Opinion
EU citizens must be active political participants
By Thomas Rupp
Visions are the basis of any development whether good or bad. Visions pre-suppose a progressive thinking; an anticipation of a potential future behind which individuals who share this vision - and want to realise it - can gather. In a democratic process, it is appropriate to bring several visions into the forum in order to enable a constructive debate and to deepen understanding of the issues at stake. In this sense, the 14 strategic proposals of the Newropeans are to be welcomed as a valuable contribution to the debate. They took the effort to think through different aspects of the European Union and to sketch a possible future.
This comment does not completely deal with all points, but takes up only those aspects, which spontaneously caught the attention of the author. First I want to deal with three points in principle, then I will follow with four single points before concluding.
Evaluation of the current development
Join EUobserver today
Get the EU news that really matters
Instant access to all articles — and 20 years of archives. 14-day free trial.
Choose your plan
... or subscribe as a group
Already a member?
The introduction of the contribution in my opinion relies on an overly positive and unrealistic picture of the past development of the European integration process. It was definitely not the "European Union" or "Europe" which has caused prosperity since the 1950's, but rather the national policies provided by the (Western) European countries and in particular the daily work of their citizens. The establishment of the European community and the domestic market were certainly important steps, which promoted the economic development of Western Europe, but, in my opinion, the cause for the "prosperity of its inhabitants" was not rooted in the mechanism of the "institutions and the original method established 40 years ago."
Governed by bureaucrats
The text correctly concludes that the mechanism of the institutions and the development of the European Union led to a system, which is governed by bureaucrats and members of the national governments, with a pseudo parliament without active legislation rights and no separation of powers. All of this is compounded by a serious lack of democratic legitimacy.
Despite the deplorable state of the system, it already produces more than 50% of all legislation, which is directly legally binding in the individual countries. I do not understand, how such a system or development which led to a serious lack of democracy and will possibly continue to further this process, could be defined as a success. At least I cannot understand it under democratic criteria. If someone has analysed this unhealthy condition - and obviously the Newropeans also see an urgent need for reforms - then the right conclusions should be drawn.
Citizens have no possibility to influence matters
And the first conclusion would be NOT to celebrate such a system as a historical achievement but to put the facts on the table: This conception brought us to today's problems: i.e. we are facing a "de-facto-state" without democratic legitimacy, that is ruled by national interests, economical lobbyists and other interest groups (including some powerful NGOs), bureaucrats and members of the national governments - thus the executive of the national states - and all this happens while by-passing the citizens. I believe it is not aimed at the well-being of the citizens, but at the benefit of the representatives of several interests groups. Currently, EU citizens have no possibility to influence this development - apart from Denmark and Ireland, in which the submission of sovereignty to supranational organizations requires a referendum.
Understanding of the past is key to future vision and strategy
I stress this point because the analysis of the status quo is an important prerequisite for any strategy, which is based on it. And at this point, I see that discussion is the first and necessary requirement. Before we discuss only one single proposal for a reform of the EU, we should agree to analyse the current status quo and the factors which have led to it. Otherwise, we will not understand each other and won't come to a common conclusion. This is to be observed time and again in discussions between federalists and EU critics. Due to the different evaluation of the past development there are completely different approaches to the future strategies; only after a full and critical debate concerning these past developments can a fruitful and constructive vision for the future occur.
A question of war and peace - European Nationalism
A further aspect, which spontaneously caught my attention, is the fact that the "project" of the European Union is emphasized once again as a question of "war and peace". This follows the principle that: "The national states are the root of all evil and must inevitably lead to Hitlers and Francos." It is argued, however, that if a European Union with its own government, own foreign policy, own army, and strongly guarded external boundaries emerges, then something like that cannot occur again. I have to admit that, for myself, it is not completely clear what the difference is between European and national chauvinism.
European nationalism just as bad
I feel an oppressive uneasiness when I experience the naivety with which the past development of the European Union is evaluated in many discussions: "We need a common foreign policy; the European voice must be heard in the world; we must carry the European values into the world; and there will be some privileged neighbour countries and the remainder of the world." And the critics within Europe and the immigrants which refuse to adapt will be silenced or thrown out because they are bad Europeans (In Germany there were times when you had to be a "good German". I think this should not be repeated at the European level.)
To me this all sounds a bit like a rising European nationalism which is just as disagreeable as the national one. And if the "good guys" are then talking about the danger of a new right wing populism (certainly there are some tendencies in the national states), they should also not forget to think about their own attitude regarding the European Union. Under no circumstances do I want to insinuate this new kind of nationalism upon the authors of the 14 proposals. They explicitly stress cracking down on any racial and religious discrimination. I just ask myself whether this will be enough in order to prevent an elitist thinking and acting of Europeans, who want to represent a "guiding culture" for the world.
Exercise in a small system what you want to achieve in a big one
A further point of attention refers to the following principle: Something which does not work in a small system, cannot be fixed by transferring it to a bigger system. To try this, would contradict logic. From north to south from east to west… if you speak to the people in the streets you can feel and hear big discontent and a strong distrust towards the political system and leaders of their countries (not to speak of the EU). The typical complaints you can hear time and again are: "There is no alternative with the elections, the parties hardly differ, we can only choose the less 'evil'. 'They' are doing what they want anyway.
It is quite obvious that the development of the European democracies went, to a large extent, towards a kind of party oligarchy. The representative system, in which the elected representatives are caring for the well-being of their electorate by means of their own judgement and decision-making based on their own knowledge and their own conscience gave way to a strict party discipline. You have to obey the rules of the party if you want to go for a steep career. Citizens and politicians live in two different worlds. And this happens already on the national if not also the regional level.
My question to the authors of the strategic proposals is rather: Isn't it extremely naive to assume that the recipe which does not work on the national level will work all of a sudden on the transnational level? Should we really push ahead with a European government which is designed on the model of the national states, if this model obviously is in a deep crisis? Isn't it naive to assume that the bureaucracy, which is already booming in the individual countries can be brought under control just on the European level? I strongly believe that unless there is no real democratization of the national states, unless the citizens are not ready to take responsibility for their existing political system on their relatively small visible level, the project on the European level will fail miserably or it will even drift still further away from democracy and citizens' participation.
Four specific items
Very briefly I would like to reflect four specific items of the text, which caught my attention:
a) European convention:
I like the idea of a "convention made of elected officials designed to evaluate the state of European integration" once every 10 years, which makes appropriate proposals for possible reforms. Thereby only two things should be guaranteed: 1) that this convention is elected directly by the people. (And is not - like the present Convention on the future of Europe - appointed in an non-comprehensible way by some leading politicians.) Besides representatives from all social layers and also artists, scientists etc. should be part of it. - 2) An obligatorily binding referendum should be held by the citizens concerning the results of the convention work.
b) Common interest of the European Union:
The text demands that the European Government and European Parliament should "together incarnate the common interest of the European Union." But it does not make a proposal as to which competencies should be submitted to the EU and who will decide what is of interest to the EU. Therefore two questions: 1) Which (concrete) competencies now in the hands of the nation states, is to be transferred to the European Union? - 2) How you can make sure that a European Government and a Parliament speak in the name of 400 million European citizens, without them having a direct say in the political decision making process? My suggestion on 2): Binding instruments of initiative and referendum should be introduced - similarly to Switzerland - on the European level. This applies only to decisions which directly concern the European Union. Which fields will be affected can only be defined after answering question 1).
c) Subsidiarity:
Either I did not understand the following sentence correctly or I definitely have to take with it: "The initiative to shift a policy from one level of responsibility to another belongs to the European Government alone." That cannot possibly be true?! With this, the European government would be enabled to take all competence they want from the national level without agreement of the concerned states. This would actually destroy the credibility of all the Newropeans's declarations for more democracy, legitimacy and closeness to the citizens. In practice (against all glowing declarations for the principle of subsidiarity) we can already see over ten years of development of the European Union where such an approach is leading: to the creeping drift of sovereignty from the states to the Union - without confirmation of the citizens. And this is - in my opinion - one of the main reasons for the problems of the European Union today. The demand specified above would intensify this development. Of course, it should be always the lower level which has to decide to give its sovereignty away. And there should also be a possibility to get it back if it is abused.
d) Language problem:
The authors of the strategic proposals are not really dealing with the language problem: On the one hand they want to maintain the variety of the European languages. On the other hand, only English and French should be the two working languages of the Union. Theoretically this sounds very efficient. But what does it mean in practice? That is, that 300 millions Europeans must stand for their rights in a language, which is not their native language. If you consider the individual right of every single citizen as valuable - and I think we should do so - than you cannot keep up this demand because it violates the principle of equality.
As many individuals already have to "fight" with their native language, the request of an additional language would be completely overwhelming, and it would lead to a multi-layer society. Also the demand that an individual, who wants to practise a political duty must speak at least one foreign language, contradicts the right of each citizen within a democracy to be actively selected. This right is again bound to a condition, i.e. the knowledge of an additional language. Without doubt, the translation costs in the EU are extremely high if you allow all possible combinations of European languages. However, the solution surely is not to grant privilege to two languages. This problem cannot be solved so easily. It is a system-inherent "error" with which the European Union must learn to live (or not survive).
Conclusion
Although I am not a federalist, the proposals are not completely disagreeable to me. In general, there is no reason to be against a European Union Constitution or European Union Government, if the citizens have been really involved in the process and really want it politically. Here I want to stress: If the INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS want it. I am not talking about a hand-full of NGO representatives or lobbyists. Furthermore, I do not think that an accelerated European integration makes sense, unless the democratic situation in the individual states really improves - including direct participation of the citizens. This is the field which must be intensively ploughed during the next ten years. As I already mentioned, I do not believe that - to solve a problem of a smaller system - you just have to extend your reference system to make it easier. This contradicts basic logical thinking.
The strategic proposals of the Newropeans show a lot of creativity and constructive suggestions regarding the separation of the institutions. They also stress that there is an urgent need for more transparency and more control of the political participants. With all of this, I can agree. Moreover, they outline how the EU can practically change. In my view this is a practical proposal which is a good input into a controversial debate.
But, I feel one crucial aspect is missing; and that is the citizen as an active political participant. And by that I do not mean the NGOs, nor public opinion polls. I mean, the people as the ruler of all political power should have the possibility to have a binding influence by shaping and/or correcting the political process by means of the right of initiative and referendum.
THOMAS RUPP - is the editor of Zeitschrift für Direkte Demokratie in Germany and is actively involved in the Network for Direct Democracy in Europe
Disclaimer
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author's, not those of EUobserver.