The issue that is of foremost concern to me in the context of the European Union is democracy.
It is not an uncommon claim that the Lisbon Treaty should be opposed on the grounds that the ratification process of the treaty itself is undemocratic or the European Union is itself in general undemocratic.
It is also common to call the Treaty itself undemocratic – previously because of the potential loss of an Irish commissioner – but now more concentrated around a potential loss of influence for Ireland due to reduced veto powers and reduced voting weights relative to larger states.
The problem with a debate on the merits or lack thereof of the Lisbon Treaty in the context of democracy is that there has been an ongoing existential debate about what kind of democracy we want since the earliest days of integration. This debate has never been resolved and the Union has perhaps suffered institutionally because it is a compromise between the two sides rather than a pure realisation of either idea.
Intergovernmentalism vs Supranationalism
The two concepts are democracy are the Supranational, which manifests itself to a certain extent in the European Parliament and Intergovernmental, which manifests itself in the European Council/Council of Ministers, the Commission and throughout the political culture of the Union and Member States.
Intergovernmentalism’s conception of democracy in the Union is that Union institutions should be as “transparent” as possible to national democratic institutions elected by national elections. It is an indirectly representative model.
Supranationalism’s conception of democracy in the Union is that Union institutions should be as directly “democratic” as possible to the electorate. That is, Union institutions should be directly elected. It is a direct model.
The two buzzwords associated with these positions are “transparency” for Intergovernmentalism and “democracy” for Supranationalism.
One of the things that made it extremely difficult to determine what it is Libertas actually stood for in the first Lisbon campaign and in general is that they used both of these buzzwords and never actually defined what they meant by either. Their emphasis on the importance of Commissioner as an indirect representative of Ireland suggested that they adhered to the Intergovernmental model. But their repeated reference to democracy is more associated with the Supranational model. What it implies that Ireland’s Commissioner is – apparently – now preserved but Libertas remain opposed to the treaty I do not know. This indeterminacy in Libertas’s position suggests they either do not understand the debate surrounding democracy in the Union or they chose to muddle the issue as electoral opportunism. It is very easy for a small group outside Government to criticize but offer not information on what they would do differently.
So which is more democratic, Intergovernmentalism or Supranationalism?
Well how do we define democracy?
The definition of democracy that has always stuck in my mind is “Rule of the majority with the consent of minority.”
This definition would seem to imply that the Member State vetoes found in Intergovernmentalism are legitimate as the means by which the minority does or does not give consent.
The potential political stagnation of having 27 plus vetos aside, this definition at least supports the principle of National based representation (Intergovernmentalism) at a Union level.
If only it were so simple.
The problem is that in an Intergovernmental system like we have now, elections are largely fought on National issues at the expense of Union issues and the electorate has little direct say in what happens at Union level. But Union level is becoming more and more important, so real democracy is declining. It is common to criticise the Union for being undemocratic, particularly from a national-centric perspective, what is rarely done is analyse WHY the Union is undemocratic. It is because of Intergovernmentalism.
Quote:
| Originally Posted by wilting  Bureaucracy and the democracy deficit are both a result of intergovernmentalism; simply put integration requires institutions, if democracy remains national-centric then those institutions will be bureaucratic, and as integration deepens real democracy will decline. If integration is inevitable (and it appears to be), then the only way to maintain democracy is make the institutions democratic, but that is not in the self interest of National Governments or large National Parties, whose whole existence and power is based upon the assumption of the legitimacy of national-centric democracy which they view as being mutually exclusive with a fully developed Union democracy. With or without Lisbon we will still have an intergovernmental Union. You can certainly improve things in how the intergovernmentalist Union works, but it will still be an intergovernmental Union. |
What does this have to do with the Lisbon Treaty?
Criticising the Lisbon Treaty on the grounds that Ireland’s veto powers or voting weights are reduced is to hold an Intergovernmentalist position.
It is strange however, that the groups that hold this position are groups that are not likely to be in the position to use those powers. Since Intergovernmentalist representation is done by (surprise) Governments it is larger and dominant parties in National political systems that are more likely to get into Government that benefit from this system. Smaller national parties have more to gain from a Supranational system because they could potentially access influence through a more powerful Union Parliament that they are locked out of by the formation of national Governments. Stronger Supranational Democracy would provide a means for small parties to strengthen opposition to National Governments.
Do Sinn Fein members and supporters honestly believe that a Fianna Fail dominated Government that they so virulently oppose is representing their interests when they sit in the Council of Ministers or European Council? Do Sociliast party supporters really believe that said Government has their interests in mind when nominating a Commissioner? Sinn Fein’s position can be explained however in that as a particularly Nationalist party their support is predicated on legitimacy of National-centric representation. A strengthened European polity would undermine the whole raison d’être of Sinn Fein so they have opposed any possible strengthening of that system at every opportunity.
But it would also undermine that of ANY party in a National-centric polity. The large parties that do or are likely to sit in Government have everything to gain from an Intergovernmentalist system – where they hold the reigns and can shut out the opposition – and everything to lose from a Supranational system – where opposition influence can creep in and National-centric basis for the electoral legitimacy may be threatened.
So parties that are on different sides of the debate on the Lisbon Treaty actually have the same basic position on democracy in the European Union – an Intergovernmentalist position.
Why would the Governments of Member States, who have a self-interest in Intergovernmentalism, negotiate a treaty that arguably weakens it, increases the role of Member State Parliaments and the Union Parliament?
There are two answers to this question.
The first answer is that those Governments have a self-interest in a smoothly functioning and effective European Union. If the Union isn’t working smoothly, then it is likely Member States will be affected, and negative effects in a Member State are likely to result in negative effects at the ballot box for Governments. The Union Parliament provides an appearance of democratic legitimacy for what is primarily an Intergovernmental political system.
On the other hand small parties like Sinn Fein, the Socialist Party and UKIP, with an extremely low chance of getting into Government, have a self-interest in a badly functioning European Union and a failing Irish (or UK) economy. The worse off we are, the more people will vote for them in protest. UKIP is a particularly extreme and bizarre case; as their whole existence is predicated on opposition to the Union they are dependent on its existence for their own, and dependent on it functioning as badly as possible for them to get as much support as possible but never quite tipping over into total failure.
The second answer is that Lisbon isn’t a particularly dramatic change, it doesn’t change the system from Intergovernmental to Supranational. It takes some baby steps but it is still essentially the same system.
The debate around democracy and the Lisbon treaty is a completely false one. Small parties can afford to use it for negative campaigning from a National centric standpoint because they won’t have to put their money where their mouth is and it isn’t in the interest of large parties for the real democracy debate to enter the public sphere. Sinn Fein actually has an interest in maintaining an Intergovernmental system, but since the public aren’t aware that the model of democracy being questioned on national centric grounds is actually built on those grounds it can be used for campaign purposes. Large parties prefer to avoid the subject because they know full well that a directly democratic European Union isn’t in their self-interest. The opposition to Lisbon isn’t a real opposition to an "undemocratic" Union at all.
The Ratification process of Lisbon
The ratification process itself is also the subject of criticism. Common claims are that Irish voters should support the Dutch and French “no” votes, and vote on behalf of all those European citizens that do not have a say.
This is an extremely dishonest position.
This claim would appear to be one that advocates a Supranational, directly democratic Union. Supranational democracy indeed offers a simple solution to this problem; pan-Union referenda.
But the groups making this claim don’t want such a system. To use Sinn Fein as an example again, it is an Intergovernmental system that is in their self interest. They also tend to be the groups criticizing the Treaty for reducing Ireland’s vetos or voting weights, or advocating a total renegotiation of the Treaty to get a better deal for Ireland.
An increased voting weight for Germany and decreased for Ireland would be proportional. It would be democratic.
The purpose of a maintaining Ireland’s vetoes is to prevent other Member States from pursuing their interests.
A renegotiated treaty implies doing so to get a better deal for Ireland at the expense of other Member States.
Claiming these things and claiming that a no vote somehow represents the interest of Citizens that can’t vote is totally hypocritical.
Voters vote in their own self interest, it is dishonest in the extreme to pretend otherwise.
The most ridiculous manifestation of this criticism is the claim that the ratification of the Treaty is undemocratic because the public is being asked to vote again. The fact that the electorate still ultimately decide aside, this is again a criticism based upon a direct model of democracy, referenda being direct. Yet the same campaigners that make this claim also advocate national vetoes, disproportionate voting weights and commissioners of the representative model. Why is it ok for politicians to indirectly represent the electorate at Union level, but not ok to make the decision as representatives at State level to run a second referendum?
Another common criticism of the Treaty is that it is simply so dense and complicated that it is inaccessible to citizens. How is an Irish voter even supposed to decide? Referenda should be on single clear issues, not bulbous amorphous treaties.
This is yet another case of criticising the Union without asking WHY something is that way. The simple answer is that the Lisbon Treaty is so complicated because of what it is; a Treaty. In an Intergovernmental system, Governments who have to please all sorts of different interests amongst the electorate have to compromise. The result is that they give a little here and take a little there and there are so many complicated forces at work that you get a massive indigestible document.
Putting such a document to a referendum in the first place is totally inappropriate. There will always be lots of things in there that the public don’t like because its a compromise, and as previously mentioned it is totally inaccessible. Referenda should be on single clear issues.
Referenda CAN be on single clear issues, like referenda on domestic issues in Ireland, if they go through an amendment process like in Ireland in Supranational democratic institutions, rather than being negotiated as Treaties in an Intergovernmental system.
This is again the case of something caused by an Intergovernmental system, easily fixed by a Supranational system, but criticised from a national centric perspective by people who either don’t know any better or don’t want you to know how the system really works. A system sustained by parties with an interest in a system that legitimises them foremost.
The reality is it is the multitude of different Member State political systems that prevent there from being more widespread referenda on treaties. It is a quirk of the Irish system that Ireland has a referendum on every single treaty. Intergovernmentalism is the problem here, as previously stated both sides of the Lisbon "debate" are Integovernmentalist, rendering it meaningless.
So does the Treaty improve or harm democracy in the Union?
It is subjective how “undemocratic” the Union really is.
Referenda can be criticised as populist. The argument could be made that modern representative democracy is far from the Athenian ideal and the European Union is little worse than the Member States in this regard. As previously illustrated, whether or not to hold referenda is a decision made at Member State level, not at Union level.
It has also been argued that much of what occurs at “bureaucratic” appointee bodies at Union level are issues that don’t really concern voters that much anyway and would have been decided by bureaucratic appointees at State level.
Personally, while I think the democracy deficit is exaggerated in some quarters, I also think it is a significant problem - caused by Intergovernmentalism.
No treaty will magically change the Union. Even if one did make all the desirable changes into a fully developed Supranational democracy, the political culture necessary to make the most of such institutions would not appear overnight. That the same groups that supposedly oppose the Lisbon treaty on democratic grounds would be likely to oppose such changes betrays either their hypocrisy, dishonest opportunism or lack of understanding of the Union itself. Institutional changes requires cultural changes and cultural changes are caused by institutional changes. Baby steps.
Each treaty deals with the issues relevant to its own times. The Lisbon treaty does make some small positive steps in increasing the powers of the Union Parliament. Their true significance would only become apparent many years after ratification – if the Treaty is ratified. The new post of President of the European Council may become a directly elected position in the next treaty, or the treaty after that. A more proportional voting weight system in the Council is consistent with the election model of proportional representation in Ireland and widespread in Member States.
It’s not perfect, but it’s a step forward.
