It is a broadly held view that the process of European integration inevitably involves a progressive transfer of sovereignty from the national sphere to central institutions. In the course of EU history this question occupied a central place in the negotiation of the various treaties. Each transfer of such an abstract matter as sovereignty was painfully measured, negotiated and eventually incorporated into the treaties and daily practice. It happened, though, more than once that people disagreed with the negotiators and sent them back to the drawing board by rejecting such sovereignty transfers, as in the case of France and the Netherlands with the proposed European Constitution. But, overall, at no point has there been any attempt to measure how Europeans feel now that they are beginning to understand what this transfer really means in practice. The Greek electoral results do give an indication of those feelings.
Subsidiarity and the democratic deficit
The transfer of sovereignty from member states to the European centre has been partly compensated with the introduction of democratic controls over the institutions increasingly holding “European sovereignty” and the very unclear ‘subsidiarity principle’. These controls, however, have proven insufficient. European citizens have not yet developed (perhaps never will) a sense of ownership of the European decision-making process comparable to the one they have over the corresponding national processes. European policy makers and thinkers are aware of this “democratic deficit” at the centre of the European project but have so far done very little to address the lack of accountability and resulting lack of legitimacy. It is a bomb waiting to explode.
European policy makers and thinkers are aware of this “democratic deficit” at the centre of the European project but have so far done very little to address the lack of accountability and resulting lack of legitimacy. It is a bomb waiting to explode.
Every time a Greek, Spanish, French, or other European politician says: “this matter no longer depends on me, it’s Brussels”, what s/he is really telling his/her people is that “national politics has become irrelevant, you can vote for whoever you want, it does not make any difference, decisions are made elsewhere”. And yet, so far, true European politics has not come into existence to make up for that loss.
Institutional Indifference
This is compounded by the attitudes of the European institutions and the officials who run them. Shielded in their Brussels offices from any contact with real citizens, and not depending on them for their salaries and career, they reflect a perception of power emanating from the top to the bottom. Even former national politician and elected Commission President, Juncker, made a gaffe recently that says it all: he felt free to advise on what the outcome of the Greek elections should be. Of course, he got it completely wrong, as it is the people who choose, and his role is to do his best to implement their choice. This is the message that the Greek elections have made loud and clear. Many people don´t want to go on being told “les jeux sont faits”.
There is a serious risk, though. Greece´s gamble may result in isolation for the country. There is no doubt that there will be attempts to twist the arm of the new Greek Government, and further talk on Greece exiting the euro cannot be excluded. If this is part of tough bargaining in the context of a European polity in-the-making, then it could even be seen as positive; the time that true politics has come to the EU, which can eventually handle it by balancing the needs of the various national levels and the central level. If, however, it is an attempt to dictate to Greece and its people as an external actor would do, this political game can be short and destructive for both sides.
The editorial team of Katoikos
