FROM POLITICS IN POLITICS AND FROM DIPLOMACY TO DEMOCRACY

FROM POLICIES IN POLITICS AND FROM DIPLOMACY TO DEMOCRACY

Anna Karamanou

(in the context of the Master’s program, “European and International Studies,” of the University of Athens, 7.2.2005)

INTRODUCTION

It is a fact that the EU is in search of a political identity. The belief is increasingly reinforced that the Union of 25 must evolve into a political union in order to ensure its survival and its role in the international globalized economic and political system. The political evolution of the EU is considered a necessary complement to the economic and monetary union, in order to stabilize the functioning of the single currency and the monetary union, to close the gap between economy and politics, and to enhance both effectiveness and democracy in the EU. In other words, to stop the division of the EU into an economic giant and a political dwarf.

The construction of a European political union and the overcoming of the division of Europe began in recent years, after the end of the Cold War, with a peak moment being the accession of ten new member states to the EU on May 1, 2004. In the public debate about the Future of Europe, which was informally initiated in May 2000 by Joska Fischer, many diverse opinions are expressed, including the one that argues that the process of economic integration can continue without a parallel process of political integration. This position is certainly rooted in the long-established technocratic doctrine that maintains that as long as economic cooperation among states is beneficial for all, it will have the support of the public. Another view argues that the political integration of Europe is unfeasible, if not completely impossible, due to cultural heterogeneity, as every attempt at political unification requires an undesirable cultural homogenization. This viewpoint contends that the idea of peaceful coexistence and stability is achieved better when the “nation” and the “demos” coincide.

Against these positions, I will try to prove that economic integration and increased cultural diversity have already set the stage for European political integration and that the process of moving from politics to policies and from diplomacy to democracy has already begun, albeit with difficulties, slowly but steadily. The recent adoption of the European Constitution by the governments of the 25 member countries of the EU certifies this in the most valid way.

THE EVOLUTION OF THE EU

As is well known, the development and evolution of the EU was based on the Monnet method, which is more commonly known as neo-functionalism. This method essentially foresaw the gradual promotion of the integration process in areas less sensitive in terms of national sovereignty, primarily in economic sectors, with the belief that this would create the dynamism and the integrative logic for the expansion of the content of integration and the spillover of integration into other areas.

Inevitably, the Monnet method downplayed the political dimension and highlighted the importance of the economy in the logic of integration, resulting in what Siedentop observes as the dominance of an economic approach to promoting integration. The alternative method, primarily championed by Altiero Spinelli, namely the political method of directly establishing a European federation through a constitutional treaty, was not accepted by the political forces of the time. However, the gradual Monnet approach ultimately led, through successive steps, to the Single European Act of 1987, the Treaty on European Union in 1993, the Amsterdam Treaty in 1999, the Nice Treaty in 2000, and the Constitution (or the European Treaty, as some insist) in 2004, i.e., to the establishment of the Union with strongly marked and distinct federal elements.

Strong pressure for political transformation is also exerted by the European society due to the weakened democratic legitimacy of the Union’s institutions. The political deepening of integration is presented as a democratization process of the Union, addressing the issue of its democratic legitimacy. From an even broader perspective, the political evolution of the Union responds to the demand for greater participation of European society in the integration process.
In this context, numerous proposals have been made regarding the form and content of political integration, the most well-known of which include: J. Fischer’s proposal for a Federation, J. Chirac’s idea of a Political Union of Nation States, J. Delors’ concept of a Federation of Nation States, V.G. d’Estaing and H. Schmidt’s vision of a classical-type Federation (like the USA), Vedrine’s suggestion for a Intergovernmental Federation, and Romano Prodi’s idea of a Supranational Federation.
The options are plentiful… However, as constructivist scholars Glaser and Strauss insightfully note, “the existence of many theories is not a bad thing. More theories lead to better explanations.”

THEORIES OF INTEGRATION

As classical theories of integration, federalism and neo-functionalism are considered, which use direct political variables, and pluralism and functionalism, which use indirect socio-economic variables. Of the four theoretical schools that developed around the phenomenon of integration, one is primarily concerned with the preservation of the nation-state (pluralism), while the other two are mainly concerned with its transcendence (federalism-neo-functionalism). Functionalism is in an intermediate category, as some functionalists are interested in transcending the nation-state, as Mitrany, for example, while others are concerned with the opposite, namely, its preservation. More generally, Mitrany seems to prefer “functional democracy,” governance by management committees composed of specialized technocrats. In the dilemma of the functioning of modern representative political systems, between democracy and efficiency, Mitrany clearly favors the latter option. This is why he prefers the establishment of functionally specialized legislative bodies by area of policy, which he viewed as a guarantee for the creation of effective political structures. In another of his works, he claims that “no one should share power, as long as they do not share responsibility.” It is a fact that Mitrany’s views have had a significant influence on the bureaucrats of Brussels, reinforcing the managerial aspect and depriving European integration of the necessary oxygen of politics.

The EU has been repeatedly accused of inertia. However, at the beginning of the new century, the euro replaced twelve national currencies, and ten additional countries were added as members. While there may indeed be delays, deficits, and inadequacies, things are not going as badly as they might seem. The Economic and Monetary Union, Enlargement, and the Constitution are the driving forces of the new EU. They may ultimately accelerate the processes of convergence of different capitalist models and lead to economic and political integration more than any other development so far.

THE ROLE OF THE EUROPEAN CONSTITUTION

The European Constitution represents the greatest milestone in the journey towards European integration and the creation of a genuine European political space of democracy, freedom, justice, and respect for human rights. The final text, despite its weaknesses, marks significant progress when compared to the Treaty of Nice. As stated characteristically by Assembly member Johannes Voggenhuber, on the day following the adoption of the Constitution by the European Council (17.6.2004), the compromise achieved constitutes, at the same time, a resounding defeat and a silent revolution.

According to the European Constitution, the Union is based on values such as human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law, respect for human rights, and the rights of minorities. These values form the foundation and condition for the existence of the EU, are common to the member states, and exist within a society of pluralism, tolerance, solidarity, justice, and the prohibition of discrimination. The fact that human rights and equality are included among the values of the Union is very important because, on one hand, it creates a strong legal basis for their substantial protection, and on the other hand, it lays the foundations for a common European identity, which is an essential prerequisite for political integration.

The theorists of integration argue that the dialogue on values is very important in the process of European integration and does not concern only intellectuals, but people from different backgrounds who must find common ground. Despite the fact that there have been exchanges of views between intellectuals and political elites on the need to create a European supranational community since the end of the Second World War, the general public has been excluded from this dialogue. As a result, there is no acceptance or identification with a core set of common European values.

Etzioni argues that the semi-supranationality of the EU, particularly when high economic integration is combined with low political integration, cannot be sustainable. This is because markets are not self-contained systems with their own distinct dynamics; rather, they are closely linked to the political and social context of which they are an integral part. Markets cannot function without political institutions and social values. In free societies, significant decisions regarding economic policy take into serious consideration the system of values and the consensuses that are formed. Otherwise, the feeling of alienation increases, which can jeopardize the sustainability of the Union (Amitai Etzioni, 2001, “Political Unification-revisited”).

The ratification of the Constitution, either through parliaments or through referendums, constitutes the greatest political obligation and challenge for the member states in the coming months, until November 1, 2006, when it will come into effect. The European state is still under construction. Building a common future and a common identity requires, beyond the ratification of the Constitution, the continuation and improvement of the unification process that for more than half a century has ensured the peoples of Europe a period of peace, cooperation, development, prosperity, and respect for fundamental rights.

CONCLUSION

As the political character of the EU strengthens, the alternative solutions and policies will become clearer. It is high time to advance by building a more mature and political Europe. To the extent that the European institutions remain weak, they will be limited to management, or at best, to the regulation of the single internal market. However, they will not be able to effectively manage individual policies: the common currency, economic and regional policy, the environment, foreign policy, social policy, the CAP, education, migration policy, nor of course the role imposed by the sensitive balances in the immediate and the broader surroundings of the EU. For example, questions need to be answered such as: does the decision regarding the optimal level of taxation and regulation in the economy belong to the voters or to the market?

For this reason, the transition from the policies and diplomatic relations of the EU member states towards political integration must be accelerated and enriched as a sine qua non condition for the maintenance and enhancement of a Europe of peace, development, and prosperity. Bold political decisions are also needed in the upcoming discussions on the revision of the budgetary outlook (namely, money…) and the new development program 2007-2013, the reform of the Stability Pact, and the revitalization of the Lisbon Strategy. All these decisions will be political decisions that will determine the prospects for the political integration of the EU. We shall see.