Democracy in Europe of the People, by the People, for the People?
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Democracy in Europe Of the People, by the People, for the People? Fleur de Beaufort Patrick van Schie (editors) Den Haag, 2010 Published by the European Liberal Forum asbl, with the support of the Prof.mr. B.M. Teldersstichting (Dutch liberal think tank), Lokus (Finnish think tank) and think tank E2 (Finland). Funded by the European Parliament. The European Parliament is not responsible for the content of the publication. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors alone. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Liberal Forum asbl. copyright © 2010 European Liberal Forum asbl, Brussels, Belgium This publication may only be reproduced stored or transmitted in any form or by any means, with the prior permission in writing of the publisher. Enquiries con- cerning reproduction outside these terms should be sent to the European Liberal Forum. The cartoon on the cover of this book was drawn in 2007 by the Dutch cartoonist Tom Janssen. For further information and distribution: Prof.mr. B.M. Teldersstichting Koninginnegracht 55a 2514 AE Den Haag The Netherlands 0031 (0)703631948 www.teldersstichting.nl [email protected] Printed in the Netherlands by Oranje/Van Loon B.V., Den Haag ISBN: 978-90-73896-47-5 Keywords: European Union, European Integration, democracy, accountability, referendum Contents I Introduction 1 Fleur de Beaufort and Patrick van Schie Public Opinion II The European Union and Public Opinion 7 Charlotte Maas III European Integration: Enlargement versus Deepening 21 Sten Berglund IV Reservations towards the European Integration: Poland 37 Leszek Jażdżewski Referenda V Citizens and the Casting Vote. The Referendum’s Place within Liberal Ideology 49 Patrick van Schie VI Referendum stops the European train? Citizens and the Democratic Accountability of European Decision-making 69 Fleur de Beaufort Political Parties VII State or the Union? Political Parties Bridging the National/European Divide 85 Aaretti Siitonen VIII The Role of European Political Parties to Broaden the EU’s Legitimacy Edwin van Rooyen and Gerrit Voerman 99 Political Commentators IX Europe’s Core Business 115 Frits Bolkestein III X Putting One’s Own House in Order First. The European Parliament Must Reform to Survive 121 Hans van Baalen Future XI Conclusions and Future Policy Implications 127 Björn Wallén List of Contributors 131 IV I Introduction Fleur de Beaufort and Patrick van Schie Whoever says that the European Union (EU) should be decisive and democratic is not only expressing two wishes that are mutually contradictory from time to time, but also two wishes that will not be endorsed in equal measure. The desir- ability for the EU to be decisive depends, firstly, on whether people believe that the policy in question, for a start, should actually be an EU matter. An EU that manages to enforce its policy successfully in such areas will not be desired by those who believe that the EU assumes powers to itself or has been granted them, which can better be exercised on (sub)national level. The desirability of a decisive EU depends, secondly, on the political course that is being followed. Even if everyone agrees that a specific matter should be handled at EU level, no liberal can desire of course that a Commission controlled by socialists succeeds in implementing its dirigiste political programme. No-one would like to (openly) dispute, however, that the European Union must be democratic. In the West, the principle is (fortunately) usually endorsed that all policies must be democratically legitimised. And democracy does not only imply then that citizens can influence who is allowed to make policy and the di- rection it takes, but also and especially that political office holders have to account for their actions in a democratic manner. Opinions can differ with regard to pre- cisely what the democratic input (the desired policy) and the democratic account- ability for the output (the pursued policy) ought to include. But no-one would wish to dispute that this input and output must be endorsed democratically. The existing Treaty on European Union (which incorporates the Treaty of Lis- bon) therefore contains four articles under Title II ‘Provisions on Democratic Principles’. These comprise provisions on citizens, their opportunities to express their opinions and their ‘right to participate in the democratic life of the Union’; on political parties at European level; on the European Parliament as the repre- sentative body of European citizens; and on the role that national parliaments can play in democratic accountability. Everything appears to be properly provided for, on paper. Nevertheless, there is discomfort and indeed even dissatisfaction regard- ing the democratic standard of the EU. For the majority of citizens, Europe is and remains ‘far away’; broad social debates on European policies never or rarely occur. Americans who are asked what they think of when they hear ‘the United States’ will spontaneously mention concepts such as ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’. When Europeans are asked what comes to their mind when they hear ‘the European Un- ion’, they will not indicate similar concepts as quickly; ‘costly’ and ‘bureaucratic’ are terms more likely to be heard. 1 de beaufort and van schie No-one can and may remain indifferent to this, nor those who regard the existing EU as an interim phase en route to an ever closer political relationship (perhaps a federation), nor those who believe that the EU has already undermined national sovereignty on an unacceptable scale. No matter whether the EU is small or large in terms of territory and/or responsibilities, there is bound to be a serious problem if it is not perceived as democratic. Formulating democratic principles within a treaty is important yet insufficient; a democracy must be alive, otherwise it will eventually become a dead letter. Countless books examining the requisites for a living democracy have been penned. Of course it is impossible for this compilation to delve into all aspects. We think it is helpful to make a start based on the renowned description used by the American President Abraham Lincoln, who spoke about a ‘government of the people, by the people, for the people’ during his Gettysburg Address on 19 November 1863. He did not indicate exactly what he meant. He uttered these words during a brief speech for the dedication of the national cemetery in Get- tysburg, four-and-a-half months after the major battle that occurred there during the American Civil War, and not during an academic discussion about the concept of ‘democracy’. However, he did declare – at a place where thousands has just lost their lives and many more had been wounded – that democracy must be worth fighting for. For the time being, few citizens will be willing to lay down their lives for the continued existence of institutions in Brussels and for the European Parliament. The European Union itself acknowledges this because it did not dare making defence policy one of its concerns (yet). But with regard to a ‘government of the people, by the people, for the people’, what has the EU managed to make of that? For ‘the people’, or better: for European citizens, many EU policies will un- doubtedly be intended, apart from the general tendency of government bureauc- racies to allow this objective to be pushed aside by their own institutional interests. For liberals, however, the idea that politics is for citizens can be far from adequate. Liberals assume that individuals personally know what is good for them and not that politicians or civil servants should know better. If collective decisions have to be taken – in other words, if politics have to be practised and decisions (unfor- tunately!) cannot be left to individual citizens – citizens are ultimately the ones who must determine, in one way or the other, whether what has been decided for them is actually also acceptable. If citizens think differently to administrators in Brussels, the paternalistic attitude among the latter that ‘We know (better) what is good for you’ should have no place within a liberal democracy. By citizens can take shape in many ways. The Treaty on European Union stipu- lates that ‘the Union shall be founded on representative democracy’ (Article 10.1), but also that every citizen has the right ‘to participate in the democratic life of the Union’ (Article 10.3), that ‘political parties at European level’ should play a role (Article 10.4), that citizens have the opportunity ‘by appropriate means (…) to make known and publicly exchange their views in all areas of Union action’ 2 introduction (Article 11.1), and that at least one million citizens ‘who are nationals of a sig- nificant number of Member States’ can take the initiative to make the European Commission ‘submit any appropriate proposal’ ( Article 11.4). In short, there are numerous ways in which citizens could become democratically active in Europe, and further exploration of which opportunities are suitable for making democracy more alive than has been the case up until now by (only) a minority of citizens electing members of the European Parliament once every five years. Of citizens must be the highest objective of the EU, but is also the most dif- ficult to achieve by far. The difficulty here is that the EU started as a project that did not originate from a deeply, broadly and strongly advocated desire of European citizens; it was initiated by a relatively small group of politicians and enthusiastic citizens and then shaped almost exclusively from the top. It is true that every state was shaped from the top in a certain sense; the notion of a state es- tablished by free individuals via a social contract is no more than a (useful indeed) political-philosophical thought experiment and not a historical fact.