Euro-sceptics love to point to declining voter turnouts in European Elections as evidence of the undemocratic nature of the whole European project. And of course they have a point: It would be so much better if there was a much higher degree of enthusiasm and turnout for the European Parliamentary elections.
But does the low turnout necessarily mean that the EU is an undemocratic elite project, that voters are antagonistic or couldn’t care less, and that therefore the whole project should somehow be abandoned - or better still, from their point of view - that the EU should be turned over to Euro-sceptics to run properly?
I want to present a somewhat contrary thesis. Firstly that the EU does not rely just on the European parliament for it’s democratic legitimacy, but on 27 democratically elected member Governments. Secondly, that the European Parliament dimension of the EU is only emerging, and that it will take time for it’s increased powers and influence to seem relevant to voters. And thirdly, and perhaps most controversially of all, that people often only vote when they are angry or discontented with something, and that for many not voting doesn’t mean a resounding NO to the European Project, but rather - carry on as before - I don’t see any great need to change things from what they are.
Please allow me to elaborate on this last thesis.
Voting in the European Parliament elections has never been regarded as a patriotic or (as in some countries) a legal duty. It is additional to voting in local and national elections which are, and have always been seen to be, the primary indicators of personal and community identity and means of expressing approval or discontent with the political powers that be.
In this context the EU has been largely seen to be technocratic and impersonal - doing the sort of unglamorous administrative chores which you hope somebody is doing conscientiously, but which no one who is not a political junky is going to get too excited about. And it is absolutely not about the sort of highly charged and personalised election battle we saw in the last US Presidential election - which was about personality, race, war and peace, cultural identity, abortion and gay marriage, and the future of the USA as an economic, political and military superpower.
But is this altogether a bad thing? Would an EU riven by question of war, religious identity, competing nationalisms, communist or fascist ideologies, and world domination be necessarily a better place? Do we want a politics dominated by 30 second TV commercials, “swift boat” type black propaganda, “special interests” and funded by global multi-national companies?
There is something to be said for being boring. For having almost faceless bureaucrats make decisions based on hard evidence and scientific criteria rather than popular emotion, for having elected Parliamentarians and Heads of Government decide on who should be the next president of the European Commission.
Sure, it isn’t as exciting as the last US Presidential elections. Turnout will be lower. But so are the stakes for ordinary EU citizens like ourselves. We still have our national and local Governments taking most of the decisions on the important issues of security, finance and employment on our behalf. And that is as it should be. But let us not compare apples with oranges. There is no comparison between the powers and competencies of the European Parliament and the US Presidency, or indeed the US Congress.
So yes, please go out and vote, if only to reaffirm the commitment made by our political forebears to build a Europe based on cooperation and diplomacy rather than war, holocaust, pillage and plunder. But we don’t have to fight that battle every time we go to the polls. No one of any real importance is talking about going back to the Cold War or World War scenarios. So it is understandable that many people should feel apathetic about voting for something they have voted for many times since the end of the Second World War.
And yes, by all means vote for Eurosceptics or other parties that want to radically change the EU if you are unhappy with how the EU is being run. But the corollary of that isn’t true: It doesn’t mean that the many people who don’t vote necessarilly agree with you that the EU must be radically changed. For many it might well mean the opposite: that they are broadly happy with how the EU is operating and don’t see any great need to become personally involved in changing its direction. Not voting isn’t necessarily a vote for the status quo, but neither is it necessarilly a rejection of all the EU now stands for.
(6 votes, average: 4.33 out of 5)
Loading ...
Very amusing, Frank. What will you come with next?
When not voting doesn’t mean NO is a variant the logic of those who put a treaty, say, before an EU electorate, which then rejects it. But instead of accepting that result, the EU ignores the NO and asks the people to vote again. It should not come as a big surprise then if people turn their backs on this farce, because whether you vote or you don’t vote it does not count or matter. Instead of regarding disgust and apathy as an indictment of the whole system, however, defenders of the system always finds a way to see the upside. No doubt, when the turnout drops below 30 percent in 2014, some will see this as proof that the EU is working so well that voting can be dropped entirely in 2019. Not voting at all will then seen as a YES vote by 100 percent of the electorate!
There’s a bit of “gold star inflation” going on with TH!NK at the moment. With most posts getting 4-5 stars, it’s become difficult to tell when someone genuinely likes a post. I would have given this six stars if I could.
It’s exactly what I was talking about in my last post. You picked up on something Eamonn wrote, and put forward a counter-argument. And then we have a response from Eamonn, which is much appreciated (and also a reason I’m glad TH!NK includes eurosceptic bloggers!)
Eamonn - by your logic, we should take offence at the fact that George W. Bush was elected President and then, half-way through his presidency, the Federal Government (peh!) had the nerve to hold a second election! He’s already been elected! Why would you bother voting again?
There’s nothing wrong with having another vote on the same issue. I’m saying this as someone who broadly speaking supports a lot of what you said - I do think a declining turnout is a bad sign, and not holding referendums in the first place was undemocratic. However, the argument that there should never be more than one referendum on a single issue holds no water at all.
But Frank does make a very good point. Sometimes voter apathy just means voters aren’t interested. If all of Europe hated the EU, then why aren’t they all turning out and voting overwhelmingly for Eurosceptic parties? As it is, if a minority of people vote then it looks like a minority (albeit an active minority) are all that care about leaving the EU.
It’s not a point that can be dismissed easily.
Hi Eamonn, thanks for the response. This post started as a comment on your post and then grew so long I had to post it as a separate post. But thanks for the inspiration anyway!
Firstly, if you include the massive Spanish yes vote in favour of the constitution, then a majority of EU citizens who had the opportunity actually voted in favour of the Constitutional treaty - and that holds true even if you include the Irish No vote on Lisbon. The problem here is not that a majority of EU citizens don’t approve of e.g. the Constitutional Treaty, but that a majority in any one state out of 27 can block it.
Secondly, Ireland will support Lisbon by a 2:1 margin when all the shibboleths raised by the NO campaign are dealt with. Will you then accept the democratic will of the Irish people? Of course not. Eurosceptics support democracy only when it suits them, and then only selectively in a form that suits their argument.
Finally, what’s wrong with politicians learning from their mistakes? I too opposed the ending of the one Commissioner per member country rule - as enshrined in the Nice Treaty. You should rejoice that Governments have responded to popular concern and rejected that proposal. That IS democracy in action. But only, of course, if you are genuinely concerned with true democracy.
It is noteworthy that most of the Euro-sceptic fringe parties also have close ties to neo-Fascist movements whose main concern is to destroy both the EU and/or democracy and return to the nations at war paradigm that we had before the EU.
Many thanks, but no thanks.
No, it certainly DOESN’T mean that “the whole project should somehow be abandoned” but yes, all the things you mention are a serious warning sign and we should not try to minimise the problem. The EU is not, currently, taking the people with it. Something HAS to be done.
Alas, I have no idea what! Compulsory voting and a massive information campaign? Assorted referenda on different topics? Eurovision style voting?!
QUOTE: “Ireland will support Lisbon by a 2:1 margin when all the shibboleths raised by the NO campaign are dealt with. Will you then accept the democratic will of the Irish people?” UNQUOTE
Would you accept an EU country running a nation election - not liking the result - ignoring the result - and running the election again?
It is possible that the British will get a referendum on the day that the Irish get one (if the UK government collapses; between now and October). Will you accept that UK result if it’s a “No”? Lisbon is not yet a done deal.
Even if it is sneaked through - it still has to be implemented despite the legitimacy gap of 25 or 26 countries not having had a referendum on the matter (except perhaps the French and Dutch, of course, and we know what they said). When (if) Lisbon is implemented expect the reputation of the EU to dive even further.
Hi, Jan-Eric!
“Would you accept an EU country running a nation election - not liking the result - ignoring the result - and running the election again?”
I think you’ve got it wrong. Has the EU REALLY ignored the result of the Irish referendum? The Lisbon treaty is not in effect because of the Irish “No.” In other worlds, the EU has not ignored the results of the Irish referendum.
Your argument here seems to be that once a referendum is held on an issue, another referendum can never be held. That’s not democracy. Even if I was strongly anti-Lisbon, I wouldn’t accept that as democracy.
The only thing about the “you can only have one referendum” argument which has any traction is that there hasn’t been enough time between the Irish “no” and the next referendum (if it is held in the Autumn). Four years would be a better space to evaluate things.
But the Irish economy is going into meltdown. These are extraordinary times.
If the Irish vote “yes” in the next referendum, then that will be democracy. Sometimes it does things you don’t agree with. But it will be democracy.
One more thing: Despite the fact that I think “there can be only one referendum” is useless as an argument, I actually agree with you that there should have been more referendums.
The EU is going to have to start trusting its people. It needs that legitimacy.
Yes, I, too, will miss “Th!nk About It” because it is this kind of intelligent, civil debate that suggests Europe can, indeed, generate passion about politics. The pity is that most Europeans do not share our interest in the subject. Now, if some of those MEPs were to send dollops of cash our way, most of us here would be very willing to blog non-stop about the EU, and out of this acorn an oak would surely grow. I hope that we can keep the conversation going between Sunday and the next EP polling day in 2014.
Hehe, why do I get the feeling that you may not be entirely convinced?
Would you be interested in blogging with TH!NK ABOUT IT if it continued after the elections?
Hi Jan-Eric,
You may not be aware of the Irish tradition of holding referenda on various topics - divorce, abortion, citizenship, Northern Ireland, prohibition of death penalty, and various EU Treaties. There have been 27 in all and some have been on the same or similar topics - including Divorce and the Nice Treaty which were voted on twice. Basically its up to the Government of the day to decide whether to hold a referendum, provided the Irish parliament ratifies their decision. Often it is because an Irish Court or the Attorney General has queried the constitutionality of a law or Treaty the Government deems desirable. It is then up to the people to decide. And just like an election, the people can make a different decision the next time the same or a similar question is put to them.
So yes, holding a referendum can be like an election, and the result is binding on the Government. But just like an election, the result can be different the next time an election or referendum is held. Nothing is for ever. people change their minds. That is their right and it is the essence of democracy to allow them to do so.
Josef suggests that it might be wise to allow 4 years to pass before a referendum on the same topic can be held. There is currently no provision in the Irish constitution which prevents a referendum being held every day of the week if the Irish Government and Parliament so decide.
But whist there is no time limit on whether or how often an issue may be put to the electorate by way of referendum, there is a constitutional requirement that an election be held within 5 years of the previous one. So in this case the Constitution actual mandates that the same question (who do you want to represent you?) is put to the people on a regular basis.
So putting the same question by way of a referendum a second time is no big deal at all. It’s what democracy is all about.
Hi Andy G,
I agree that the EU is not currently enthusing people or carrying them with it. The problem, as I see it, is that defining democracy to mean that every one of 27 Member states must approve a proposition by referendum is setting the bar for change too high.
A majority of 110,000 people in Ireland stopped the EU in its tracks. The EU is ossifying because it cannot respond to changed circumstances and global crises like the financial crisis in a dynamic enough way.
So the solution from my point of view - which goes beyond anything contained in Lisbon - would be that changes have to be approved by (say) 75% of the member states or 60% of the people voting across the EU before they can become law.
These are still difficult hurdles to clear, but a lot easier than the 100% approval by all member states that is currently required.
So yes, I do think the EU elite and the people have lost faith and touch with each other, but only because the current requirement for 100% agreement is unreasonably (and impractically) high.
By all means have more referenda, but let them be on a Pan-European basis. But unfortunately any such change is not contained in Lisbon and would have to be unanimously approved!
And then there is the question why a small country like Malta would give up its current right of Veto - especially as it would be swamped by a pan-European vote. That is why I think the 75% of member states is also an important safeguard for the rights of smaller states. Otherwise there would be no chance of them agreeing to a move toward pan-EU referenda.
Assuming further EU integration goes ahead I can see the development of separatist movements springing up; just as there are now within states - in Spain, UK, Italy, Russia, China etc.
Hi, Jose,
Erm… if people aren’t motivated enough to vote, do you really think they’ll be motivated enough to take up arms?
Me thinks not.