Europe is going through a testing time. The UK’s decision to leave the European Union, and, thereby, to unravel some 40 years of ever closer union and integration between the member states, is not just about redefining domestic politics. Brexit has deep international ramifications and puts the entire EU to the test, raising the larger political question about peace and stability in Europe. The ideological backbone of the EU is to end the frequent bloodshed between neighbouring countries across the continent. Since its inception, the EU has played a key role in global politics, historically as a main player in the Cold War and most recently as a highly active global player in the fight against terrorism. A disunited e or disuniting e Europe is a political condition, which too often has fertilized radical ideologies, mobilized alienated and disenfranchised citizens in extreme right- or left-wing movements, and, ultimately, led to unrest and war. A new European equilibrium is not a desirable option: it’s a ‘sine qua non’ for peace and stability. The aim of this Reflection on Europe is to outline the crucial constructive role that businesses can adopt to foster this new state of democratic equilibrium. This reflection develops a speculative argument showing that businesses can have direct impact on a range of enabling conditions for democracy.1 The argument goes one step further by advancing the controversial view that not only can businesses actively contribute to democratic nation-building, but also corporations have non-trivial structural and pragmatic advantages that potentially make them better democratic nationbuilders than traditional political agents. Although normative in nature, this reflection does not aim to convince the reader of any political approaches or ideas; rather, my hope is to present a provocative argument to spark reflection on a crucial topic that has deep ramifications for businesses and society.

Definitions of nation-building differ and often conflate the distinctions between state-building and nation-building (Fukuyama, 2008). The most influential definitions comprise the following key constructs: nation-building is an interventionist process whereby an external political power interferes militarily in a foreign nation and subsequently implements ambitious systems of economic development while seeking to embed recognized processes of democratic decision-making throughout all political institutions, ultimately aiming at establishing a new political order (Fukuyama, 2008; Mylonas, 2013; Somit & Peterson, 2005). Moreover, nation-building aims to establish a community of shared values, emphasizing the creation of shared belief- and value-sets across diverse cultures and ethnic groups. The end goal is for the newly created and shared value-sets to converge on the foundational values of democracy held by the nation-builders.

For the purposes of this reflection, nation-building is the process of designing and implementing activities that have a substantial impact on a range of enabling conditions consciously configured to improve, sustain or introduce clearly defined elements of democracy. This definition is broader than conventional definitions of nation-building in that it emphasizes a dual context of influence: on the one hand, improving and sustaining democratic values and processes, on the other, designing and introducing elements of democracy. The rationale for operating across this twofold context of influence is as follows: first, there is a need to reinforce and stabilize existing democracies enduring periods of political activity that challenges the democratic foundations (e.g. Post-Brexit Europe); second, there is a need to fertilize the global citizendriven public demand for democratization of non-democratic states (e.g. the Arab Spring). Accordingly, this reflection has a special emphasis on the European context but frequently branches out, putting the discussion into global perspective. These two contexts are intertwined in the overall narrative and they will not be addressed separately.