| towards a better Europe |
Why increasing numbers of people in America can't take the EU seriously
(for sources see footnote)
|
The ease with which the United States could recently encourage certain "new" European country's governments to do its bidding in exchange for cash, was very convenient for the United States.
However, by the same token, no one is going to take a Union seriously which has no democratic means of preventing its own structure falling apart in the face of such dollar diplomacy.
On the other hand, there are Americans who have a more strategic vision of the future of our world who are particularly concerned about the antics of the elite which currently has influence over the affairs of the European Union. Some of the latest, very public showings of the intellectual level of these people has become a sort of macabre cabaret as opposed to serious governance. More and more people simply cannot take the Union seriously. The facts speak for themselves.
Source: Base population stats: GeoHive, The Netherlands; Representation in Europe, SEEL, August, 2003, UK; Unfair practices, Project Europe, September 2003, Belgium.
 |
It is, for better or worse, about trusting people
Whereas the United States has admitedly had some bad Presidents and governments, there exists a system whereby Americans have been able to protect themselves from excessive government arbitrariness. This ability is guaranteed by the American Constitution which was largely based upon a 17th Century English Constitution (which was never adopted) and runs to a couple of pages. It is a document whose interpretation reflects a faith in the good sense of people which can be translated as a fundamental trust in the people. So much so that just about any American can read it and understand it. It is inspirational for it openly provides vital safeguards for the people to defend their own freedom through, for example, juries. People who come from this political environment can be forgiven if they are completely astonished at the fundamental weaknesses and oversights in the current draft of the European Constitution.
If you don't trust people, exclude them
The best efforts of European political intellect came up with a 200 page Constitution which most members of the public do not understand. It is a lousy document.
Crucially, this Constitution makes no proposals for Europeans, as people, to defend their freedom against an arbitrary central government. This could, of course, include some future, more powerful, European Union Parliament. The Constitutional draft, for example, makes no reference to juries at all.
That many judiciaries in Europe are not independent of government is well known. So on this issue of vital importance, the Constitution is a sham. It speaks of an area of freedom and security but provides no means what-so-ever whereby the people can guarantee its sustainability. There is, in fact, no guarantee or means whereby Europeans can defend their freedom. Indeed, the Constitution on this basis alone, is a dangerous document. The draft is clearly something which its authors expect, or assume, will not be read by the people of Europe. This reflects a suffocating arrogance which is part and parcel of the thinking of the current elite, so-called, who always try and shape Europe in their own image, and ensuring they sustain their own status. This is an out-dated mind set. The most ominous aspect of this process is that it reflects a fundamental lack of trust of the people on the part of that elite.
Democratic representation
Another issue which alarms those who have a normal appreciation of representative democracy is the fact that the membership of the European Parliament is distributed in a completely arbitrary fashion. CybaCity has recently completed a report with shows there is a serious imbalance between the numbers of Members of the European parliament and population numbers of the countries they represent.
The lastest draft of the European Constitution, with some reason, calls for a representaion in proportion to population numbers. This is needed because some countries are currently grossly over-represented by MEPs. For example Ireland benefits from this imbalance which provides it with more than twice the number of MEPs than can be justified on the basis of population numbers. Norway and Sweden are also big winners in this MEP slot game.
The projected active Parliament, made up of current and new members, will be some 787 members (about 790). With a projected European Union population of 457 million, there is on average some 578,480 people per MEP. Adjusting the current number of MEPs, according to the actual sizes of the populations in each country, produces some interesting figures.
Statistics of democratic deficit
The current distribution of MEPs creates a significant democratic deficit, most markedly for Germany, The other losers are the UK, France, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands and Poland. If there were a fairer distributuion of MEPs, then Germany, for example, would gain an extra 54 MEPs. The UK, and France, an extra 16 and Italy 14. The tiny Netherlands currently faces a deficit of a significant 7 MEPs, Poland should have 13 more and Spain 5. These countries together lose 125 MEPs which currently are spread around the rest of the countries.
Weakened European parliament
Such an imbalance in representation, at a time when the Constitution is taking about strengthening the role of the European parliament, is unjustified. Accordingly the European parliament is far from democratic in terms of the fairness of distribution of representation. This fact seriously undermines any notions of equity or democracy and weakens any claims the institution has to serious legitimacy. CybaCity concludes that the ratio of population to each MEP makes an effective Parliament, in terms of a responsive representation, almost impossible.
Some serious strategic issues
One of those "background" screens thrown up by European bureaucrats and members of the Council of Ministers, is that the European parliament is a democratic institution and will have increasing sway over future decisions. Well as things stand, that is a bad pitch.
In a parallel and associated study undertaken by the Strategic Decision Analysis Unit at SEEL (Systems Engineering Economics Lab) the more serious strategic implications have been evaluated in more depth.
One conclusion is that the current set up seriously undermines the strategic decision making strength of the larger EU countries. This, in time of crisis, could be disastrous.
The sort of risks were observed this year when several candidate countries showed themselves to be quite willing to break from the fold in exchange for cash from the USA. Many of the countries who were most responsive to this sort of influence were, with the exception of Poland, those who have received excessive number of MEPs, well in excess of the true size of their populations. These countries are over-represented. No one suggests that smaller countries should not pursue independent policies. But the United States, unfortunately, did demonstrate its willingness and ability, and these countries had no second thoughts in pursuing crude cash diplomacy, which produced movements at odds with the views of others EU countries1. It is essential to ensure that no country, amongst current Member States or accession countries, possess any illegitimate "extra leverage" within the European forum. This means MEP numbers must reflect the sizes of the countries they represent.
Proactive erosion in transparency and human rights
The current lack of representational rigour is a self-defeating aberrational favouritism. The next step in the environment, which allow this sort of "leeway", is corruption and lack of transparency. It fundamentally devalues the concept of "constituency" representation. For many Central European politicians, as well as for some in the Union, the concept of "constituency" remains nothing more than a distant concept. Many such MPs, and proposed MEPs, are old party hacks from the old regime but who, today, call themselves democracts. They remain only answerable to their parties. Many openly regard politics as their means to personal fortune. Some countries with such "democratic traditions" as well as some with non-independent judicaries, have been given too much European parliamentary say and power.
Some of this new group of free-slot MEPs will fit in well to the current European system where many bureaucrats consider themselves to be answerable to no one. A classic current example of the unhealthy erosion in transparency and responsibility in the ongoing failure of European officials to respond to public complaints about the ongoing human rights abuse in the education systems of the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia, in frank contravention of European law (see previous article: Call for resignation of Prodi and Verhuegen and perhaps Cox too!). These countries,amongst them, have some 15 MEP slots in excess of the size of their populations. Hungary has 7 in excess, the Czech Republic 6 and Slovakia 2.
When bureaucrats and politicans have trouble with the facts and proactively hide the facts, it is well past time that they should be got rid of. It does not help to hand those who would wish to hide the ugly facts in their own administrations, a free ride of representation. This is unfair to the European population who, above all, should be guaranteed, as far as possible, full access to accurate information. It is unfair to those being harmed by such abuse for, as yet, Europe has failed to provide any means of effective representation and they cannot protect themselves from arbitrary government decisions.
The countries with the strongest democractic traditions2 have, without any doubt, been seriously impeded by the European project for too long. So a first step, in the right direction, for all Europeans, is to clean up European representation and transparency by redistributing MEP slots according to the true distribution of the population amongst the Member States.
Its a question of trust and security
It is essential to address the legitimacy of the European parliament. Each member should represent an equivalent number of the European population. We need to introduce juries as a basis for the people's own means of protecting themselves from arbitrary decisions by government. Without these two basic steps there can be no true democracy. European leaders, so-called, need to show that they trust the people. If European governmental structures could only demonstrate that they were founded on an open trust of the people, then we might make more progress towards coherent and agreed aspects of some foreign and development policies. These in turn, and on this basis, would be more resilient when faced with attempts to undermine them by such things as dollar diplomacy.
Strengthening such a Europe could never be Anti-American
Last, but not least, the spirit of that clear-sighted desire to empower a people to build a fairer society has been shared by people through all ages. This desire is not uniquely European nor American. But the more we adhere to ways and means of governance which support freedom, a freedom based on the power of each to protect the freedom of the other, the safer will the world be. This is as much desired by Americans as it is by many people in Europe and elsewhere. Strengthening democracy and effective transparent governance in Europe, on this basis, could never be mis-construed as being Anti-American. Indeed, it would strengthen the hand of those Americans who advocate that America become more proactive in adhering to its own Constitution.
Sources:
European Strategic Options: SEEL Seminar, August, 2003. Portsea Isle, UK;
Base population stats: GeoHive, The Netherlands;
Representation in Europe, SEEL, August, 2003, UK;
Unfair practices, Project Europe, September 2003, Belgium.
Notes:
1 This issue is seriously compromised in fact by governments who do not refer adequately to their electorate before taking serious decisions such as going to war without presenting convincing evidence of the need and without describing the available options.
2 This is not a statement of support for the existing democractic structures all of which are relatively deficient; at best, some are less deficient than others.