The facts can be stubborn: there are very few countries of the European Union – never mind anywhere else – in which there is not a flourishing political grouping of any stripe that sits uncomfortably with the traditional foundations of democracy. Although not all of them are yet dying from it, most of them are affected to no less a degree by an ill that leads democracies, to different extents, to welcome their own Arturo Uis into the fold, in the form of cells that want nothing more than to mutilate and disfigure them. The time has therefore now come, for anybody who is aware that European integration is inherently linked to the democratic nature of its member states, to mobilise and defend themselves against any potentially fatal attack.
The first thing that needs to be said about this is that it is absolutely certain that the august body in which the heads of state or government of the member states of the European Union meet on a regular basis will not, spontaneously, be the crucible of this resistance. This is not possible, as there are already deviant democrats within the European Council, where they enjoy the same rights and prerogatives as those of their peers who are beyond reproach. This means that we can expect little from this quarter – proving, paradoxically, that this institution, which likes to see itself as the head and heart of the European project, is no more than the sum total of national sensitivities painted into a corner by concerns that have nothing to do with contributing to the harmful and democratic development of that project.
If a response to this is needed, it can come only from European civil society, from a rebellion of citizens who are determined not to allow the European project, born in the early 1950s, to be sacrificed on the altar of re-emerging nationalism. From a rebellion of citizens who know that these nationalist movements have been notably, but largely, revived by acts carried out by the national decision-makers acting not in the general interest, but out of horse-trading that reeks of ideological egotisms and obsessions. From a rebellion of citizens who are aware that it is the national democracies that are doing all they can, at European level, to deny them a platform, obstinately blocking them from democratically stating which Europe they, the European citizens, want.
Make no mistake about it, calling into question the idea that the President of the Commission be appointed once again on the basis of the majority partisan choice of the citizens in the European elections is tantamount to taking away their right to speak! These leading nationalists, who are only European as a bit of an afterthought, dream of seeing the Commission brought back to its knees politically – even where its greatest politicisation would doubtless be of a type to hold in check anybody taking advantage of a Union that is politically impotent and illegitimate due to its political legibility.
It was against this Europe that 52% of the British voted for Brexit. It is against this Europe that Hungarians and Poles – to be joined, no doubt, very soon by Italians – are rising up in the polling booths, having listened to the cynics who govern them transforming the necessary criticisms of democracy, which are useful and even vital in helping to erase its chronic imperfections, into suspicions ‘about’ democracy and ‘against’ it. How can anyone fail to see that everywhere in the countries of the European Union (if we just stick to them for the time being), populists and nationalists are rallying and, as the philosopher Frédéric Worms wrote, “attempting to inflame and often succeeding in fanning the flames of the ever-latent fever of demagoguery, the risk of tyranny that is inherent to democracy” (‘Les maladies chroniques de la démocratie’, 2017, Editions Desclée de Brouwer; our translation)? How can anyone not share his view that those in positions of political ‘irresponsibility’ are using the mistrust that European integration now inspires in many citizens, including many resolutely pro-European ones, by capitalising, in their own countries, on the contempt for democratic laws and the systematic suspicion inspired by the very institutions of democracy?
In Europe, in any case, the national democracies are also being eroded for failing to allow the democratic principle to prevail at European level. It is high time for the real European leaders to fully admit this and take all of the consequences of it. In this regard, the responsibility borne by Jean-Claude Juncker and Frans Timmermans in the weeks and months to come will be considerable, as only the European Commission can still hope to be able to reincarnate concerns for the common good and general interest. It alone is still able to talk sense, at least if it agrees to reform, to free itself of the technocratic conformism that has for too long shackled it. Only a full democratic anointing can steer it in this direction.
Will President Juncker and his Dutch First Vice-President, who are coming to the end of their careers, have the courage to speak the language of truth to the national leaders, holding absolutely nothing back? Will they take the risk of falling in the line of duty, of ending up being politically disowned by the guardians of a temple that is going to rack and ruin?
It would be the greatest gift they could give to the European Union and the citizens who continue to believe in it, as long as it transforms radically and becomes fully democratic. They could go down this road, starting with lending an ear to a very sensible idea put forward by a couple of lawyers, creative democrats. On 20 December of last year, the Commission proposed sanctions against Poland on the basis of article 7(1) of the Treaty on European Union. However, the Hungarian Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán, immediately let it be known that he would veto any sanction the European Council may wish to impose on Poland on the basis of article 7(2) of the same Treaty. However, as lawyers Michel Waelbroeck and Peter Oliver point out, all the Commission needs to do is launch the same procedure against Hungary as the one in place against Poland to make the possibility of a Hungarian veto vanish like Scotch mist.
This would leave cynicism with nowhere to go. In truth, in their article of 31 January (blogdroiteuropeen.com), the two lawyers do not seem to believe it themselves, explaining: “however, since the likelihood of Hungary facing any such proceedings in the foreseeable future is regrettably very limited, this theory is of little practical importance at present”. But is it that certain? Would heads of state or government who have (too long) rubbed shoulders with Viktor Orbán in the meetings of the European People’s Party have the indecency to protect him once more – once too often! – if it was another of their number, one of the figureheads of the party when he was a Christian Democrat rather than a Conservative, none other than Jean-Claude Juncker himself, asking them to take a stand?
It is by no means certain that victory would be Juncker’s, but his defeat would in all likelihood also be that of the European People’s Party in the next European elections, and possibly in various elections in the member states. Believing that all citizens who vote the same way would have no qualms about covering up such liberties taken with democracy as we all understand it would be quite a gamble. Incidentally, isn’t it for much the same reason that some individuals within this political family are already looking like they want to do away with the system of Spitzenkandidaten (see EUROPE 11956)?
Michel Theys