Sign of the Times
Time for clear stand on whether EU is true union or coalition of sovereign states
The European Parliament (EP) election -- one of the least watched elections in the world -- has come to an end.
Originally the Common Assembly of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) until it was renamed in 1962, the EP is a parliament-like body of the European Union (EU). Since 1979, EP members have been selected by EU constituents through direct ballot.
That is the abridged version of the EP's formative history. But there have been plenty of twists and turns in the EP's background that cannot be mentioned here for lack of space. Moreover, there is no denying that the bumps in the EP's history are what have dictated the EP's character, which can only be described as "parliament-like."
Why is the EP "parliament-like," as opposed to a "parliament?" In short, it is because the EP lacks any real legislative authority. Indeed, it has the final say on EU policy matters, as well as veto power over the EU budget and on the selection of European Commissioners. Yet, the EP cannot be considered a full-fledged parliament with comprehensive legislative power. It's a watered-down parliament.
Gaining a clear picture of the EP is no easy task, and the EP doesn't have a very prominent presence, which is why there is so little interest in it. Voter turnout for the past two elections, which take place every five years, was somewhere between 40 and 50 percent. Even European citizens see the EP as an entity of little consequence.
Parliamentary elections are an important opportunity for citizens, the central players in a democracy, to exercise their democratic rights. If citizens are indifferent to such a crucial opportunity, the EU's future is in jeopardy. Which brings us to the question of why the EU doesn't make a greater effort to empower the EP to function not as a "parliament-type" body, but as a true parliament. It's a reasonable question, but one that the EU has the most difficult time answering, precisely because this half-baked nature of the EU in everything it is or does has been the key to its survival thus far.
What would happen if the EP suddenly gained a more significant presence? What if matters that had heretofore been deliberated and determined in the parliamentary bodies of each European country were suddenly up to the EP? European constituents would surely express an interest in the EP then, but the interest would be motivated by anger. It could possibly spark calls to overthrow the EP and even the EU. And fear of such an uproar is what has led the EU to stay so ineffective.
While the EU upholds the goal of transnational unification, it has essentially remained a coalition of sovereign states. In other words, the EU has taken cover behind its own ineffectiveness. Instead of being a full-fledged European Union, it is more a European Non-Union or a European Part-Union. It is in this state that the EU's constituents approve of the entity (or non-entity). Such are the dynamics that exist below the surface of the EU.
In the past, EU leaders were dealt a major blow when they tried to push for a stronger "union" through the EU Constitutional Treaty. Sharing one constitution among all member states would have suggested a real union. It is true that the process suffered from misinterpretations and misunderstandings, but regardless, efforts to strengthen the authority of a translational EU on paper were met with strong resistance from European citizens.
Because of this bitter experience, maintaining EU's passivity became an even safer option for its leaders. This is certainly one resourceful way to deal with the situation. The approach gives rise to many problems, however, which became painfully clear in the aftermath of Lehman Brothers' collapse.
Confronted with a crisis, monetary and financial authorities in each country took a completely European Non-Union approach. With an "every man for himself" attitude, they concerned themselves only with the welfare of financial institutions and account holders in their own countries. While EU leaders have been advocating the adoption of a single European financial market, financial administration and supervision still remains under the authority of each country. And it is this unclear and ineffectual set-up that ultimately dampened efforts toward a stronger "union" at a crucial moment.
A European Union or a European Non-Union: that is the question. While the desire to maintain a state of in-betweeness is understandable, the courage to take a clear stand on whether the EU is a true union or a coalition of sovereign states is needed at this point. Without it, the EU will ultimately do a huge disservice to the main players on the stage of democracy.
In fact, extremists on both the left and right employed people's anxiety and malcontent from the economic crisis as leverage to gain momentum during the EP elections that took place this month. Because the election was met with general indifference, a void developed in the democratic system, which dubious forces on both extremes were able to exploit in order to gain steam.
Only when the European Parliament and European Union shed their veils of halfway measures will they gain a clear vision. If what is being sought is a true "union," that seems to be the only logical path to take. (By Noriko Hama, Professor at Doshisha University)
(Mainichi Japan) June 14, 2009