With less than two months before the big day, the Europarliament vote is starting to get on the news in the member states, as well as international broadcast channels that cover the entire continent. The amount of effort put into making the wider population care about European institutions is extremely commendable, and TAI is only a small part of it. Are they making much headway though?
Julien Frisch writes about the EP’s public relations agency commending the work he’s done. His blog is “one of the most interesting throughout Europe”. Now, I have tremendous respect for the work Julien does, but let’s be honest: he’s not exactly Jon Stewart. That’s not to fault him - he’s doing an excellent job with a fundamentally boring subject matter and an overwhelmingly apathetic audience.
The most exciting thing about this entire campaign has been Libertas - an amalgamation of marginal opposition parties that doesn’t even know what it’s supposed to be representing. In terms of my country, they originally claimed the support of an MP from the coalition’s dominant party and then assimilated the tepid ruins of a faction that has never managed to get itself elected to anything at all. (Best line from the Wiki article: It was not stated whether Libertas Estonia was sanctioned by Libertas.eu, or even if Libertas.eu knew of its existence.) All the insiders and observers were stirred into activity by a phenomenon that was counter-constructive by its very nature. Not that Libertas is very interesting - it’s just somewhat less boring than the rest of it.
There’s been talk of a new EC chairman, and the Lisbon Treaty would introduce a sort of permanent figurehead that, if you squint hard enough, could be mistaken for a President of Europe. And suddenly everyone is fascinated by the Rasmussen guy (not to be confused with the other Rasmussen, or indeed the other, other Rasmussen). Why? Because it’s a semi-credible alternative to Barroso. Hey, listen: Ruth Spencer and a lot of other people have been inspired by Barack Obama’s grassroots/online campaigning successes, and have been trying to carry those over to the EP elections - but that only works if you show people change they can believe in. If you’re just campaigning against something - be it bureacracy or Barroso - you will get a repeat of the 2004 US elections, where a bunch of folks got really excited about voting someone out, and failed miserably.
I’ve had discussions with other bloggers here about the EU’s democratic deficit, and whether we should really be that worried about the state of the EU if its citizens don’t seem to be bothered. Let’s not forget that, ironically, the origins of the EU are decidedly un-democratic. The unification of Europe was dreamed up by a tiny circle of national leaders; its intention was to integrate the continent’s economic infrastructure to such an extent that a war between European nations would be impossible (because any aggression against a neighbour would result in the destruction of some factory or gas pipe that your own country desperately needs). I could bring up the old cliche about that one guy who was elected democratically, but really, Europeans have been beating each other senseless for centuries. So the unification of Europe that currently exists in the form of the EU is, in origin, a ploy by the elite to subdue the instinct of the masses. (A little research shows that for a primarily economic institution, the EU has paid a hell of a lot of attention to its armed forces!)
Of course, the conspiracy in question is unassailably benevolent. I, for one, welcome our new Brussels-based overlords! For over sixty years, the continent has been free of outright conflict (with the exception of the Balkans, but we didn’t start that fire, and while the situation isn’t solved, at least they’re not actively shooting at each other).
So is the entire effort of the EU’s public relations machine wasted? Absolutely not. I said that apathy is acceptable in the presence of opportunity. By making an active effort to include its citizens, get them to participate, get them to care, the conspiracy redeems itself. The system makes a tremendous effort to introduce the maximum possible amount of democracy and participation into a structure that is designed from the ground up to stop an eventuality that is actually quite likely to have wide popular support. This is at least one big part of why the EU bureaucracy feels so monolithic and impenetrable, and why barely a third of EU citizens will come to the polls in June.
The EP elections do matter, though. There is just the one issue where your opinion doesn’t count. On all other matters, vote and be heard: it might not look that way, but I assure you, the EU is listening.
(35 votes, average: 3.11 out of 5)
Loading ...
I am not even Stephen Colbert
(This is why I was quoting S & F and portraying the misinterpretation of my “importance”).
You’re almost there, Julien - you just need to work on your timing!
@Andrei
Is the opportunity to vote really enough, though? Isn’t sheer complexity also a barrier to democracy?
The institutional framework of the EU is so bloody complicated it takes a university degree to understand the decision-making process.
Without some sort of reform, the EU will remain too complicated to be democratic. But, at the same time, it cannot reform undemocratically by sneaking a new constitution through the national parliaments.
The EU is stuck.
So what’s the solution? To just accept the status quo and give up on closing the democratic deficit? To create a two-speed Europe, with some countries integrating faster than others? To spend huge sums of money on an advertising campaign that may or may not work?
Not sure. Always interesting to hear other people’s views, though.
Andrei,
In your well written post you argue that European integration (the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Economic Community) was built by elites without regard for democracy.
In a way you are right, but one could modify the position by saying that foreign policy and diplomacy were the areas more or less outside parliamentary scrutiny ‘everywhere’, and still are to a degree.
Economic integration was not seen as real politics either, as long as trading barriers were lowered by dull common stadards.
But the more the policy areas have expanded, and the more the EU has turned into a political union, the less legitimate ‘technocratic’ and inergovernmental rule has become.
At the same time citizens have generally become better educated and more conscious of the outside world (although kowledge about the EU seems to be poor, compared with the complexity).
Despite elements of democratic rule (directly elected European Parliament with growing powers), the instittional set-up of the EU has become increasingly obsolete.
Therefore, if your headline was correct with regard to the beginnings, the opposite is now the case.
This does not necessarily mean that radical change is imminent. Many systems can continue for ages while being bankrupt, ethically, politically or otherwise. But sooner or later the features have to be refitted.
Josef:
“Isn’t sheer complexity also a barrier to democracy?”
Depends on the circumstances, and in the case of the EU, it’s manageable. Certainly more transparency would be great, I won’t dispute that for a second. But complexity has the benefit of ensuring that the most influence is exerted by those with the most motivation. Paradoxically, while the general population is apathetic, the EU’s watchmen are highly intelligent and genuinely passionate people. There was a Rush Limbaugh long before there was a Barack Obama.
“But, at the same time, it cannot reform undemocratically by sneaking a new constitution through the national parliaments.”
You think it’s tough explaining to people why they should vote for the EP? Try explaining to the general population what the Lisbon treaty is all about. (Btw, I tried reading its text. My day job is as a technical writer and I have worked as a translator of bureaucratic paperwork, but I was still stumped.)
The solution for a democratic EU and a Constitution that can be adopted by universal popular vote is European national unity. For that to happen, you need a European nation, a European identity that citizens would embrace with a significant percentage of the dedication they give to their own nationalities today. The EU is moving in that direction, although I wonder if I will get to vote for a true President of Europe in my lifetime.
While it’s doing that, the EU also needs to keep growing richer.
Ralf - I honestly believe that a system, if it is built on humanitarian and democratic principles, can organically change itself for the better. A good testimony to this is the fact that some of the world’s best nations in terms of human rights and human development are constitutional monarchies.
I do agree that features occasionally become obsolete and need to be retired. Eventually I would love to see a thoroughly democratic Europe. But the EU’s current apathy-by-design still serves a purpose.
A very interesting post.
One point I disagree with: that the masses are intinctively pro-war. I’d say it’s more that the elites have used war to advance whatever was defined as the national interest of their respective countries at the time. The EU ties the elites in a permanent political structure through which they work together. Basically turning war as politics by other means into war being a complete failure of politics. If there’s war, then by definition the elites have failed/shown themselves to be unable to come up with the goods.
But I’m probably being petty - in either case the masses are encouraged to fight.
Interesting stuff, again Andrei. Although I think for the masses to take up arms a specific situation of duress is needed.. Speaking of “didn’t start the fire”, you should like this too: http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1907543
Especially appropriate seeing a couple of trolls posting here.. XD
Primarily @ Eurocentric:
If you use the terms “elite” and “the masses” don’t you kind of create a self-fulfilling prophesy there?
There are enough old nation-based wrongs still festering in the everyman’s soul nowadays. Lithuania and Poland don’t get along (I mean, they do in a political “elite” sense but other than the politics the Polish still feel that they should have the Vilnius area and Lithuanians respond with “yeah, well, if not for Lithuania a thousand years ago, there would BE no Poland, you’d just be a part of Ukraine”), Romania and Hungary still have (hypothetical) disputes over territory, the Dutch still ask the Germans “where’s my grandfather’s bike?” the Irish still resent the English…
There’s also a (Western) European issue of immigrants who have brought their own culture to the mix that doesn’t always combine that well with the already existing culture - why should a second generation French teenager (parents came from Algeria) care about Louis XIII, Richelieu and the Musketeers?
and Lithuanians respond with “yeah, well, if not for Lithuania a thousand years ago, there would BE no Poland, you’d just be a part of Ukraine”
…whereas, of course, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was mostly what is now Belarus, and modern Lithuania was then known as Jemaitia… um, I’m not helping, am I?
hehe, no and yes: that is exactly why the EU is as it is. Unlike the Russian Federation, United States and, to a much lesser extent nowaday’s Germany,to name a few, Europe has not been conquered/dominated by one single outside force while squashing out the arleady existing (political) culture since… the Romans, I guess. We’re all pretty much aborigines here. If you don’t look too far into the past
And being the natives, obviously every single nationality/group feels that they have a full right to say how things should be done… there being 27 of such groups and expanding, and there being all the old ticks that you inevitably get when inhabiting the same space long enough.
I have probably made too clear a distinction between the elites and the masses, when it is a lot more blurry. (And I admit the terms themselves are too narrow - they don’t show the diversity within them and the different links and influences with each other - it just cuts them off and puts them in separate boxes, which is wrong). I should have said that I don’t believe that the “masses” are always peaceful either.
That said, over the last five hundred years that we’ve been killing each other, power has been more concentrated than it is today on a national level, while less concentrated on a European level.
I suppose I was making (or trying to make) a very theoretical point that it’s the political structures we inhabit that often lead to the results we see, rather than some supposed “natural” quality of the masses (or individuals).
Which bit was the self-fulfilling prophesy, specifically? Or what exactly do you mean?
Sorry, this is going way off topic.
Don’t worry - you’re just th!nking about it.
the part that in my brain went from
“the elites have used war to advance whatever was defined as the national interest of their respective countries at the time.” and “the masses are encouraged to fight”
to something like: “the elites manipulate the masses who in general don’t want to make war at all”.
And if you put it like that then of course it’s true now and will be true in the future - there are always war/hatemongers in any society and in some cases they belong to or wriggle their way into “the elite”. But that does not mean that they do not come from “the masses” and therefore represent at least a part of those masses… Or that they do not appeal to a part of the masses, otherwise no-one would follow them and oratory and demagougery be damned
I think that now that you’ve expanded your thought process I agree with you a lot more though. sorry for jumping the gun there…
um my point was: if elites make the masses go to war then it’s not because they’re the elites (nowadays, not in the times of absolutism) but because they speak to a critical mass of the masses or they are a critical mass of the masses.
and that was supposed to counter your argument of “the elites manipulate the masses” which I seem to have constructed in my brain
@ Doris
You’re right. I’d just add that the political structure then favoured that, whereas the political structure of the EU doesn’t.
Sorry I wasn’t detailed/clear enough - my comment did seem very marxist that way.
Libertas? Heem, the crowd that got Lisbon turned down in Ireland. The Irish government really screwed up on that one.
As regards the EU having an armed force. I think it’s a positive thing. I would rather have the EU with an armed force, sort of like a European UN (but that doesn’t have an impotent “security” council), one that would counter the power of the US, NATO and France on the EU’s doorstep. It’s about time that the EU take control of conflicts and humanitarian issues that are happen in it’s own house, rather than having the US bomb the hell out of whatever region they see if - remember the Balkans.
And besides, the EU (EC/ECSC etc.) was never just about economics. Economic integration was just a tool to interlock the production capabilities of France and German so they wouldn’t go beat the bejayses out of each other again and drag the rest of Europe and the world in on the conflict. Economic integration has always taken a backseat to political and social integration.
I have a qustion. Im doing a project in Social Studies, and im looking up what people think about the E.U structure. Could anyone help or give me any helping info if you could that would be great. thanks
[...] what is the alternative, exactly? When the double majority of the population is against something, enough to go and vote, then is it really the best course of action to condemn the un-European, discriminating bastards? [...]