Europe in search of a new vision: The participative approach

The current economic crisis has highlighted many of the EU’s political characteristics. Initially it highlighted the EU’s weaknesses and exposed its institutional and political limitations. It appeared, as it often does, as a collection of national interests and policies. Then however, it began showing some of its strengths, i.e. that with cooperation and concerted action it is uniquely capable of influencing global developments.

The crisis’ repercussions are beginning to be felt throughout the world and necessitate new approaches and new thinking. The global economy has reached a point were the traditional modes of governance are no longer relevant. They are no longer able to manage a global system, let alone provide any solutions to pressing problems. New institutional frameworks and new ways of institutional cooperation are required in order to come out of the current situation with improved structures and effective regulatory frameworks which are closer to the people and better able to protect the weaker elements of the global society.

The EU was, and still is, a novel institution. Its founding over fifty years ago was aimed at securing peace and promoting cooperation. It has been a great success on both fronts yet it is not always given credit. Instead, it often serves as a scapegoat for failed national policies. It is accused for a variety of offences including, but not limited to, elitism, aloofness, liberalism and too much interference, bureaucratic stagnation and hyperactivity, lack of political nous, powerlessness and overpowering, and either too much or not enough social protection.

Europe’s citizen’s are among the most politically active citizens in the world. Within their national contexts, they participate in local and national debate, affect the political agenda and utilise their significant communication capabilities. Yet at the European level, such participation is not forthcoming.

There are two main factors adversely affecting citizens’ participation.

The first can be classified as technocratic factors. The EU began as an elite-driven process where the policymaking bureaucracy (the European Commission) was explicitly separated from national political considerations at the Council and the party political considerations at the European Parliament and the national level. It is a complex institutional structure with an enormous policy output making it difficult for the people to keep track and evaluate. We are left in the EU with amazing interlinkage of institutions and markets, be they financial or political, but an absence of a common policy particularly in the eyes of Europe’s citizens.

The second can be classified as political factors. European issues rarely touch upon peoples’ imagination. The debate is almost never European and the politicisation of policy processes usually takes place at the national level. The EP has been trying and succeeding to some extent but serious shortcomings persist. According to Eurobarometer (EB 69, Spring 2008), the European Parliament is be the most trustworthy EU institution but it is still viewed as mostly “ineffective” in the polls.

In order for Europe to be effective it needs functioning institutions, strong leadership political legitimacy and citizens’ participation on common grounds. But citizens expect transparency, effectiveness, access and leadership. They are not always aware of the “output legitimacy” which although important is not always directly visible.

Even though there have been many, very important political and policy decisions from the EU, they have often been shrouded in a veil of complexity or have fallen prey to the either / or hypotheticals of national debates. Politicians are also to blame because the EU is rarely given credit for positive policies. Instead negative ones are blamed on the EU and its legal supremacy. In addition, there is an often purposeful and mutually convenient blurring of responsibilities between the European and national levels which adversely affects credibility and ultimately accountability. This diluting of responsibility alienates citizens and disconnects them form the actual processes.

The contributing authors to this issue recognise the difficulties involved in the active participation of citizens in EU politics. They propose a wide ranging analysis of the reasons behind the issue as well as solutions ranging from cross-border candidacies and European political parties, to new institutional structures which will touch upon people’s sensitivities and project Europe through a different light. Most recognise the need for political leadership as a result of, and as a factor for increasing political participation.

Several themes are currently rising in salience within the EU debate, particularly with respect to citizens’ participation in EU affairs, decision-making and agenda–setting.
Europe has a responsibility to propose alternative solutions to global problems. It is at it most effective when it leads by example in a way that protects its citizens and sets precedents for the future. It must cut through the cynicism towards politics and politicians through truly European political and policy proposals which combine the values, interests and beliefs of the people of Europe. That was the original plan and we return to it.

Yannos Mitsos, guest editor

Special issue: Europe, introduction
Tags: EU