There’s been a lot of soul-searching about the democratic deficit in Europe, but much of it overlooks – or deliberately distorts – the basic problem. Europe won’t become more popular through some democratic quick fix, whatever some commentators claim. Nor will we ever understand public opinion in Europe if the EU’s eurocrats continue to insist that every “No” vote in an EU referendum is simply an expression of domestic political disaffection.
The real answer to Europe’s democratic deficit is more far-reaching. We have to address public perceptions that the Union is a serious obstacle to genuine representation in Europe, and that the EU also stands in the way of raising social standards, like higher minimum wages and better working conditions. I therefore believe that the Europe Union will only gain democratic legitimacy when it is re-constructed by the people and for the people.
One good starting point would be to listen to what people really want, rather than misinterpreting public opinion on the rare occasions when voters are given a chance to speak for themselves. Take the French and Dutch rejections of the EU constitution back in 2005. Even though both referendums attracted a lot of public attention about the future of Europe, most commentators concluded that the “No” votes reflected domestic policy problems. Why so? A more likely explanation is that a majority of people felt important decisions about Europe were being taken over their heads and against their will. In which case, the lesson to be learnt from 2005 was that people wanted better representation and more information during the EU law-making process. Had this view been widely accepted, it could have paved the way for changes in the EU that would have truly benefited the public.
|
MATTERS OF OPINION
|
|
Europeans know less and less about the EU and the rights it guarantees them
In a recent Eurobarometer survey of European citizens’ awareness about the European Parliament, fewer than 5% in any of the 27 Member States said that they were “very well informed”. Only in four countries – Luxembourg, Slovenia, Ireland and Malta – did more than one in three of the population describe themselves as “well-informed”.
In an earlier Eurobarometer survey about rights, fewer than two in 10 people (18%) could correctly identify six rights that they possessed as EU citizens. Two thirds of the 27,000 people questioned (1000 in each EU member state) in Autumn 2007, said they did not feel “well-informed” about their rights as EU citizens.
Alarmingly, respondents now know less about their rights as EU citizens than they did in a poll five years ago. Then, many more Europeans knew that they could vote or stand as a candidate in municipal elections in any EU member state, as well as in elections for the European Parliament.
In addition, half of the people surveyed had never heard of the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights, and fewer than one in 10 said they had heard of it and knew what the charter signified for EU citizens.
http://www.gallupworldpoll.com/
|
Instead, the Treaty of Lisbon made very little headway in resolving the democratic deficit within the institutions of Europe. There was no attempt to separate executive, legislative and judicial powers clearly, nor was the European Parliament given the right to initiate legislation. Thus any serious effort to increase EU-level democracy in future would require a new “treaty for the people”, with fresh institutional reforms, new direct democratic measures, higher levels of transparency and steps to consolidate and extend current democratic achievements. Crucially, a new treaty would also have to reassess the EU’s neo-liberal economic policies which have become more and more embedded in existing agreements.
This economic aspect of the democratic deficit is often ignored. The Bolkestein directive on cross-border services, for example, has provoked widespread resistance and would not have come into force if it had to be approved by a popular referendum. Neo-liberal policies are imposed on member states – and the rest of the world – regardless of the EU’s lack of democratic accountability. These policies erode social security for many ordinary Europeans, while boosting corporate profits through lower tax regimes. They also allow companies to play employees in the EU off against each other as businesses shop around for the “best” national employment conditions. This leads to a “race to the bottom” in tax, social security and wages as countries compete to attract corporate investment. A more collective approach to taxation would be an effective counter-measure. The new treaty for the people would therefore have to include ambitious targets for EU-wide taxes on business, especially minimum standards for corporate income and capital taxation.
Neo-liberal policies also force a growing number of economic sectors into a competitive market. As a result, ownership becomes more and more concentrated, small businesses are put at a disadvantage and social and workers' rights come under increasing pressure. Neo-liberal economics also mean that sustainability plays only a minor role in corporate and official decision-making, with predictably negative long-term impacts on both people and the environment. A neo-liberal system is more likely to allow genetically-modified and high-risk foods to be grown and sold in the EU, or water industries to be privatised.
A truly democratic Europe would limit such environmental risks through non-market-based economic policies and more enforceable rights, allowing people to resist developments that could jeopardize their well-being. So-called free competition should not be the EU’s sole guiding principle. Rather than blocking member states’ efforts to fund essential services such as drinking water, health care, education and transport, we should be seeking ways to provide these public benefits at the European level.
A more democratic Europe must also find ways to allow the public to take an active part in decisions that will shape the Europe of tomorrow. Today, people are forced into the role of passive recipients of EU laws because the institutions of Europe are closed to direct popular participation. It would be much fairer if ordinary people were able to intervene if enough of them felt that important decisions were being made without proper consultation or popular support. One option would be to allow people to initiate EU legislation – on condition that the proposal is supported by a sufficiently large percentage of the total EU population who come from, say, a pre-determined number of member states. The proposed legislation would then have to be debated and put to a vote in the European Parliament. A similar system could be introduced for referendums, with a pre-arranged popular quorum able to force the European Parliament to organise a binding referendum on a specific question.
Another barrier to more public participation in Europe is the incomprehensible language used in EU treaties. Ordinary people must be able understand the legal basis of rules that affect their lives in so many ways. Unfortunately, very little has been done to overcome this deplorable situation. Were a new treaty for the people to be drafted, the EU could address the problem by holding direct elections to a special Assembly. Citizen representatives from all the member states could get support from their national parliaments to write the new treaty, which would also have to be ratified and enforced in a transparent way.
Another problem with democratic decision-making is the excessive influence wielded by financially powerful lobby groups. The process could be made more transparent if these lobbyists had to identify all their interests and sources of funding in a public register. Privileged access for corporate lobby groups to EU decision-makers should also be limited.
More should be done, too, to improve the enforcement of democratic rights in Europe. For instance, individuals cannot currently make their own claims at a European court, nor does any EU court effectively enforce fundamental rights. All people living in a truly democratic society – together with organisations such as trades unions – should be able to assert their social and labour rights through an effective judicial system.
Thus, a great deal can and should be done to make the European Union more democratic and more responsive to the social and economic demands of its citizens. But change, no matter how important, won’t happen by itself. The drive for democracy needs to be constantly renewed through discussion and education about the complexities of EU procedures. Change will also require cooperation within civil society so that a host of individual voices can unite into a powerful popular movement. The ATTAC network is proud to take part in this process, furthering cooperation and helping to develop alternatives for a better Europe. Our European Summer University in Saarbrücken this year will be another opportunity for people from different countries to exchange their visions for a more democratic and social Europe and begin to create a more desirable model of EU development.