Pan-European political parties : a weak step towards a more democratic EU - commentaires

Pan-European political parties : a weak step towards a more democratic EU

I really can't imagine that most of the proposals you make will bring any change to the fact that the EU has become quite unpopular. Explaining the EU system to citizens is something we have already spent litterally billions on, smaller constituencies for the EP have already existed in UK, and what was the outcome ?, internet communication between MEPs and constituents is and will remain a farce as long as MEPs will be elected politicians, linking MEPs to national parliaments is and will remain a concept for the same reason, and tools like the ECI is something we will stop being so enthusiastic about in 5 years, like with the Bürgerinitiative in Nordrhein-Westfalen.

Nothing in this list will ever reverse the trend of decreasing voter turnout, which is, in the end, the only prism through which people assess how democratic the EU is. People won't put on other glasses just for the EU, they won't change their way of assessing the democratic legitimacy of a political entity just for the sake of the EU, even if it is the “first transnational democracy in history” (what about Switzerland and India ?). They are not going to tell themselves : “well, nobody votes in the European elections, but the EU has such great policies and interesting procedures that it must be democratic. That's what ‘sui generis' means !”. If the EU is to be democratic, I'm sorry but it has to look like a familiar democracy (based on elections). If, on the contrary, it can remain a mere organization for transnational cooperation, well, it can satisfy itself with innovative information and consultation tools.

To summarise our divergence, I would say that, from your point of view, applying a state-like approach to the EU is too demanding of our societies, whereas my point of view is that applying a completely new, specific approach of democracy to the European level of government is too demanding of the “average Joe”.

You insist on the great diversity of political traditions in the EU. Well, haven't you notice that all EU democracies are based on common principles, like fundamental rights, western values, European welfare state, and most importantly : representative democracy ?

To be very clear, I believe that the only ‘federalist' reform worth fighting is the direct election of a EU Commission president. All the rest, from the constitution to political parties or transnational lists, is just for fun. But as long as this reform is unrealistic, we have to promote it through indirect channels.

Pan-European political parties : a weak step towards a more democratic EU

Dear Cédric, thank you very much for the feedback.

In this article I did not intend to discuss the role of political parties in national democracies, but the possibility (or not) of automatically transfering national political practices into the European arena. I do not question (at least here) the « traditional system » but try to underline the fact that the EU is neither a national state nor a conventional democracy. « Good national solutions » could be suitable for national democracies, but not for the first transnational democracy in history.

The European Parliament itself (a transfer of a national institution -especially steemed in the post-war years- to a transnational sphere) was the dream of the founding generation. And its election by universal suffrage was the core demand of the next one. But, as you clearly point out, the decreasing turnout in European elections proves that the institution has failed (or is failing) to adapt itself to the transnational and increasingly complex European system of governance.

So, why do we insist on putting at the top of the democratic agenda an effort which sticks to the idea of a national-like EU ? A new connection with the citizens is needed, but I do not think it will be achieved creating the misleading impression that the EU works as a national democracy, with a single executive branch, controlled and at the same time desired by competitive pan-European parties. It does not.

I do not have a programmatic alternative in mind, but I think every reform and effort about euro-democracy should focus on explaining the EU system to citizens, instead of simplifying or concealing it. Make clear which topics belong to the EU sphere and which not. Improving the individual representation at the EP (smaller constituencies, a better use of the internet for the communication between MEPs and constituents), reinforce the link between MEPs and national parliaments, increasing the accountability of the Council through national parliaments and the accountability of the Comission through EP, integrating associations and civic groups in EU decission-making through tools like the ECI... that is for me the path. But it would deserve another article !

I did not intend at all to send a message of fear, I am sorry if you have feel so. The article is just an attempt to introduce some critical points in the debate. In the end, what I tried to say is that I am not sure if it is possible to sustain a comprehensive and coherent federalist agenda which embraces at the same time such diversity of proposals (which come from different political traditions and represent different, if not antagonic, visions of the EU's future).

Thank you again for reading the article and taking time to discuss it.

Pan-European political parties : a weak step towards a more democratic EU

Hard to imagine a democracy that wouldn't rely on parties, even looser forms of political parties such as the ones that recently had a great success in Czech Republic (Věci veřejné) or Ireland (New Vision). And parties are as much characterised by their opacity as human relations in general. Full transparency exists only in an anarcho-liberal utopia.

I'm not sure that citizens see the European Parliament as a relevant model or an effective way of representation. If they did, they would vote. Imagining that the ICE or that a great redistricting of constituencies for European elections would be a solution is a bit exaggerated. We already had several ICEs, on the seat of the EP, on GMOs, with more than 1 M signatures each. The European Commission simply turned the proposals down, and will continue to do so in the future.

57% abstention is enormous. Add 3% more, and nobody will ever be able to resist calls to suppress these elections or to simply suppress the Parliament. The Parliament costs more than €1Bn a year. If we do not manage to raise the turnout, how will we justify its very existence ? We are going right in this direction.

I'm not sure that being afraid of generating frustration or being afraid of what presidentialism would mean in the EU is the right attitude, in such a situation. Being afraid, in general, cannot be an attitude.

The European elections need to change radically if we want to keep them. Agree or not, the “traditional system” of representation is the only one that works in reality. But I encourage you to describe a little bit the content of the “innovative solutions” you are referring to.

Good national solutions shouldn't be excluded for the sole reason that they are good and national.