What the Union is and the risk of direct democracy
Miguel Mesquita da Cunha
January 22, 2007
The European Union is still a very fragile construct. Unlike nation states, it spontaneously does not evoke cultural proximity, does not conjure up glorious or tragic events traversed in common, does not glimmer with shared, revered symbols.
It rests only upon legal texts – complex & little-understood, & upon shaky institutions – small & unloved. Indeed, its foundations derive from a quintessentially intellectual process: a keen appreciation of European history that led a small number of enlightened statesmen to conclude that the idolatry of the Nation-State inescapably induces the eventual destruction of the individual. The conclusion they drew was to found a radically new political construct, antithetical to the spirit of the Westphalian Treaties, that posited that the alpha & omega of a citizen’s loyalty, & of his freedom, did not lay on cultural or historical kinship alone, but – above such natural links – on a compact reached through an act of volition, instructed by reflection & suffering. The aim in a sense was to set up an utterly novel Polis, whose legal foundation would structurally embed the overarching, existential, mutual dependency between humans which our basest instincts, our (mostly masculine) drive to dominate, tend to negate.
Such a construct can only endure insofar as the reason – not the instincts or habits – that presided to its creation is clearly borne in mind; otherwise, the natural tendency slide back towards more primitive, violence-driven, clan-based, forms of behaviour fast reassert themselves.
By definition, it is a fundamental duty of leaders to uphold – & thus as necessary to rekindle – the founding compact & the raison d’être of the collective body they purport to direct.
The behaviour of most French politicians appears of late in direct contradiction with this duty. Ms. Royal’s plans to submit a putative new constitutional treaty to a referendum is a case in point.
There should nothing wrong with referenda as such – provided the body politic ensures, by dint of its intellectual fortitude, moral rectitude & political courage, that the debate preceding the vote is as thoughtful & considered as the import of the issue at stake merits. There should nothing wrong with referenda as such – provided the people en masse, in our speedy times, can reflect & act like an assembly of wise men. If however experience suggests that a referendum campaign is ill-suited to expose & ponder all the complexity of an issue, it is wiser for the Polis to resort to the no less democratic means of parliamentary debate & decision.
To put it more bluntly, representative democracy, as opposed to direct decision-making, is not just a means to relieve the people from the very onerous burden of considering & deciding upon a vast number of complex, often confused, issues; it is more importantly a means to confide that severe responsibility to an assembly of citizens whom one should deem both expert & responsible. The stark reality of political life, as exposed by the dismal quality of most parliamentarians, is of course a long way from any ideal model. Nevertheless, to put it at its crudest, better is preferable to worse. An assembly were complex ideas can be exchanged & examined is preferable to a mostly television-based arena were volleys are valued for the spectacle they provide more than for any wisdom they may carry.
Ms. Royal’s avowed tendency towards direct democracy bodes ill – not only as regards the future of Europe, but indeed for France herself.
3 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. | TrackBack URI | bookmark on del.icio.us.
Leave a comment
Advertencia de Protección de Datos:
Los datos personales capturados con ocasión de la utilización del formulario de comentarios (nombre/apodo, dirección de correo electrónico, sitio web y dirección IP), serán incluidos en un fichero del propietario del sitio web y se publicarán (excepto su dirección de correo electrónico y su dirección IP) en esta página con la finalidad de permitir opinar públicamente al lector, así como para en su caso contestar al comentario o consultas que formule. Podrá ejercitar sus derechos de acceso, de rectificación, de cancelación y de oposición en lo referido a dichos datos personales dirigiendo un correo electrónico a la dirección: datos.personales@blogeuropa.eu.
----
Privacy notice:
Please be informed that by using the comments form, your personal data (name/nickname, e-mail address, website and IP address), will be included in a file owned by the website proprietor and published along your comment (except for your e-mail and IP addresses), in order for the reader to publicly comment, as well as -should that be the case-, to respond to any comment or query that readers may have made. You will be able to exercise your rights to access, rectify, cancel and oppose such personal data by sending an e-mail to the following address: datos.personales@blogeuropa.eu.
Je partage votre opinion sur les risques de la “démocratie participative” mais dans le cas français (ratification de justesse du Traité de Maastricht en 1992 et non à la Constitution européenne en 2005, via référendum) c’est peut-être une manière de rapprocher les citoyens de la “res publica” européenne. Comme l’a justement noté José M. de Areilza, il s’agirait d’offrir un large appui social au nouveau texte européen.
Comment by Marie-José Garot — January 23, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
I couldn’t agree more. In my mind it was inappropriate to expect the electorate to vote on complex, essential institutional reform. It is the task of our elected leaders to make decisions for our benefit but also to ensure that their choices are justified to their public. And, when it comes to the EU, this is often not the case…
Comment by Matt — January 24, 2007 @ 3:04 pm
As a general principle, I couldn’t agree more with your analysis. It reminds me a press article written by Felipe Gonzalez days before the refendum in Spain where he explained the dangers of direct democracy.
However, in this concrete case, you seem to forget that it was not Mrs. Royal who propose a referendum about the draft European Constitutional treaty in the first place.
Now, that the harm is done and that after asking the French people in a referedum they have said “no” to the draft Treaty, I don’t believe it is possible to step backward (What are they going to say to French people? we apologize but we did mistake ourselves and as regards this complex issue “representative democracy” is much better that “direct democracy”?) and to ratify the draft Treaty by the French Assembly.
France made a mistake and now it would have to sort out the problem but it is unlikely that Frech people would consider legitimate that French Parliament would ratify a text to which they have said “no”.
Best regards,
María
Comment by Maria López-Contreras González — January 26, 2007 @ 12:17 pm