The Morning After

Getting over the EU hangover: what is needed is not a sales job but a complete makeover of the EU

Most of us have gone through the experience at least once in our lives. After a euphoric party full of fun, hope, and excitement comes the reality of the morning after. In EU politics it's no different, as politicians throughout Europe, from new members states to the old, have come to the realisation that the party had a price, and all that seeming fun, hope, and excitement has turned out to be nothing more than a distant memory.

This was reinforced last Sunday during the elections for the European Parliament which sent waves of disappointment and concern throughout the hallowed halls of EU institutions in Brussels. Eurocrats of all nationalities were clearly dismayed by the results, prompting the outgoing leader of the European Parliament, Pat Cox, to warn that the results were a wake-up call to EU power brokers that the people over whom they rule are clearly not satisfied.

Voters punished incumbents everywhere as the results were the worst showing ever in EU elections to date. Voters expressed discontent with a sluggish economy and neo-liberalist mindset that alienates citizens from the edifices of power, which have moved increasingly away from accountable government officials into the hands of private enterprise.

The historically low voter turnout of 2004 has politicians across Europe asking themselves how they could have failed so badly to "communicate" the core mission and objectives of the EU. The average turnout in Europe was just 45%. Within the new member states, the statistics were much worse as only 29% showed up to vote. In Poland not even 20% of the voters bothered to cast a ballot. In Slovakia, only 17% turned out to vote in an obvious slap in the face for the concept of a unified Europe. Elsewhere within new member states, although the numbers were higher, they were nevertheless still disappointing. In Hungary, 38% cast their ballots while politicians there had expected a turnout of around 60%.

The reasons for these results are many: voter fatigue, a wave of recent ballots in close succession, and campaigns which mixed national politics with EU policy areas. Additionally, the elections came on the heel of three years of economic stagnation. The results can be also explained by weak campaigns, and that voters still don't understand the degree to which they are affected by decisions made in Brussels.

Yet it should come as little surprise that more and more Europeans feel that their political institutions have deserted them. The decline in the public's trust of governments and politicians can be observed across Europe over the past few decades. The signs are quite obvious: low turn-outs in elections, cynicism towards mainstream politicians, and electoral success for extremists.

This loss of faith is a warning to elected governments that they need to keep in touch with the people who entrust them with power. In short, the contemporary crisis of credibility that governments are facing means western democracies need to fundamentally reform the way decisions are made and the way information about the factors involved is shared.

In light of this, what is needed is a better system for informing the public and taking their concerns into consideration in policy decisions. Rather than looking at the problem as merely a breakdown in communication with voters, what is needed is a more fundamental shift in what is glibly referred to as democracy. In essence, a more effective structure of governance is needed.

In Europe, this problem is especially acute given the ambiguous nature of the EU. The complexity of EU structures and institutions has led to widespread alienation across Europe. Moreover, the EU often lacks the political authority to act when co-ordinated action is required, such as with food safety, unemployment, and foreign policy. Hence, many Europeans have lost confidence in a poorly understood and complex system to deliver the policies they want. The bastion of power in Brussels is seen by many as remote and, at the same time, intrusive.

The European Commission has already realised as much, and to this extent produced a white paper to address the issue. Among its recommendations were five principles: openness, participation, accountability, effectiveness, and coherence. Additionally, these five principles are expected to operate within the already agreed wider framework of proportionality and subsidiarity.

However, like most such attempts at reform, the white paper is full of lofty and well meaning phrases but little substance. The white paper doesn't go far enough, and that the European Commission had underestimated the full scale of the problem it faces. Furthermore, there is no transparency at many levels of EU decision making (e.g., the Council of Ministers), the budgetary system is far from democratic, and there is a lack of recognition of the importance of citizen forums, such as the European Ombudsman and petitions to the Parliament.

Even the authors of the white paper acknowledge as much. Jerome Vignon, chief adviser responsible for the white paper, bluntly admits: "the crisis of European political legitimacy originates principally from the procedures of the European Community. There is too much complexity and the European legislative system unduly privileges sectoral perspectives at the expense of both the pluralism of expertise and the problems to be resolved."

Hence, the political upsets, the successes of Euroskeptic parties, and low voter turnout simply reinforces diminishing popular support for the EU, brought about by the fact that Eurocrats don't really take the public seriously and listen to their concerns. Even after this latest slap in the face to Brussels, political leaders tried their best to play down what had happened, saying that more had to be done to "sell" the EU to the public.

Yet this is where the crux of the problem lies. Eurocrats think that what they are facing is merely an image problem, a concept which needs to be repackaged and sold to a wary public. In reality, the problem has more to do with a lack of true democracy, transparency, and relevance. Thus, what is needed is not a sales job but a complete makeover of the EU and how it functions.

At the end of the day, although not much has really changed with the results of the elections in terms of the makeup of the EU parliament, what is of concern is the long term consequences such negative attitudes by the public to the whole process will have on the future of the EU and its institutions. As a result, some feel that it's of the utmost importance that a EU constitution be completed as soon as possible, for this might give Europeans something more concrete that they can relate to. Subsequently, the idea of an elected president may help personalise elections and get more voter involvement in the future.

But all this is simply avoiding the core issues at hand. Unless more is done to come to terms with what is really wrong with how the EU is organised and run, then for many -- especially within the new member states of Central and Eastern Europe -- the elections of 2004 could very well mark the end of the beginning.

http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/17/17670/1.html