The
various proposals in this article are representative of the deliberations of
participating US students in the Democracy Workshop at the European
Student Conference hosted
at Yale University in February, 2015.
With
trust in European Union (EU) institutions at all-time lows, alleviating the democratic deficit*–both in terms of
citizen representation and accountability among members — has become a growing
concern for the European Union.
Credibility
in the membership criterion of the EU has been called into question repeatedly
in the wake of antidemocratic changes made by leaders of some member-states.
Yet there is often little redress to show for it. This has been coupled by
cries of too much distance between citizens and their representatives in the
European Parliament, with very few capable of indicating who represents them.
With seemingly few entry points that could legitimately influence agenda at the
EU level, it may be no wonder that many citizens are dismayed with the EU.
Bridging
the gap between citizens and the EU, through providing more opportunities to
influence agenda and policy-makers, may help revive institutions by making them
more flexible and interactive enough to enact productive policies that
rejuvenate Europe.
Introduction
on the EU citizen disconnect
The identity subgroup considered the particular
disconnect between EU policy-making and citizens’ concerns over economic
security, recommending the creation of a volunteer social workers program for
the youth and an EU-wide online job-networking platform (Europass CV) for
employers and job-seekers. They also cautioned against the danger of
restricting resident aliens’ political participation in ways that could
threaten the democratic foundation of employment and job mobility within the
EU.
Aside from the creation of new
institutions, members of the Democracy Workshop focused on reforming
institutions and mechanisms that already exist within the EU. The subgroup on
the elections of the European Parliament, for example, proposed a reallocation
of seats in Parliament for MEPs elected into single-member districts that could
be more representative of constituents at the EU level.
Members of the Democracy Workshop also
worked towards reforming existing opportunities and focused on ways citizens
could propose legislation through the European
Citizens’ Initiative. In particular, the group proposed a
pan-European vote to override Commission rejections along with increased legal
assistance and technological infrastructure that would help existing
initiatives gain enough signatures of support.
The workshop also looked into means for
the EU to react to anti-democratic evolutions in member states, proposing
concrete policies as well as soft-power incentives. Alongside a more concrete and
intelligent toolkit for the EU, we urged the European Commission and the member
states to engage in a substantive, public dialogue about constitutional changes
to be drafted, all over Europe.
During the conference, the EU ambassador
to the United States David O'Sullivan urged, "We should never forget how
far the EU has come in the last 20-30 years." Of even greater importance
is to ensure that the next decade expands upon the progress that has already
been made.
Identity
By Huan-Kai Tseng
Citizens
of the European Union (EU) nowadays have perceived the EU and its institutions
as disconnected from their daily concerns: only 39% of surveyed respondents see
the EU as “conjuring a positive image” (Eurobarometer 2014), while 41% of those
surveyed suggested that stronger social welfare would increase their sense of “being
an EU citizen” (Eurobarometer 2013). The sharp contrast in these two successive
cross-national surveys suggests that the EU, despite being a regulatory body
with policy-makers indirectly selected by EU citizens, has not made its
policies responsive, in a timely fashion, to the pressing concerns of their
“selectorates.”
In the
last half-century, EU citizens witnessed the delegation of sovereignty and
policy-making to a transnational regulatory body on a grand scale; yet, amidst
prolonged economic recession and the looming sovereign debt crisis, ordinary
people’s daily concerns, particularly those of the youth, have shifted from
politics to (un)employment and job mobility (both within and outside their home
countries). The misalignment between the EU’s actual policy outputs and the
citizens’ more economic-oriented policy demands can potentially erode the
democratic foundation of the EU. It is with this spirit that the identity
workshop proposed the following legislative initiatives aimed at bridging the
gap between the EU and its citizens in an era of economic uncertainty. It
hinges on three key aspects (1) (un)employment, (2) job mobility, and (3)
democratic participation.
First,
our policy proposal targets young people aged 18-30, who are most vulnerable to
recession-related workforce reduction. The proposed policy is to create an
EU-version of young volunteer social workers or semi-professional services
modeled after AmeriCorps and Teach-for-America in the US. The objective is to
temporarily place recently displaced young people into an EU-wide social work
force, with stipends equivalent to statutory minimum living wage, assisting in
tasks including health care/aid and primary school instruction in low-income
regions, which also helps them cultivate an EU-vision by working alongside
peers from other EU countries.
Secondly,
we propose a Europass CV, an EU-wide business-oriented job-networking online
service, that allows employers to search for job applicants across the entire
EU region with qualifications and skill-sets readily translatable into major EU
official languages and beyond. The EU could promote the Europass CV as the
primary job-networking portal and coordinate this cross-border employment
initiative with member states’ ministry of labor/trade.
Finally,
owing largely to the shrinking public resources/spending caused by prolonged
economic recession, many EU citizens are becoming more reluctant to further
extend voting rights in local elections to resident aliens from other EU
countries for fear that their tax contribution will be distributed away at the
ballot box. Indeed, as of today, only 12 out of 29 EU states have explicit
legal provision that allows some categories of voting rights for resident
aliens. However, this suffrage provision is a by-product of the reciprocity
clause of the Maastricht Treaty, which was originally designed to promote job
mobility within the EU; thus, recent public sentiment can plausibly hinder job
mobility and thereby erode the democratic foundation of the EU.
For these
reasons, we believe the EU (and particularly the European Parliament) can
better bridge the gap between itself and its citizens by working closely with
member states to implement these recommended policy proposals to enhance the
democratic foundation of the EU at this critical moment.
Reform of
the elections to the European Parliament
By Colleen Driscoll
Despite the presence of spitzenkandidaten in the elections to
the European Parliament (EP) in May 2014, this personalization of the campaign
did not materialize in increases in voter turnout.
In fact, in many countries, turnout
declined to record low levels. With turnout levels remaining low or declining,
there is a clear need for greater participation in European affairs by ordinary
citizens to increase the democratic legitimacy of EU institutions. Moreover,
the question of low turnout implicates the representation of the voice of EU
citizens in Parliament, as we see
higher vote shares among euroskeptic parties as abstention grows.
We find that in thirteen polls taken
within a week of the May 2014 elections, the UK Independence Party was
supported by 14.3% of the British public on average. The election returns,
however, gave UKIP 26.6% of the vote, almost double the support that polls predicted. We
attribute this discrepancy in voting behavior and its consequences in
representation of EU citizens in the EP to the lack of a sufficiently strong
electoral connection between the EU and its citizens.
With the findings above in mind, the
members of the elections subgroup came to the conclusion that the European
Union should reform the elections to the EP to bring it closer to the people.
Literature in comparative politics shows that members with a specific
geographical constituency not only advocate for their constituents interests,
but also provide a key link from their districts to the national government and
bureaucracy.[1] By cultivating this
electoral connection at the district level, citizens may feel that they have
more of a European identity than at present.
In designing the districts, emphasis
should be placed on making the ratio of MEP to constituents as equal as
possible. By focusing on equal-population districts, the EP will seem to its
citizens a more egalitarian institution, one that better represents the views
of its citizens. Currently, an MEP in Malta has nearly twelve times the
influence, measured by the number of residents she represents, than a MEP from
Germany. While the merits of allotting representatives irrespective of state
size are strong, the effects of the disproportionality on sentiments of
democratic deficit across the EU are too great to ignore.
We thus propose setting aside one third
of the membership of the EP (250) for single-member districts that are as
evenly distributed as possible, with a minimum of one district in each member
state. The remaining two thirds of seats will be assigned by party list to
retain proportionality at the national level.[2]
Creating an interlocutor between local
and transnational governance will allow citizens of the EU not only a
personalized connection with the Union, but it will also facilitate dialogue
and create a Parliament that better responds to the needs of its citizens. By
institutionalizing conversation from the grassroots level, the elections
subgroup hopes to instill a sense of identity within the larger patchwork that
is Europe.
Reform of
the European Citizen Initiative
By Mary Anne Mendoza
The existence of the European Citizen
Initiative (ECI) provides an opportunity for citizens to utilize direct
democracy in order to influence the agenda at the European level. But the
current status of the ECI leaves much to be desired in terms of political clout
and public awareness. Two policy proposals seeking to address these issues came
about during conference deliberations.
The first proposal focused on the process
of the ECI itself. It sought to increase the number of signatures needed to
pass an initiative in order to complete the introduction of a more binding
mechanism. The collection of more signatures would also increase visible
support for initiatives and could result in more informal pressure in European
institutions and policy-makers. This group proposed increasing the gravity of
the ECI through a pan-European vote that would be triggered by a rejection of
an initiative by the Commission. In the event of a double majority of European
citizens across member-states voting in support of an initiative, the Commission’s
rejection would be overridden and it would be forced to propose the initiative
to the European Parliament and to the Council. But such feats of support and
increased signature collection cannot be enacted unless citizens both
understand and utilize the capacity of the ECI.
In pursuit of this, a second proposal
focused on improving channels of awareness. Only 1 out of 50 initiatives[3] have resulted in an actual
policy proposal. 40% of existing initiatives were
rejected for ”[falling] manifestly outside the framework
of the Commission's powers to submit a proposal for a legal act of the Union
for the purpose of implementing the Treaties.”[4]
The second proposal focused on calling
upon existing European institutions, political parties, media outlets, and
groups within civil society to provide legal assistance in writing initiatives in
order to reduce rejection rates. The added potential of an overriding pan-European
vote can help to serve as a stronger impetus for groups within society to
contribute to the support of initiatives.
Additionally, the second proposal focused
on improving the technological infrastructure behind the ECI. At least
two-thirds of signatures collected in support of initiatives were submitted
online, yet there have been many reported issues with the online submission
system and a majority of rejected signatures were
those collected online.[5] An improved ECI website with
better infrastructure for signature collection, online brochures about the ECI
process, and an up-to-date database of initiatives would complement the efforts
of organizations seeking to enact change through this route. The digital age
provides a wealth of opportunities to unite the interests of individuals across
Europe, despite obstacles such as distance, and a failure to properly utilize
such channels would be a travesty.
Anti-democratic
behavior
By Yann Schreiber
In recent years, anti-democratic
tendencies have been gestating in several EU member states. Some leaders,
particularly from member states in central and eastern Europe, have solidified
and centralized their grip on power and have inserted undemocratic changes in
their institutional systems. Many of these actions are deeply rooted in the
country’s socio-economic situation and evolution. There is no doubt that these
causes are to be addressed on a national and European level, but our policy
proposal focuses on more straight-to-the-point possibilities to prevent
anti-democratic behavior and to enforce European rules in reaction to such
tendencies.
The EU lacks the institutional capability
to bring the member states back on the democratic track. Democratic requirements
are high prior to EU membership, but the EU falls short of a toolkit to address
the anti-democratic behavior of a member state. Existing measures fall short:
Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union (TUE) remains an unworkable
instrument with which to reproach member states due to both procedural and
substantive obstacles. Meanwhile, Article 2 of the TEU identifies foundational
values as “respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of
law, and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to
minorities.” While Article 7 was explicitly inscribed to give the Council the
power to reproach its member states, practice demonstrates that due to the
rather vague values of Article 2 and the arduous institutional requirements of
Article 7, it is close to impossible to find sufficient political willingness
to employ the measure.
To begin with, we want to give the EU a
working definition of democracy and fundamental values. Building on the
existing definitions of democracy enshrined in the constitutions of each member
state, it is in the interest of the EU to develop a collection of norms.
Secondly, we also suggest that all
national constitutional changes should be submitted to the European Commission
for an unofficial review process in order to promote transparency and in
addition promote the various different constitutional and national values. Diversity
and difference is a fundamental principle of the EU, but underlying consistency
is imperative for its survival. The Commission’s opinion will be non-binding,
but uses public awareness and political statements without direct intervention
to pressure the state to consider the legality of the changes under
consideration.
Finally, we recommend a more effective
set of policy instruments to respond to anti-democratic behavior, including an
expansion of the existing infringement procedures and more effective means of
economic sanctions, such as withholding of EU funds.[6]
Conclusion
The
proposals presented in this paper discuss various democratic challenges
currently facing the EU and offer policy recommendations for ameliorating these
problems. They come from a multiplicity of standpoints that reflect the
diversity among the students who crafted them.
All of
these students are united in their desire to improve Europe for the future, one
which they wish to help create. There should be no shortage of support for
informed voices that debate the democratic challenges facing the EU. We want to
engage in a dialogue with the EU institutions, but also with representatives
from member states to further discuss these proposals and work together for a
better Union of the future.
As
Francesco Tava discussed
in his piece not too long ago, “We should start understanding
Europe not as an idea but rather as a clash of ideas; as a community whose
ground is not an exclusionary identity, but rather a comprehensive solidarity.“ There are few better ways to
ensure the future of the EU than by engaging in the ideas presented by young
people, particularly young people who wish to begin molding that future in the
present.
[1] Fenno, R. (1977). “U.S. House Members and Their
Constituencies.” American Political
Science Review 71:3 883-917.
[2] The exact
allotment of districts by member states is found in the final policy paper,
which can be accessed by contacting Colleen Driscoll (cdriscoll@g.harvard.edu) or Johanna Goehler (johanna.goehler@yale.edu).
[3] Data on initiatives was compiled originally for
the purpose of these policy papers, which can be accessed by contacting Mary
Anne Mendoza (msmendoz@uci.edu)
or Johanna Goehler (johanna.goehler@yale.edu).
[4] European Commission. Jan. 12 2015. The
European Citizens Initiative.
[5] Berg, Carsten and Pawel Glogowski. 2014.
“The First European Citizen’s Initiatives: An Overview of the First Two
Years of the European Citizens’ Initiative.”
ECI That Works.
[6] A larger discussion of this topic can be found
in the final policy paper that can be obtained by emailing Yann Schreiber (yannschreiber@gmail.com)
or Johanna Goehler (johanna.goehler@yale.edu).
* For a brief introduction to the concept of
the democratic deficit, see for instance: Sara B. Hobolt, Citizen Satisfaction with
Democracy in the European Union, in: Journal of Common Market Studies, Volume
50, Number S1, 2012, pp. 88-105.