From the very start of the European unification process, it has been the rule that only democratic countries could be considered for membership, yet w...

From the very start of the European unification process, it has been the rule that only democratic countries could be considered for membership, yet within the new institutions themselves democratic procedures were slow to develop. The first of these institutions, for example, – i.e. the European Coal and Steel Community established in 1951 – certainly had a sort of parliament known as the Common Assembly, but its members were “delegates” and their role merely advisory. Policy decisions were exclusively in the hands of the member states’ governments.

Successive changes over the past fifty-eight years have seen the Community developing into a highly sophisticated Union of twenty-seven states, whose nationals have the dual legal status of European Union and national citizenship, with the right to vote for their own representatives in the European Parliament which – now that the Lisbon Treaty has been ratified – has considerably increased powers over EU legislation. Moreover, with the scrapping of border controls between most of the member states, EU citizens also enjoy freedom of movement within the Union and now have voting rights in local elections in whichever member state they choose to live.

Yet, despite these changes, many in the EU see the Union and its institutions as intrusive and undemocratic. They identify more easily with their own nation states than with “Europe” and doubt whether democracy is possible at trans-national level. EU politics they often regard as a pastime of the élite. But are they right? Press reactions to the way the new-style European Council President is appointed have certainly high-lighted this problem. The Council consists of representatives of the member states who until now took turns in chairing its meetings, changing every six months. The Lisbon Treaty sought to replace this six-monthly rotating presidency with a two-and-a-half year presidency with a much higher profile, for in addition to chairing Council meetings he or she is now expected to take on the important role of “external representation of the Union on issues concerning its foreign and security policy” – effectively to act as President of the Union, although already there have been signs of rivalry between this new office and the old-style rotating presidency.

This move has aroused considerable public interest, with newspapers and other media already referring to the chosen candidate, the Belgian Herman Van Rompuy, as the “President of Europe” and questioning why such a high-profile appointment should be made by the heads of the member states’ governments meeting in conclave rather than by popular election.

This latest step in the evolution of a quasi-federal political structure yet again draws attention to two inter-related difficulties facing the Union: namely, how to ensure that EU decision-making bodies are at least as democratically accountable as those of member states’ own governmental institutions, and how to foster among its citizens a sense of shared identity.

Greater citizen involvement is one answer, yet how can that be achieved? While the Lisbon Treaty has significantly strengthened the elected European Parliament’s powers, newspapers and other media in the member states seldom report its proceedings. As a result, public participation in European Parliament elections is considerably lower than in national elections.

The EU’s administration – i.e. the Commission – receives even less publicity. The Commissioners themselves are perceived by the public as over-powerful civil servants rather than as “ministers”. In order to achieve a fair balance between the different nationalities, they are not subject to popular election but nominated by their members states’ governments, though subject to appraisal and approval by the Parliament. For the ordinary citizen accustomed to regular parliamentary elections in his or her own national political structure, the EU’s inter-governmental system must seem byzantine to say the least.

In the Lisbon Treaty the “election” of a President of the European Council is certainly a headline-grabbing innovation, yet those who drafted the text missed a major opportunity to inject a dose of democracy into the procedure. Rather than restrict the franchise to the twenty-seven heads of member states’ governments, they could, and should, have extended the vote to include every adult EU citizen.

The Treaty itself states that “the functioning of the Union shall be founded on representative democracy” [Article10]. This means that citizens not only need to know what is being done in their name, but also to share a genuine sense of involvement in the governance of the EU. A Union-wide presidential election on the American model, with primaries to be held in every member state and every citizen having the right to vote, would not only strengthen the EU’s democratic accountability but also foster among the electorate a greater sense of a shared European identity.

As the consolidated treaties are ipso facto the EU’s constitution, an amendment to involve the citizens in their own destiny by providing a legal base for the choice of a European Union President by popular election would of course require at least a mini-treaty. This might be resisted by some member states’ governments but, on the other hand, is it naive to think that the people might be allowed to decide for themselves?

Footnote
But are these purely European problems? Probably China and various other countries would say that they are. On the other hand, the European democratic nation-state model has spread in one form or another to every continent and the EU is often quoted as a possible model for regional associations of states elsewhere in the world. The difficulties experienced in any union of states trying to establish democratic systems reaching down to grass-roots level are certainly relevant to any discussion of global government.