Christine Pütz: Presently, the EU is not only undergoing a crisis of trust but also a crisis of democracy. How will it be possible to make the EU more democratic?
Gerald Häfner: The main problem is that we tend to focus on institutions, putting the citizens last. They are perceived as nothing but spectators. The institutions declare what they have decided – and we are surprised that citizens are less than happy with that. To achieve democracy, people have to be put front and centre. The decisive question is: How can it be brought about that people view Europe as their own, personal issue, that they are convinced: Europe – that’s us!
This, I believe, will only be possible once we finally begin to have major debates about Europe’s future development – once people get the impression that such debates are open, that is, that they have a say, that their voices are being heard and do make a difference. To achieve this, the people have to be empowered to participate in fundamental decisions – decisions that are then being acted upon.
First, we will need an improved electoral law, second, sensible and effective mechanisms for citizens’ participation, and third, European referenda concerning European issues and major fundamental decisions.
Right now, the problem is that citizens will only learn about important European decisions via the media, and that there are no effective ways for them to influence such decisions. Of course, such decisions are subsequently passed into law by the national parliaments that have been elected by the citizens – and this works. However, the citizens have no idea about how they may be able to influence European policies effectively.
As far as participative rights are concerned, we have already made some progress. Over a decade ago, the citizens initiative “Mehr Demokratie” (More Democracy), that I founded and whose chairman I am, has, in association with “Democracy International,” developed the idea of a “European Citizens’ Initiative.” Together we succeeded in having this idea being taken up by the Convention on the Future of Europe – and thus it became part of the Lisbon Treaty. Now, as a Euro MP, I was able to make sure that this precept is being implemented in a way that is citizen-centred. Since April 2012, EU citizens are able to present proposals, suggestions, etc. to the European Commission. This is something that will further the growth of common European debates and discourses. For the first time, citizens do have the means to address the institutions in Brussels directly.
Nevertheless, further steps are needed. Above all, there will have to be referenda, as this is the only way in which citizens will be able to experience that they actually do have a say on fundamental European issues.
For citizens to be able to participate in fundamental decisions and controversial debates they will have to be aware of the positions of the political parties they are voting for. This will only be the case once there are European election campaigns with European policy alternatives. How can this be achieved?
The present state of things is a rather sorry affair. In almost all countries EU election campaigns are run solely by national parties with exclusively national agendas. Most of the time, campaigning has nothing to do with the issues at stake, and not infrequently political parties are, above all, interested in the campaign finance contributions they will be receiving from the EU. There is little debate on European issues, as political parties are using the campaigns mainly to promote their national agendas. This will not change through appeals or similar efforts. What we need, I believe, are European elections in a different format – one that is at once more European and more democratic.
One element of such a reform – something presently under discussion in the European Parliament – is a Europe-wide ballot, meaning parties would be required not only to present a national list of candidates but also a European list with European candidates. Under this system, each citizen would cast two votes, one for a national candidate, one for a candidate on a European list. The result would be to make the elections a considerably more European affair, for one thing because such a system would force the parties to do something only the Greens are doing already – to organise on a European level, to have shared party programmes, shared agendas, shared elections platforms (or, at least, elements thereof). With the exception of the Green parties this is presently not the case among European party alliances. The result would be that we get debates that are more European in character, as European issues and European candidates would be pushed into the foreground. The citizens would thus be able to experience greater choice, that is, for example, they could not only cast their vote for a German candidate, they could also vote for a candidate from, let’s say, Luxemburg, Spain, Poland, or Sweden. The consequence of this would be that citizens would develop a more European perspective and make decisions that are more European in character.
What would the consequences be, if European ballots, European election campaigns, and European party programmes were a reality? The election platforms would contain tenets the parties in question promise to implement if they gain a parliamentary majority. Will this be possible with the present form of EU parliamentarianism, or is there need for reform, for greater parliamentary powers?
I would like to answer this in three stages:
The first step concerning electoral law wouldn’t change the role of the EU Parliament, although it would boost the European character of the parliament and its debates. Currently, those Euro MPs that participate in debates will solely address national electorates and, as a consequence, many debates are purely national in character. Once the people who elected me are not just citizens from my country but citizens from all over Europe my mandate will change – and so will my frame of reference. That is one thing. The other is that election platforms, ballots, and the whole process of communication and campaigning will be much more European. Still, I believe, in order to achieve a truly European democracy, more needs to be done.
A second step would be that, in future, party alliances would nominate candidates for President of the European Commission, meaning the party that wins the election will name the President. This would mean that, other than today, the President would no longer be selected by the national heads of government – in a process that is all but transparent. Today, one of the main criteria for national governments seems to be to have a President of the Commission who’s at their beck and call. Under the future system, this would change and the President would be a personality already known to EU citizens and someone who has a popular mandate. Thus the citizens would have a say concerning who runs the Commission, meaning, who runs Europe. This will strengthen the European character of the EU’s citizenship, it will increase the say citizens have, and it will also change somewhat the relationship between EU institutions. My idea is that the President of the European Commission as well as all the EU Commissioners should be elected by parliament.
The third, long-term step is that the parliament and we parliamentarians have to get away from pure co-decision procedures. Instead we should clarify what issues should be decided upon at which level. I think, in all areas of policy where the EU has law-making powers the final decision should be with the parliament. In practice, this would mean that on all such issues where we have an incontrovertible European mandate the parliament would have the right to introduce laws as well as to make the final decision on such motions. This would lead to a fundamental change of our role as MEPs. Right now, we can only put in our two cents. That’s not bad, but it is not enough. Usually our decision is not final – we do have to strike a compromise with the Commission and Council. The result is constant deal making – something only too noticeable in the laws that are being passed. Maybe my approach is very German here, but when viewed in terms of simplicity, intelligibility, clarity of standards, and user-friendliness current laws are frequently a nightmare because they are such mongrel documents – the results of countless compromises between Council, Commission, and Parliament.
In addition, political responsibility will become obscured and opaque for citizens. This can be amended once the competencies become clearer; the aim would be to have a stronger European Parliament and consequently, at least in part, less competencies with the Council and, in some areas, the Commission.
Up until now we’ve just looked at the supply side of things, that is, how to reform political parties and parliament. But what about the demand side? What about the electorate? What are the preconditions for them to view themselves as EU citizens?
If you look at movements such as Occupy and others, you will notice how worried people are about what is happening in the financial markets, for example. And they have grasped, a long time ago, that this is something beyond the scope of national governments. The same is true for measures against climate change, for saving the fish stocks in our oceans, for many environmental policies that aim to save the planet. This is something people understand – and consequently they will think and act internationally.
What they do not know is how to intervene effectively on such levels. That is why it comes to such awkward, symbolic protests as camping in front of the stock exchange. That’s all right, but it’s insufficient. The stock markets continue working in the same way as before – unless politics intervenes and defines some clear rules and boundaries for what is acceptable at the casino tables.
In this area, I think, Europe has a clear mission to fulfil: It will finally have to develop and implement an economic model that combines individual freedom with social responsibility, one that can be exemplary the world over. Once we begin to talk about such matters, once certain question are at the centre of election campaigns such as: What should be Europe’s economic model? Or: How to deal with growing social inequality? How to reconcile the interests of future generations with our wish to live a good life? – once such fundamental issues are at the centre of our political debates, and not sidelined as they are today, once people notice that politics is really about essential questions, they will show greater enthusiasm and will get involved with all their heart and soul.
The sad thing is, that today people get the impression that those major questions are not at stake, are not being openly talked about. Consequently, they do not know how to address them, as, in this area, politics has nothing to offer. National governments can do little – on many issues they are not in charge anymore. On a European level, on the other hand, the people did understandably not had the experience that the votes they cast in Euro elections make much of a difference concerning fundamental EU policies, as decisions are usually made by the Council, that is, by the executive, and parliament is only presented with readymade results – as was the case with the European Fiscal Compact or the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) and European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF).
Such proceedings are fatal for democracy. Democracy means that all power comes from the people; democracy means to participate in the development of ideas; democracy means truly open debate. This is not the case. Today, once the heads of state and government want something, everyone is only just too happy, if there’s at least some sort of a consensus. After that, criticism is out of bounds as this “would endanger Europe.” Once any kind of decision has been reached the motto is: Press on regardless! This is fatal as it means that Europe and major European questions are put beyond debate. Today, there is not a single more important subject of debate than European policies. The people will have to experience that politics is about things of importance – and that they have a say, that they are not just powerless underlings. I believe we will have to stop taking a paternalistic attitude towards our citizens. They need to have the ability to discuss and shape those issues that are closest to them – and in such a way that enables them to recognise that their actions can make a tangible difference.
Europe is not “those in Brussels”; Europe is all of us!
--
Gerald Häfner was interviewed by Christine Pütz, head of the EU desk at the Heinrich Böll Foundation.
Translated from the German by Bernd Herrmann.