D emocracy is hard work. Demagogues can enforce their rule through repression, armies and buy-offs. But democracy requires constant negotiation, compromise and concessions. Setbacks are inevitable, victory always limited. Democratic politicians cannot implement their ideas unconditionally. Presidential initiatives can be refused by the Parliament, Congress or blocked by the courts. These constraints can be frustrating, but any democratic politician knows that checks and balances are necessary
for the legitimacy and stability of democracies.
arepO suiraM ,9102 ,tnemailraP naeporuE
5
Managing democracy has become increasingly difficult due to global problems that are accentuated by economic and social interdependencies. The EU facilitates the handling of these global problems. The European public appreciated this and generally trusts the EU more than national governments, as Eurobarometer enquiries show. Yet, the union is seen as more detached from its citizens than national governments, let alone regional institutions.
This detachment harms the EU’s legitimacy. Governments, including the EU, cannot demand and expect compliance from their citizens if they are not seen as legitimate. Legitimacy is the key to democratic stability and arguably to any political stability. As Rosseau said, ‘The strongest is never strong enough unless he turns might into right and obedience into duty’. Democracies gain legitimacy by governing through consent, which they acquire through the political participation of their citizens. Democracies also derive their legitimacy by encouraging compromise. They also foster long-term stability through elections, which serve as a feedback system that rewards good and stable governance.
Participation in European elections is relatively low, and the bureaucrats in Brussels and Strasbourg are seen as too distant, even inaccessible. The ‘enlightened’ bureaucracy does not equate ‘popular’ democracy, which is why EU policy is not aligned with voters’ preferences, critics say. The complexity of the EU decision-making system is another issue, because it reduces the perceived accountability of its institutions. The more complex a system is, the less transparent it is to its citizens, for whom its activities are difficult to comprehend.
Another issue is that the EU Parliament cannot vote on financial matters, significantly limiting its power. This is problematic for the democratic legitimacy of the EU, since the Parliament is the only directly elected EU body. Insufficient cooperation between national parliaments and the EU Parliament are another important barrier. The same goes for national parties and their ideologically similar European parties. These issues around democratic deficit have long stood in the way of deeper EU integration.
38
SEMIT YN ,0102 ,stsetorP ytiretsuA-itnA keerG
The EU has responded to these complaints by giving more power to the European Parliament through the treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon. Various initiatives, such as the European Citizens’ Initiative, aim to facilitate dialogue between the EU and its citizens. But discontent has grown stronger in the wake of European crises.
The euro crisis started in 2008 and went on for years. Debtor countries had to embark on austerity programs - a set of economic policies implemented to control public sector debt. Cuts to pensions, public services, and education seriously diminished welfare provisions amidst rising unemployment. People engaged in mass protests in Spain, Greece, Ireland, Portugal, and the UK to shows their discontent towards the EU- imposed measures. The financial crisis also damaged the trust between member states: The debtor countries had to sacrifice part of their sovereignty to remain in the euro zone. The creditor countries on the other hand perceived debtor countries as having dodged the terms the EU’s Economic and Monetary Union
48
In the end, the austerity measures reduced debt. They strengthened fiscal discipline and member states continue to run balanced budgets with financial measures to correct unmet objectives. But dissatisfaction grew among those who were most adversely affected by the crisis. Neo-liberalism and globalization accentuated the dissatisfaction. Globalized economies reduce governmentss control over their borders and public affairs, as globalization facilitates foreign competition, migration and transnational productionNeo-liberalism disproportionately benefits the rich. Lower taxes and deregulation accentuate the gap between rich and poor. As a result, sections of society felt excluded by conventional politics.
Brexit is the most evident symptom of this discontent with the EU. You might remember a meme that circulated after Brexit. It joked that What is the EU? was the most popular search term on google amongst Brexiteers. The idea was that Brexiteers did not know what they were voting on, while Remainers knew what they were doing. It illuminates that many citizens are not aware of the benefits of EU membership, because of its complexity.
The lack of understanding of the EU is therefore a significant problem, because institutions can only persist if they provide at least a minimal utility to members (Beaumont 2019). If members do not perceive them as useful for the achievement of their material or ideal goals, institutions are not likely to endure. The EU’s diffuse effects and the tendency of some national politicians to take credit for EU benefits, can give the impression that it is not worth giving up some extent of sovereignty for EU membership.
Brexit is far from being the only manifestation of euroscepticism. Eurosceptic parties have emerged across the union. In this era of ‘post-truth’ politics and increased nationalism, populist parties can easily capitalize on the EU’s visible shortcomings to gain voters. They also conveniently use it as a scapegoat for various national grievances that might not at all be related to EU membership.
58
nooM derF ,9102 ,stsetorP tixerB-itnA
68
How can the EU address democratic deficit, and enhance its legitimacy? The original pro EU narrative was built on memories of bloody episodes of the Europe’s past, namely the first and second world war (Wæver, 1998: 90). The horrors evidenced the need for a union and legitimated the compromises of EU membership. But as memory has begun to fade, there might be need for a new source of legitimation. Beaumont suggests a simple, but powerful warning: Do you really want your country to ‘do a Brexit’? (2019). A real-time technicolour recession is hard to disregard. The Liberal Democrat parliamentarian, Paddy Ashdown, wrote that Brexit “will bewilder future historians as the most remarkable example in modern history of a country committing an act of monumental self-harm while still in full possession of its faculties.” (2017). Brexit is producing a very public spectacle and will likely discourage countries from pursuing the same path.
After Britain’s referendum, Marine Le Pen campaigned for a ‘Frexit’, Geert Wilders for a ‘Nexit’ (Chrisafis, 2016). But they have turned around, as Brexit negotiations have rumbled on. Le Pen’s party has gone silent on Frexit and Italy’s eurosceptic Five Star Movement changed its mind (Hirsh, 2019). Mark Rutte, the Dutch Prime Minister, war-
sretueR ,9102 ,neP eL eniraM tnediserP-etadidnaC hcnerF
5
ned, “If anyone in the Netherlands thinks Nexit is a good idea just look at England and see the enormous damage it does” (Henley, 2019). As The New York Times said, “Britain’s lurch for the door has grown so messy that it has paradoxically discouraged others from contemplating a withdrawal from the EU” (2019). Hirsch, writing in Foreign Policy, pinpointed it best: “Britain’s humiliation has been a powerful lesson for even the most virulent populists and nationalists within the EU, rendering the idea of full exit all but unthinkable.” (2019). And indeed, polling data shows that support for the EU across member states is higher after Brexit (EU Parliament News, 2018). On average, 60% of citizens feel that EU membership is positive, and over two-thirds believe that their country benefits from it (ibid). Survey data and eurosceptic parties’ change of heart thus show that Brexit has acted as dissuasion.
Nevertheless, memory is short in politics. The EU needs to fix its democratic deficit to avoid having loosing a member state - a periodic martyr so to say - every generation. The EU could recommend that member states hold national elections at the same time as elections for the EU Parliament to increase turnout. What is more, elected candidates should be those who get the most votes, rather than the current system where candidates who are at the top the lists win. In first-past-the-post systems, the candidates should be chosen with the consultation of the local party members. Increased cooperation with national parliaments is also crucial to increase the EU’s democratic legitimacy.
Moreover, the EU also needs to respond the authoritarian tendencies of certain member states. The sovereignty of member states is important, but so is the adherence to democratic norms. Every state promised to uphold human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, at its accession, and should be held accountable for failing to do so.
Populist leaders in Hungary and Poland are strengthening their power through the reepression of civil society and weakening of democratic institutions. Poland’s ruling
88
party extended its political control over the Supreme Court, local courts, and a council responsible for judicial appointments. The Serbian Prime Minister sabotaged the opposition and destroyed the remains of the independent media after winning the presidency. This trend is not just an East European problem: the FN in France, the German AfD, the VOX in Spain, the ‘Party for Freedom’ in the Netherlands and Austria also promote xenophobia and challenge democratic values. contemplating a withdrawal from the EU” (2019). Hirsch, writing in Foreign Policy, pinpointed it best: “Britain’s humiliation has been a powerful lesson for even the most virulent populists and nationalists within the EU, rendering the idea of full exit all but unthinkable.” (2019). And indeed, polling data shows that support for the EU across member states is higher after Brexit (EU Parliament News, 2018). On average, 60% of citizens feel that EU membership is positive, and over two-thirds believe that their country benefits from it (ibid). Survey data and eurosceptic parties’ change of heart thus show that Brexit has acted as dissuasion.
Populism is difficult to define because it regroups a wide range of claims and demands. British populist leaders for example are divided between demands for more spending and state protection, while other wish for a 'Singapore on Thames' with less protection that would benefit hedge-fund bosses. Most populist parties are not anti-democratic and they are not all against EU membership. Both populism and democracy are in favor of popular sovereignty and majority rule. Some even argue that populism acts as a corrective for democracy by giving a voice to people who are excluded from conventional politics. But populism tends to challenge liberal values that are important for democracy. It often sees ‘the people’ as one homogenous entity. Not only does this ignore minority interests, it dangerously defies the democratic electoral process by assuming that only one group has legitimate claims. This denies legitimacy to political opponents, by pitting ‘the real, ordinary people’ against others who are not seen as representing the legitimate interests of ‘the people’. The rise of populism across Europe is therefore a serious problem, not only for the EU, but for all countries in Europe that wish to remain democratic.
98
CBB ,9102 ,nabrO rotkiV retsiniM emirP nairagnuH
Nevertheless, the pandemic has underlined the preciousness of free movement in the EU, and the importance of academics, bureaucrats and experts. The image of populist leaders has been damaged by their inadequate handling of the pandemic. Punchy slogans and fake news will not defeat this invisible enemy. Instead, there is almost a new found appreciation for expertise, as it becomes clear that science and international cooperation are the only ways to eliminate Covid-19.
The pandemic has also highlighted the benefits of membership to the EU by taking away freedoms that we considered as given. Lockdowns and border closures for instance have shown how precious the Schengen space is. Moreover, the EU is attempting to combine efforts to tackle the pandemic. Its most significant response to the pandemic is the establishment of a €500 billion fund. It was suggested by Merkel and Macron and drafted with the input of the other member states. EU countries and sectors that are most affected by the crisis will be able to get direct grants from the
09
Commission. This is a significant step to reduce debt, manage the effects of the pandemic, and hopefully highlight the value of European cooperation. Solidarity, economic support and freedom of movement are some of the many benefits of EU membership, and they are essential to tackle global problems.
Overall, a disenchantment with the EU has been accompanied by a decline in political participation and the rise of populist and anti-establishment parties. Yet, surveys by the Eurobarometer show that public support for the EU has increased after Brexit, and
that trust in the EU is generally higher than in national governments. It remains important to improve the link between EU institutions and European citizens to allow the latter to gain a better understanding of the benefits of EU membership. Reforms to the Parliament, and changes to the timing of elections and cooperation between national and European parties would increase the EU’s democratic legitimacy. While it is hard work, especially in a system uniting twenty-seven countries, democracy ‒ in the EU and beyond ‒ is worth fighting for.
FIN.
Comments