During the past few months most politicians and commentators have praised the democratic progress in the Union. The fact that political parties announced their candidates for the Commission Presidency in advance of the elections for the European Parliament; the visits these “Spitzenkandidaten” paid to many cities in the Union; the lively exchanges that took place in the European Parliament during the confirmation hearings of the commissioners-designate, have been interpreted as major steps towards addressing the so-called democratic deficit in the European Union´s institutions. Some have said that the current Commission leadership benefits from a “very strong democratic legitimacy”.
Yet, we challenge any of these commentators to go down on the street wherever they live, from Lisbon to Helsinki, Athens to Belfast, except perhaps Luxembourg, and ask ten passers-by what they think about Mr. Juncker´s policy proposals. We did it in one major European city, and the result was somewhere between tragic and comic. Not a single person knew who he was. Some knew the name, but not his job. One even replied he was not interested in football! The interviewees were mainly middle class, well educated professionals of the type you find in the centre of any European city. They included one lawyer, one mature widow and two waitresses. Obviously, this improvised opinion poll did not follow any of the basic rules of sociological research but, nevertheless, it is very telling and should not be ignored. The same people certainly knew who the President or Prime Minister of their respective country was.
Can any structure of power benefit from strong democratic legitimacy when most of the citizens under it don´t even know the names of those in power, let alone what their ideas and intentions are? From Schumpeter to Huntington, all political theorists agree that the word democracy admits different definitions, including flexible ones, but they also agree that there must be limits –a red line– beyond which this term does not apply any more. Is knowing who is in power one of those limits? In spite of complex theoretical constructions by political scientists looking for something positive to say or wishfully assertive declarations by political leaders, it is legitimate to question whether democracy exists in a territory where most citizens are unaware of even the names of those at the helm.
The information is, however, widely available to all European citizens. The institutions spend considerable sums of money on information activities and fund all types of organizations that are supposed to reach out to the people. Why, then, the citizens show no knowledge of or even interest in European affairs? The very same persons who have strong opinions on national politics and critical views on their national leaders are completely illiterate on EU matters, despite ample proof that EU-level decision making greatly affects our daily lives (see recent economic crisis and the response to it). Collective irresponsibility? A perception of individual irrelevance and lack of capacity to affect European level decisions? Excessive complexity of European affairs? There is an optimistic explanation that says that the level of trust of most citizens in the European political structures is so high that they don´t bother to follow what is going on, but would if needed. Unfortunately, the economic crisis has proved such optimism largely wrong. It appears more likely that many European citizens do not make the necessary effort because they do not expect anything positive in return.
Who is responsible for this situation? One can dive for days in a row in Eurobarometer´s (euro-optimistically biased) data trying to formulate a hypothesis. But perhaps it is simpler to just compare the dynamics of “democracy” at the national level and at the European level to conclude that we all have some kind of responsibility. Certainly, the politicians; but also the crafters of the Union, who have created a structure so complex that cannot be intuitively understood by citizens as national institutions can; and the bureaucrats of the European institutions, some of whom believe they are Europe; but also the media, the schools, the universities, the artists, and the public at large, that are so full of nationalist reflexes that they are not even aware of them. The true obstacles to the emergence of a European demos are not being addressed –most importantly the barriers barriers in terms of language and history. True social and cultural horizontal integration is forgotten. Many more non-scientific polls would illustrate this point: how many Western Europeans know the capitals of the Baltic states (or any other feature of these countries for that matter)? How many Europeans, except in Belgium and probably the Netherlands can pronounce Van Rompuy´s name anywhere close to its real pronunciation? Not to talk about deeply embedded reciprocal stereotypes and prejudices. We simply know too little about each other to build a political community. And, between treaty reforms and economic crisis responses, nobody in a position of power really seems to care about it.
Traditional wisdom would point out that the European construction is a complex process, that things take time and progress is taking place but at a slow pace. Precisely, the pace is the problem, for whereas the project develops slowly, disaffection with it grows quickly and even the most pro-European populations are now hesitant about it. We, in Katoikos.eu, have engaged in an attempt to make Europe more digestible to Europeans, trying to make it understandable, interesting and even funny to everyone. It is only a small contribution to the much needed effort to reverse the current trend. We invite all of you to join us in this undertaking.
The editorial team of Katoikos
