The European Union has a long track record as a global beacon of peace, prosperity, and success in fields ranging from culture and science to sports. And yet Europe has attracted more global attention in the last two years than it did in the previous six decades, as its debt crisis – exacerbated by a sputtering economy and internal disagreements – makes headlines worldwide. After all, controversy sells. But the public debate that this controversy has fueled has not been entirely constructive.
Nearly six decades after the Treaty of Rome established the European Economic Community, the debates taking place throughout the EU continue to be conducted largely by national actors in national fora – and with a view to national interests. To make genuine progress, clearly defined European interests must replace national interests in determining the EU’s development.
Defining these interests will require a serious, honest, pan-European debate – one that is more than the sum of national debates. The discussion must be public, engaging European citizens, rather than just the small circle of policymakers that comprises the European Council.
The absence of a European public sphere presents an obstacle to such a discussion. The existing common European space – composed of media outlets like the Financial Times and The Economist, and Europe-wide conferences, NGO networks, and exchange programs like Erasmus – engages only wealthy, cosmopolitan European elites. While social media could offer an opening for creating a more inclusive European public sphere, at least for English-speaking citizens, this will take some more time.
In the meantime, Europeans should view the run-up to the 2014 European Parliament elections as an opportunity to initiate a genuine public debate about their future. They should start by emulating successful public discourse elsewhere, such as in the United States.
To be sure, the recent US presidential election was messy, populist, and corrupted by corporate interests. But it also exemplified a dynamic debate between competing visions of America’s future: a more egalitarian country that assumes a constructive global role, or an outwardly aggressive America that is of and for its wealthiest citizens. Billions of people worldwide followed the candidates’ engaging – and often theatrical – debates; they did not need a vote to feel invested in the discussion.
In the next 20 months, the most effective features of the US election campaign should be merged with Europe’s electoral tradition. The first step toward an inclusive, compelling debate about Europe’s future is to ensure that the 2014 elections actually determine which political party or coalition fills government positions, including the executive – as should be the case in a parliamentary democracy.
As it stands, only the European Parliament is directly elected. But it is the European Council, which comprises national politicians, that proposes the EU executive – the European Commission President and its commissioners – on which the parliament then votes. Because these positions are filled without regard for the electoral outcome, citizens do not value European Parliament elections, viewing the entire institution as little more than a jobs program for politicians and their coterie.
To improve this structure without treaty changes, Europe’s political-party families, beginning with the largest and most influential, should deliver on their promise to nominate their own candidates for European Commission President. The frontrunners must then conduct real political campaigns, which their parties design, manage, and finance by pooling existing European and national party resources.
Such pan-European election campaigns would force kindred political parties to develop and win support for a common platform. For example, social democrats could promote a European minimum wage; Greens could advocate for a Europe-wide energy policy that does not rely on nuclear power; and conservatives might champion lower taxes across Europe.
In addition, a forum for pan-European debate must be created. This should entail, first and foremost, broadcasting formal debates between the leading candidates across Europe – the model being the Eurovision Song Contest and the Champions League in football (soccer).
In short, if the EU presents itself as a functioning political system in its own right, with solid democratic structures and processes, it will gain the attention and esteem of its citizens and the rest of the world, leading to increased popular participation at home and greater soft power abroad. Channeling controversy into productive discussion – rather than simply making headlines – is crucial to bolstering democratic processes and addressing urgent problems.
The euro crisis threatens the EU’s very existence. But it also provides an opportunity to broaden the crucial debate about Europe’s future – a debate that will work only in the context of a genuinely European parliamentary democracy.
All Content
As a natrive born British, speaks and writes and think in ENGLISH, I think you forget one GREATEST blocking stone among the 27 nations: language. While the rest of many great countries such as US, UK, China … they do not have it. EU has. Except of course the British and the Irish that share the same language, and perhaps a few other countries that share some form of German, but the rest of us have our own national languages. OF course there is official EU langauges such as English, French and German, Spanish. But they are not our native tongues. That itself scares away many people to voice their opinions.
Furthermore, langauge again, as English is a dominant langauge of the internet/social medias, I am not sure if you are aware, many of the publications based on other languages are basically, largely, ignored by the English speaking world, Or English is ignore by people who cannot read English well, or response to comments in English.
Singing is OK. After all most would not care what language as long as the tune is OK. And foot-ball? as long as they have strong legs
I like the idea of a ‘SPACE’ for discussions and debates for EU. But how? It is not as easy as it seems. AND that basically is the most important item that most nations ousdie of Europe would not want to understand.
China is far from having a unified language even if mandarin is progressively becoming dominant and the USA have very large communitites that do not fully master English. I acknowledge that language is an issue but not a blocking point, not the real one anyway.
After spending 15 years in the US, here is my understanding: In comparison to EU, USA has only 1 very major language that is English, and the much less major Spanish. As for China, I happened to be Malaysian/Chinese, Mandarin is the langauge. The rest is only dialets. For official purposes, Mandarin it is.
Compared to the EU of 27 langauges, I think the language barrier of the two above is peanuts. I think too if you are a native of a minority language group such as Dutch (like me), you would understand what it is like to have to deal with other more dominant languages within EU. For example I want to apply for a job with the patent office in the Hague, I would have to have at least German, French as well on top of English. That is the basic requirements BEFORE the job requirements. See the difficulty for people who is outside of the 4 OFFICIAL EU languages? And some job posts even more insulting … Native speakers.
I think basically language is the ONE, if not the MOST important blocking-stone that most EU politicians and other leaderships like to ignore. Because it is JUST too difficult to tackle 27 languages. Let’s be fair.
Languages is the sole-mean of communications between people. It is like road systems. You can have the best road-networks in the world. Without the cars, where are you going?
Roads=commutting.
LANGUAGES=communicating
continue from ‘madeinzoetermeer’
And do not forget, when our great leaders
go to Brussels or Strasbourg, most of the EU buildings are equipped with instruments that gave them instant interpretation of the official EU langauges, any meetings they happened to be at !! Our great leaders do not have problems. Moreover I am sure they have their own translators in-tow.
As for the common people like me? I am sure you have the answers Mr. Wilkens.
IF EU leaders wish to understand WHY their people are not talking, they should start from languages. It is not because we do not want to talk, but how?
Or not. Europe could study China’s approach and appoint a steering committee of, say, engineers then give them clear goals and forget about the ridiculous charade of Western “democracy”.