Entangled Alliances

In an earlier post on language I alluded to the idea of a European “demos”, that elusive common sense of European identity and political community which would seem to be the key to any chance of “ever closer union”.  The disconnect between European citizens and their governing institutions is certainly stark.  Have you talked to anyone lately who’s getting excited about the upcoming elections to the European Parliament?  Can anyone doubt that the election of the American president was a much more exciting prospect for an overwhelming majority of Europeans than the selection of a new president of the EU Commission?  And what of the question of identity?  A resident of Manchester would probably describe him or herself as British, English, Northern and Mancunian before considering, if at all, that he or she might be European.

photo credit: Albertane

Some argue that it’s impossible to achieve a common political identity across 27 member states, pointing to different political traditions, language barriers and the enduring pride of the nation-state.  The possibility of “demos” and the very logic of supra-national representation was, for example, attacked by Czech President Vaclav Klaus in the European Parliament last month.  The attitude of Klaus, whose country holds the rotating presidency of the EU Council (bring on Sweden), is indicative of a habit of  unproductive naysaying.  It slams the European project without offering solutions and delights only those with preconceived Eurosceptic attitudes.

Without indulging in the media-fostered image of phantom overlords plotting away in Eurospeak in their Brussels hideaways, then, I fully admit the need for a greater sense of relevance for the EU and the importance of attempts to foster “Europeanness”.  Indeed, in response to Klaus’s challenge, the task of pro-Europeans is to identify measures that could be taken to improve the extent to which Europeans identify with their policy makers and planners.  Below the fold, I discuss some of these ideas.

For a start, most people will vote in June’s European elections based on national political concerns (actually, most people won’t vote at all, but let’s worry about those who will for now).  In Britain, for example, June’s vote will largely be a protest vote against Gordon Brown, just as the 2004 vote was used to give Tony Blair a kick in the teeth with the assumption that it didn’t really matter.  This, of course, only devalues the democratic worth of the European Parliament, and because most Britons don’t know or care what it does, they also aren’t particularly bothered whether the PES or EPP come out as the largest party.

In order to take elections to the European Parliament seriously, citizens need to see its effects on their everyday lives.  The crux of the issue here is the complexity of EU institutions and the democratic deficit at the heart of power.  Paradoxically, of course, the Lisbon Treaty which would have extended parliamentary powers was rejected by the Irish and by British (and other) public opinion over fears of unaccountability.  A post by Jon Worth emphasises this point about relevance, and highlights the campaign to have the parties within the European Parliament propose the President of the Commission.  At least that would show that European elections had some tangible impact.  He  points to the “Anybody but Barroso” campaign as a vehicle.  By the same token, I think that having an EU Commission President with whom people can identify as a leader would do a lot of good (again, of course, we’re talking about the what would have beens of the Lisbon Treaty).  Given this, I’m not sure I subscribe to the idea of anybody but Barroso – having an established political figure take on the role, rather than some bureaucratic compromise (I’m looking at you Jean-Claude Juncker) would intrinsically imbue the position with worth.

One way to make European elections relevant in their own right would be to encourage the development of pan-European parties and policies.  It’s true that within Eurocratic circles, such things do exist: the PES manifesto, for example, is worth a look.  But these are not documents with which ordinary voters will be familiar, even if all the constituent parties have signed up to their principles.  As this post from the Democratic Society blog argues, we need not just pan-European parties, but pan-European campaigns “so that people who vote for the Labour party in England know they’re voting for the same thing as someone voting for PASOK.”

photo credit: laurentius87

It’s also the little things that count.  In a talk I attended today by  Romano Prodi, the former EU Commission President and Italian PM recounted a conversation with a “former British Prime Minister” who had stressed to him the need for British citizens to be able to relate to European institutions.  ”But Tony,” Romano continued with a wry smile, “why then have you blocked the EU flag and anthem from the [constitutional] treaty?!”.  The point is clear.  To identify with the European project, institutions need to be simplified, even renamed, and adopt the trappings to which people can relate.

We need to abandon the fallacy that inter-European differences render common political parties and other such facets of “demos” impossible.  Direct relevance to people’s lives could well be the way to do this, especially in a period of economic crises where international solutions provide the only means of recovery.  In his talk, Prodi used a nice analogy between the Italian Risorgimento and modern European integration.  Silicy and Lombardy may still disagree on a lot, and in the mid-nineteenth century, they didn’t have a particularly common language either.  At that time Massimo D’Azeglio declared that “Italy is made, now we must make Italians”.  Perhaps then, by providing a convincing concept of Europe, we can create Europeans.