Will, one day, a European leader propose that a statue be erected in Brussels or Strasbourg in recognition of the incomparable contribution made by Jeroen Dijsselbloem to the final construction of a fully democratic Europe? He may now be sitting in his Dutch ministry on borrowed time but it is an honour he unquestionably deserves. In barely the space of a week, he has made tasteless comments about Greeks and other Mediterranean “grasshoppers” before unashamedly snubbing MEPs who wanted to take stock with the president of the Eurogroup of the fate imposed with austerity on Greece (see EUROPE 11761).
Mr Dijsselbloem stated that his diary was full. Really? Do you know many democracies where a member of the executive, invited by parliament to account for his/her actions, can with impunity give the elected representatives the brush off? In the EU and, more exactly, the Eurozone it’s possible – indeed without anyone getting unduly excited about it in ruling circles. The cries of indignation from MEPs exiled in their distant chambers will, after all, be heard but faintly and only very briefly.
In fact, thanks should be given to this self-important Dutch minister for demonstrating so bluntly the extent to which the European Union and, within it, the Eurozone – where the economic fate of tens of thousands of European citizens is played out – has more to do with sham democracy. It is true that nothing, requires the president of the Eurogroup to accede to the requests of MEPs, the Eurogroup being an informal body not bound by the rules of democratic supervision which, under the Treaties, apply to Council of Ministers' bodies. Just like the president of the European Council, the president of the Eurogroup has every right to choose, as he sees fit, how to respond to requests made by members of the European Parliament elected by the people. In short, in the EU, we are back to acting like princes. Sound democratic progress, wouldn’t you say?
Diplomats and die-hard advocates of inter-governmentalism will, of course, retort that every head of state and government, just like every finance minister, is under the scrutiny of his/her own national parliament, thus nullifying any charge of democratic illegitimacy in the Union.
Pure fiction – and for two reasons. Firstly, because the president of the French Republic, for example, despite being accountable to the French people every five years at the ballot box, is not accountable to the National Assembly; his prime minister is, but he never takes part in the European Council except in times of cohabitation. Then, and especially, because members of national executives only need to explain to “their” parliamentarians how well they stood up for the interests of the country “in Brussels” to be given democratic approval. It’s of scant importance whether they contributed to or prevented positives or negatives for the European Union, the Eurozone and their citizens. The Union is thus brushed out of sight, into a democratic void that the European Parliament is struggling to fill.
This, the European Union’s very own democratic shortcoming, is nothing new. It has long been irritating but bearable. Not any more, as shown by the people’s disgruntlement that finds expression in voting for Eurosceptics or nationalists. It’s no longer tolerable because the nature of the problem has changed, as Dutch philosopher Luuk van Middelaar perceptively noted when he spoke of a “spent” European model, where regulation was sufficient to administer what was no more than a “market”, whether “common” or “single”. Since then, the Union has considerable extended its areas of responsibility, involving it in issues as politically sensitive as the currency and borders. This, as Van Middelaar, one of the closest advisers of first permanent Council President Herman Van Rompuy, correctly points out, radically changes the situation: “overseeing a currency is very different from overseeing a market. Or to put it more starkly: talking about quotas of refugees is very different from talking about quotas of cod” (Le Soir, 24 March).
Now Professor of European Values at the Catholic University of Leuven, van Middelaar believes that a number of the crises being faced by the Union stem from “the mismatch between the tool box developed for the market and the new European policies” as a “de-politicisation technique that works for milk quotas cannot be transposed to an area as volatile as quotas of refugees, where issues of identity and national sovereignty come into play”.
With this one sentence, the one-time close associate of the European Council president demonstrates that it is possible for an intelligent, upright person at the same time to be both clear-sighted and blind. Clear-sighted because, his analysis of the main cause of the deficit of democratic legitimacy in the Union is patently well-founded as there is democratic disenfranchisement on political issues of the highest importance. Institutional blindness at the same time because, in his view, the European Council ought to be at the centre of the solution to be sought.
Yet, he acknowledges himself, with the Treaty of Maastricht, political leaders “brought forward something bigger than themselves” and the peoples of Europe are telling them today in the indirect ways available to them that they want their voices to be heard because what is bigger than some is crushing the others with powerlessness. Is it not high time to start listening to them? But this time, after removing national filters.
Michel Theys