domingo, 8 de junio de 2014

domingo, junio 08, 2014

June 2, 2014 4:57 pm

Block Juncker to save real democracy in Europe

You end up with a situation in which voters have ‘chosen’ a leader they have never heard of

Ingram Pinn illustration©Ingram Pinn


The idea that Jean-Claude Juncker should become the next head of the European Commission evokes a strange, irrational rage in the British. I know because I share that rage. There is something about Mr Juncker, a former prime minister of Luxembourg – his smugness, his federalism, his unfunny jokes – that provokes the British.

Yet irrational rage is not a good basis on which to make policy. When I calm down, I wonder whether it is really worth making such a fuss? After all, the days when the commission president set Europe’s agenda are probably over. During the euro crisis it became very clear that the key decisions in Europe are now made in Berlin, not Brussels. The current president, José-Manuel Barrosoalthough a decent man – was reduced to the role of messenger-boy and scapegoat. Mr Juncker could perform both roles admirably. So why make a fuss?

Part of the answer is that the commission presidentalthough not the most important figure in the EUstill carries weight. The job has a certain moral authority. The commission also still possesses the “sole right of initiative” to start the EU lawmaking process so a president Juncker could get the Brussels bureaucracy charging off down some destructive paths.

But the most important reason to block Mr Juncker is the preservation of democracy in Europe. His supporters believe that the democratic arguments are all on their side. They are badly wrong.

The Juncker camp point out that their man was the approved candidate for commission president of the European People’s party – a pan-European grouping, which emerged with the most seats from the recent parliamentary elections. Therefore, they argue, to reject Mr Juncker is to insult European voters.

Matthias Döpfner, chief executive of the Axel Springer media group, argues in the company’s mass-selling Bild that “it is clear that Europeans have chosen Juncker”. Yet this wild assertion was disproved by Mr Döpfner’s own newspaper, which carried an opinion poll, during the election showing that just 7 per cent of German voters even knew that Mr Juncker was the EPP’s candidate.

Behind this dispute lies a clash between two rival visions of democracy in Europe. One school, particularly prominent in Germany, sees enhancing the powers of the European Parliament as the only way to make the EU more democratic. The other school – the one I belong tobelieves that increasing the powers of the parliament is actually profoundly damaging to democracy.

Many Germans, with their suspicion of anything that smacks of nationalism, find it hard to acknowledge the connection between democracy and the nation. But it is above all in nations – with their shared ties of language, history and political culture – that democracy can live and breathe. At a European level, you can replicate the forms of democracyelections, political parties and so on – but what you cannot create is the underlying demos (the people) that is needed to bind democracy together. That is why you end up with the absurd situation in which voters are said to havechosen” a leader they have never heard of.

A pan-European democracy is a bad idea for the same reason a world democracy is a bad idea – the political unit is too large to make sense to voters. And before I am accused of a mystical attachment to “the nation”, I should add that not all nations are necessarily the right size to secure democratic assent. The case for Scottish independence rests on the idea that Scotland’s political identity is so different from the rest of the UK that the Scottish nation needs to break free from parliament in Westminster. We will see, in September’s referendum, if most Scots agree – but it is a legitimate question to ask.

Supporters of a European federal state often argue that the reason ordinary Europeans do not identify with the parliament is that they are not electing a proper government with real powers. By claiming more powers for the parliament such as the right to appoint the president of the commission – they hope to attract interest and so conjure a European demos into being.

That argument reminds me strongly of the case that was once made for creating the euro. Back then, it was said that even if EU economies were very different the simple creation of a single currency would force them to converge. Now we are told that, even if there is no common European political identity, transferring powers to the European Parliament will drive the pace of political convergence. 

In reality, it would be likely to create a political disaster to rival the economic disaster caused by the euro – and for the same reason. Forced and artificial convergence cannot withstand the stress test of reality.

Rather than store that debacle up for the future, it is important that the national leaders of the 28 member states of the EU take a stand now. Unlike the relative unknowns that populate the parliament in Brussels the national leaders are well-known at home, so have a genuine democratic mandate. That should give them the courage to face down the pretensions of the parliament and its standard-bearer, Mr Juncker, and choose their own candidate for commission president.

Any such decision would, in turn, be likely to provoke months of confrontation between the parliament and national leaders in the European Council, and a stalemate over the commission presidency. So be it. In the interests of democracy, it is important to have that confrontation now.


Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2014.

0 comments:

Publicar un comentario