africa, the leaders of COPE were described as snakes and traitors for daring to split from the ANC. In the eastern Cape, a former member of the ANC who expressed disgust for the corruption in the provincial government, one Memory Booysens was called a ‘traitor and a political prostitute’. When the Vukani movement against the ANC during last year’s election began to take shape, its leaders were denounced as traitors. Earlier in the country’s new-found democracy, ordinary civilians who were medical doctors and who decided to emigrate, were described as traitors by the then country’s Minister of Health, Dr Nkosazana Zuma. You’re either in the ANC, or you’re a traitor.

The massacre at Srebrenica, which occurred immediately outside the borders of the EU, showed Europeans just how close to the surface conflict remains on the continent. Within the boundaries of the union, there is almost no conflict between countries. Herein lies the key; the EU cannot be allowed to fail. As an equal member of the union, it is important that Greece remains within the EU, and within the euro zone.

The same empathy, and dedication – the sustained commitment to make it work – that went into investing in Europe’s fractured political economies after the bloody first half of the 20^th century, should be the basis of debt forgiveness. Greece’s creditors are fully aware of the collective efforts that were made to rebuild the continent, and established what has, arguably, been the most successful peaceful, prosperous and stable region in the world. The lessons of European conflict are simply too vivid and rich for the EU to take any other path. War seems too close to the memory of Europeans.

‘We are ready for starvation. We are not ready for war,’ Flora, a 66-year-old pharmacy assistant in Piraeus told the BBC’s ‘Inside Europe Blog’ – with specific reference to dangerous shortages in medical supplies.

To an outsider it might not have a palpable ring to it, but war has become a powerful metaphor for the crisis that besets the Greek people. ‘We want democracy, we don’t want war,’ Lila Stylianou, a music professor, told the BBC’s Jasmine Coleman last week following the referendum of two Sundays ago.

Stathis Gourgouris, a writer and political philosopher, said it was no exaggeration to compare life in Greece to a ‘war without bombs’ he told the BBC.

‘Events are moving with extraordinary speed,’ he said. ‘Everyone is on edge.’

Greece must be brought back from the edge; all of Europe must ensure that. DM