EU’s democratic reset is only just starting

EU’s democratic reset is only just starting

Paweł Świeboda

Two types of sentiment dominate before the forthcoming European Parliament elections. There are those who panic about the imminent rise of the populist and anti-establishment parties. Their view is vindicated by the projected scale of the protest vote. There are also those who believe nothing will really change as long as the pro-European mainstream majority retains the levers of control. Their assumption is that the „spoilers“ will prove to be an unwieldy bunch, bound to end up squabbling among themselves.

Neither of these views is right. The EU is about to enter a new phase of politicisation which will profoundly change the way it goes about its business. The union has always been an elite-driven project which has uneasily opened to public scrutiny and engagement. Paradoxically, direct elections to the European Parliament, introduced in 1979, preceded by a long margin genuine deepening of political integration. In some ways, the cart was put before the horses. If these elections were not introduced at the time, they would not be taking place today. Whoever would float the idea in the current political context would be eaten alive as a proponent of building a European state.

There is no doubt that directly elected members of the European Parliament have added to the legitimacy of the EU. On numerous occasions, they have defended fiercely the citizens‘ rights to transparency and accountability. However, they have not been able to carry the broader public with them. For many people, the Parliament has become a liability on the democratic system in Europe. It has made a premature assumption that it represents the European demos and left little space for the national parliaments in legitimising European integration. In addition, the economic and financial crisis shifted the burden of proof to the national capitals. It is there that the critically important fiscal and budgetary power resides, not with the European Parliament. It is therefore the capitals that had to take key decisions while the Parliament attempted to trim them around the edges. This has not helped the perception of its burgeoning irrelevance.

The next European Parliament needs to demonstrate that it is part of the solution to the challenge of resetting the EU’s democratic identity, rather than part of the problem. It will have to do this both when it comes to the policy agenda as well as the way it conducts its affairs and interacts with the citizens. On the subtance front, its task will be two-fold. First of all, to help define the agenda of consolidation and reinvention, completing the reconstruction of the eurozone but also turning Europe into an enabler in areas which matter most for growth – innovation, entrepreneurship and social mobility. In order to bring this about, the Parliament has to take full advantage of its right under Article 225 of the treaty to request the Commission to submit relevant legislative proposals.

Secondly, given its composition, the task of the Parliament will be to address the disillusioned voters and make space for them within the system. Lots of people in Europe have lost sentiment for the way the EU functions, not the idea itself. Many of the EU’s benefits are no longer taken for granted or seen as sufficiently convincing in the face of risks which come with it. This is all the more evident as the flagship projects such as the single market drag on without being properly implemented. A measure of success of the next EP will be whether it will manage to defuse the entirely unproductive pro- and anti-EU antagonism. Business-as-usual will not suffice for that purpose.

Thirdly, the European Parliament should launch an independent audit of how the EU has faired in the period of an existential test. The crisis has been profoundly formative in ways which only begin to be understood. A strengthened sense of mutual interdependence has come in parallel with the undermining of the shared belief in solidarity. To great relief of all those who are utterly irritated by the fact that the EU always claims to be on the right side of things, a proper audit would require admitting that in some areas the European response has been a failure. But being critical and at the same time constructive remains a very European characteristic.

Finally, as far as the process is concerned, the European Parliament should undertake a massive opening to the citizens through strengthened mechanisms of consultation and dialogue. The Parliament is not a regular representative body, unlike the national parliaments, and its unique comparative advantage lies in the fact that it can bridge the gap between „Brussels“ and the world outside. Many Europeans would like to engage more closely in the EU but they fear the complexity which comes with it. The EP should also take more initaitive to engage with national parliamentarians. Instead of seeing them as adversaries, Members of the European Parliament should build bridges to the national political discourse. In other words, the Parliament will need to prove its relevence and engage – if anything, this is the silver bullet for its revival in the next term as an institution with a genuine sense of mission.