| The democratisation
of the EU in some key respects needs to be the same as nations have
to deploy. Within nations, as in the EU, we need a 'second wave' of
democratisation, or what I call the democratising of democracy. Existing
political structures, including orthodox national parliamentary systems,
even the most democratic of them, are not democratic enough in a globalising
information age. Poor transparency of public institutions, the undue
influence of corporate power, 'media politics', back-stage deals,
old-boy networks, straightforward corruption, lack of representation
of women and ethnic minorities - these are found even in the most
democratic of countries. Most are very evident in EU institutions
too. While some progress has been made in confronting them, there
is a great deal of scope for further improvement.
cuban cigars online Governance
in a global age of course must continue to feature parliamentary
mechanisms and electoral democracy. This applies on the level of
the EU as well as nationally, even if there are reasons why the
European parliament is never likely directly to reflect the concerns
of electorates. But 'vertical democracy' needs to be complemented,
and in principle enhanced, by 'horizontal democracy', taking the
form of discourse democracy and pluralism. The proponents of 'new
governance theory' have pointed out that we are experiencing a transition
towards governance by network, and away from governance by hierarchy.
Horizontal democracy depends upon the making of decisions through
negotiation between different bodies and agencies. Rather than
receiving a direct democratic mandate, and after that having the
power to enact decisions, decisions must be reached through open
processes of negotiation. The separation of powers helps prevent
oligarchy, while the demand to negotiate stops any one agent or
set of agents from achieving a dominant position. As Christopher
Lord puts it 'EU institutions should be read as a supranational
version of deliberatist ideals and interpreted with a view to compensating
some of the shortcomings of the constitutional nation-state'.
Devolution
is a crucial part of an active response to globalisation. As one
of its influences, globalisation exerts a 'push-down' effect, creating
strong pressures for local autonomy. How far EU institutions can
effectively be connected with local and regional government will
be fundamental in defending, or enhancing, the popular legitimacy
of the EU. Yet this issue is barely touched upon in Fischer's speech.
And more generally it must be said that the concepts of subsidiarity
and a 'Europe of the Regions' remain poorly implemented. A transfer
of authority downwards, including the handing back of some powers
to nations or localities, should surely be basic to the future evolution
of the EU. Right at the end of his dialogue with ChevPnement, Fischer says that he
'can well envisage that certain competencies would be given back
to member states'. But this appears as an after-thought, not as
generic to how he sees the development of the Union.
It
is now generally accepted in the EU that there has to be flexibility
in how far nations adopt some forms of policies rather than others.
However, we should say firmly that there should be no avant-garde.
The very idea of having an avant-garde, 'moving ahead' of the rest,
only makes sense if there is a unilinear path that the EU is going
to follow, towards federalism. Europe will certainly look more
diverse in the future than it does now, but this should best be
understood as 'bounded pluralism' rather than a few 'in front' while
others 'lag behind'.
The
prime basis of the legitimacy of the EU has to be achieved in the
nation, since nations will continue to be the main source of both
identity and citizenship. How far the Union commands popular support
will depend primarily upon whether citizenries are convinced that
it benefits national communities, in terms of democracy, security
and economic development. But this cannot be the traditional nation,
built around geopolitical imperatives. We need to construct 'cosmopolitan
nations', which find their identity in mutual collaboration.
The
American political scientist, Joseph Nye, has remarked that the
EU is more about the 'pooling and sharing' of sovereignty than its
transfer to a higher level. I think this is correct, and such a
conception, not a federalist one, should be the guiding thread of
our thinking about the Union's future.
|
|
