• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

『日本EU学 会 年 報 』 第26号, pp.63-83平 成18年 Transnational party political actors:the difficulties of seeking a role and significance Stephen DAY 1.0. Introduction The goal of this paper is to highlight the possibilities and difficulties associated with establishing transnational party political actors as key players at the transnational level. In so doing, its primary focus will be upon the European Political Parties (henceforth Euro-parties) which have sought, and continue to seek, to play such a role. Reference will also be made to the global Party Internationals (Pls), which despite having a longer history remain far less developed, as a way of highlighting a plethora of organizational difficulties faced by such bodies. Justification for the study of such entities can be gleamed from many sources. In 2000, for example, the Commission Green Paper on European Governance claimed that in the face of globalization new modes of governance were needed in order to rectify public issues of concern. From their perspective while events were shifting '•c towards an international/supranational space not governed by the traditional forms of democracy' the consciousness of the European public remained'•cgrounded in political mythology of national sovereignty and parliamentary democracy.' Was this a clarion call for political parties beyond the state ? Could such parties give substance to democracy and representation at the transnational level and replicate what political parties had done at the national level a la E. E. Schatt- schneider:'political parties created democracy and modern democracy is 63 『日本EU学 会 年 報 』 第26号,平 成18年9月 unthinkable save in terms of parties' ? Although the subsequent 2001 Laeken Declaration pinned its hopes, primarily, on a transnational network of civil society it also argued that there was a role for the Euro-parties to play. Of course, orchestrating the necessary reform for such a scenario is likely to be highly contested as well as highly problematic. As Dahrendorf observed, when asked if the EU is `intrinsically non-democratic', `It i s, if we judge democracy by the parameters of parliamentary government in nation states. The point is that, apart from nation states, we shall never find appropriate institutions for democracy. This is not, of course, an argument for ceasing to worry about democracy in Europe. It is instead an awareness that ought to impel us, as the world advances beyond the nation-state to revisit the principles of democracy and ask ourselves how they can be applied in the new situation.' Indeed, as the EU has developed the qualities of a non-state (multi- level) polity the issue of how, and through what means, the public's voice is to be heard has gained momentum. This is a conundrum recognized by Commissioner Margot Wallstrom (Vice-President of the European Commis- sion responsible for Institutional Relationslations and Communication Strategy) who, as part of the on-going debate declared that : `Political parties are the lynchpin of any democratic system. A Europe-wide democracy therefore needs Europe-wide political parties or at least cross-border cooperation between national parties.' The 2006 White Paper on Communication con- solidated this position when it heralded the Euro-parties as one of a number of key actors necessary for a 'citizen-centred communication approach.' Thus within this developing polity, which as Schmitter points out, displays a '•cplurality of polities at different levels of aggregation- national, subnational and supranational-that overlap in a multitude of domains,' a Europe-wide democracy with Europe-wide parties could be an 64 Transnational party political actors:the difficulties of seeking a role and significance (Day) effective way to give citizens voice. However, while some look forward to a Europe that is '•ca robust, transnational parliamentary democracy,' others remain unconvinced that such a path-way is either necessary or desirable. Such doubts have been most forcibly expressed by the Czech President Vaclav Klaus. From his perspective '[a] "higher", European- wide democracy is an illusion.' In this scenario the Euro-parties are essentially meaningless. The question that concerns us here, therefore, is to what extent are transnational 'party political' actors likely to be part of the formula that solves the equation of democracy and representation at the transnational level? In seeking to illustrate both the difficulties associated with this equation as well as a possible solution the article takes the following structure. Section two will introduce the Euro-parties and highlight how they are nested within the EU institutional architecture. In section three I will question the significance of transnational 'party based' organizations given a series of historical and contemporary problems. In section four it will be suggested that the Euro-parties could benefit from searching for an organizational third-way between the structural rigidity of a national political party and the flexibility of a network. The paper will conclude by arguing that if transnational 'party political' actors are to enhance their role and significance then they will need to show that they are both capable of providing a 'Halics' and developing an organizational form that fits in with the multi-level nature of EU and global governance. 2.0. Introducing the Euro-parties At present there are ten legally recognised Euro-parties that span the political spectrum. Each Euro-party is composed of member parties from across (and beyond) the European Union and are connected with a corresponding European Parliamentary Group (see table one below). The eldest, the ELDR and EPP, turned thirty in March 2006 while the 65 『日本EU学 会 年 報』 第26号,平 成18年9月 Table One:Euro-parties and corresponding European Parliamentary Groups youngest, the EUDemocrats, held its founding Congress in February 2006. The reality of their genetic characteristics i. e. being 'a party' composed of national member parties, brings with it a fundamental tension between the transnational aspirations of the Euro-party and the national-based mind-set of its constituent parts. In the face of this supranational/national fault-line, each of the Euro-parties shows various depths of institutionaliza- tion at the intra-party organizational and decision-making level. The Euro-parties initially came to prominence in the run-up to the first European Parliamentary election in 1979. At the time there was much excitement about their potential future development. As Hix and Lord put it, '[1] eading academics and politicians openly predicted that these new party structures would launch a new democratic phase of European 66 Transnational party political actors:the difficulties of seeking a role and significance (Day) integration.' Although they have certainly had a role to play the reality has been a lot less dramatic. Nevertheless the incremental development of ' party-like' characteristics led Simon Hix, writing in 1996, to identify a Euro-party as an organisation having, `a statute, a common programme, a secretariat, an executive body, a party assembly, a hierarchical leadership structure, the ability to make decisions binding on member parties, s, and the aspiration to become a fully fledged European political party.' This latter point is something that continues to drive developments. On the re- founding of the EFA (post-2004), for example, President Nelly Maes argued that'•ctoday we have become a fully-fledged political party in our own right.' Despite such self-ascription though it remains difficult to pin- point exactly what a Euro-party is (see section four below). Constitutionally the Euro-parties are recognised by Article 191 of the EC Treaty : `Political parties at European level are important as a factor for integration within the Union. They contribute to forming a European awareness and to expressing the political will of the citizens of the Union' Since 2004 they have also been the recipients of EU funding as a result of a process that began with an additional paragraph being added to Article 191 by the 2003 Nice Treaty. This read : `The Council, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251, shall lay down the regulations governing political parties at European level and in particular the rules governing their funding.' It was this second paragraph that laid the path for the Party Regulation which was finally introduced in 2004 following a collaborative effort by the five Euro-parties that existed at that time (the EPP, PES, ELDR, Greens and EFA . A key aspect of the Regulation was Article 3 which laid out a series of pre- requisites necessary for the conferment of Euro-party status. 67 『日本EU学 会 年 報 』 第26号,平 成18年9月 Article 3 a) it must have legal personality in the Member State in its seat is located b) it must be represented, in at least one quarter of Member States, by Members of the European Parliament or in the national Parlia- ments or regional Parliaments or in the regional assemblies, or it must have received, in at least one quarter of the Member States, at least three per cent of the votes cast in each of those Member States at the most recent European Parliament elections ; c) it must observe, in particular in its programme and in its activities, the principles on which the European Union is founded, namely the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law ; d) it must have participated in electionsin to )the European Parlia- ment, or have expressed the intention to do so. The new Regulation, according to Day and Shaw, finally brought : '•c to EU law an institutionally focused definition of the general characteristics that are required for a body to be classified as a ` political party at European level', in terms of its legal basis, represen- tativity, and basic adherence to political values. By bringing a sense of order and regularizing some aspects of behaviour, the process of institutionalising the euro-parties within 19) the EU constitutional architecture can be seen to be taking place.' 3.0.

Load more

  22

Copy Link