EU Elections: A Disaster
For Ruling Parties
By Andrea Noll
15 June, 2004
Zmag
The largest transnational election ever held was a public relations desaster. Of the 345 million European voters a lousy 44,2% went to the ballots (in Poland the turnout was 20%!). The ruling German Socialdemocrats (SPD) faced a disasterous result while the German Socialist opposition (PDS) was doing fine. I’m especially pleased that Tobias Pflüger - an independent candidate on the PDS list and dedicated anti-war activist, standing trial for “inciting desertion” (Iraq war) - will be in the new Parliament (http://www. imi-online.de/2002.php3?id=170).Results in nearly all of the 25 EU member states confirm what I wrote in one my recent ZNet Commentaries: “If we saw general elections synchronically all over EU Europe”, I wrote in April, “hardly any national Government would survive” (“From Welfare to Warfare”: http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2004-04/10noll.cfm). In these Thursday to Sunday elections ruling parties on a national level faced weak, sometimes disastrous, results - no matter if Socialdemocrats (f.e. in Great Britain, Germany, in most of the new EU member states) or Conservatives (f.e. in France, Italy, Malta). One exception was the new Conservative Government in Greece, the other Spain - where the people said thank you to their new Socialist Government, for bringing the troops home from Iraq.
No clear ideological pattern is discernible: In Britain or Austria anti EU parties did stunningly well, in most of the new Eastern EU member states the oppositional right or center right won, in Portugal, France, Denmark or Italy the Socialist opposition won. “Never since the end of WWII were people in Europe so dissatisfied with those who ruled them” (“From Welfare to Warfare”). In these elections people showed their dissatisfaction threefold: either they abstained from voting or voted for opposition parties or for parties skeptical of the EU.
EU means democracy in very low doses, almost homeopathic. I’m a fan of homeopathy, but not when it comes to politics. The EU Parliament being the only EU institution EU citizens can vote for at all. All other organs of the supranational European Union - EU Commission, EU Council and EU Council of Ministers - are composed of people either never elected or elected on a national level. Burocrats, technocrats, states leaders, ministers, ex politicians. They represent national governments, or are the delegated representatives of representatives. Democracy in very low doses, as I stated.
The EU Parliament has very limited competences - a toothless tiger. Even in the legislative field is it hostage to the EU Council of (national) Ministers. Consumer rights and environmental issues being nearly the only fields the EU Parliament tiger has set its scent-marks in the past decades. The planned new EU Constitution is supposed to strengthen the Parliament’s power. But, it is doubtful if it would allow the tiger to even develop milk teeth - far less a real bite, concerning legislative matters / the Parliament’s controlling functions.
How isolated and disconnected the EU Parliament is from the real powers to be in Bigger EU is illustrated by the fact that even if European voters had overwhelmingly voted for the European Left, this would not in any way be reflected on the EU “governmental” level. As we all know, representative or indirect democracy - as opposed to direct forms of democracy - doesn’t work on the level of the people, far less remote controlled representative democracy. The pseudo Parliamental structures in Strasbourg/Brussels resemble those constitutional monarchies that were so characteristic for European national states in the 19th century, where you had almost powerless Parliaments - to “suggest” and “consent” but with no real decision power; that remained with the monarchs.
So, what’s all that fuzz about EU elections? Isn’t it all a big fake, a carnival, a Potemkin’s village?
Many European leftist parties, groups, movements have called up to abstain from June 10-13 voting, arguing that we can’t change things on a EU Parliamentary level and in supporting this pseudo institution in the first place we would support its fig leave function for corporate Europe and the planned neoliberal Constitution.
But other leftist groups, parties, individuals took part in the elections. Here some pro arguments for participating in EU elections.
Two things characterize the democracy deficit in the EU: a lack of transparency, and a lack of structures and institutions that enable direct decision-making processes for the people of Europe. As far as transparency is concerned, nearly all relevant decision-making processes on a EU level go on behind blind window panes. Leftist parties have promised to change this in the EU Parliament - to clean windows for us.
In May 2004 the European Left (EL) was formed in Rome. It’s a coalition of 15 socialist and communist parties - from the French Communist Party, to the Estonian Social Democratic Labour Party, from the United Alternative Left of Catalonia to Hungary’s Labour Party. Except for the Labour Party of Switzerland, Romania’s Socialist Alliance Party and San Marino’s Communist Refoundation all EL members are EU parties (http://sozialisten.de/sozialisten/el/mitglieder/index_eng.htm). In their manifesto at the foundation congress on 8-9 May 2004 they state: “We want to build a project for another Europe and to give another content to the EU: autonomous from US hegemony, open to the south of the world, alternative to capitalism in its social and political model, active against the growing militarisation and war, in favour of the protection of the environment and the respect of human rights, including the social economic ones. We stand for the right of citizenship for all those living in Europe.” (1) In regard to the EU Parliament the manifesto states:
“We want to act so that the elected institutions, the European Parliament and the national parliaments as well as the representative committees (the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions) have more powers of action and control.”
But, concerning the planned EU Constitution the manifesto is disappointingly vague:
“Today whatever may be our overall opinion of the “Constitutional Treaty” being discussed, we are opposed to a Directorate of Great Powers. Nor do we accept their wish to impose ultra-liberal economic criteria and militarisation on us leading to substantial social regression.” Asked on that point Gennaro Migliore, member of the EL executive council, states: “. In the meantime all members of the EL have found to an unanimous rejection of the neoliberal EU Constitution. We will be part of the resistance building up against Europe’s undemocratic constitutionalisation process.” (“Durch Ungehorsam zu Alternativen”, ND, June 5/6 2004).
The EL manifesto states a very important point when committing itself to working together with progressive movements, with the workers’ movements and social/civic organisations:
“We will promote an enhanced role of the Committee of the Regions and the Social and Economic Committee as substantioal instutional organs of democratic and regional policy in the EU, taking part in the decision making of the European institutions... The Social Forums have been essential moments of debate, of confrontation and of building popular and civic alternatives to the present neoliberal Europe. The social movements, the social and citizens’ struggles have their own dynamics, their independence of analysis, of proposals and initiatives. We are in favour not only of defending the rights of workers and trade unions against all kinds of discrimination, but in favour of defending workers’ rights including for unemployed and for workers in precarious jobs, extending democracy at the working place and in economic life, at all levels, including the European one.”
Gennaro Migliore: “Our initiatives ought to fit in the framework of the social movements against this EU. Such movements, like the peace movement and the movement that criticizes globalisation, are the most important actors in the upcoming struggles... Leftist parties have to be part of the movements. The social and democratic margins in our societies have become minimal. Disobedience against the neoliberal rules and institutions are the only realistic way to successfully struggle for alternatives. Unless this is so all political action in the institutions is unreliable and without perspective.” Hopefully, this is not just a lip service but an important step forward to forge a joint social power in Europe. At least, it is a manifesto against sectarianism - the most virulent illness of the Left.
But, hasn’t the (global) struggle for social rights, for a civil society and against militarism in Europe to be led outside EU institutions?
The fight for altermondialisation can be led outside EU institutions and it must be led outside EU institutions. But, why not combine forces with Trojan horses inside the devil’s den?
“In the EU various interests are in conflict with each other. For us this creates a new political space for class struggle and for the defence of the interests of workers and democracy, of the European society with its organizations and institutions, and, among them, the European Parliament”. (1)
Some of the parties signing on to the manifesto - like the German PDS (Party of Democratic Socialism) - know what they’re talking about. They have already done a great job in the European Parliament - combining forces with other undogmatic Leftist and Green parties by joining the EU Parlamentary Group United Left/Nordic Green Left (GUE/NGL). The European Left will remain a strong force in the new Parliament too. Especially the Greens did astonishingly well in these elections. But, overall, traditional parties prevailed (the Conservatives will reach around 250 of the 732 seats in the new EU Parliament, Socialdemocrats/Socialists around 200).
Fig leave or civil societies’ Trojan horse? It all depends on whether the European Left stands on our, the people’s, side in our struggle for real democracy. First and foremost we want/need direct voting processes (plebiscites).
“We will unceasingly strive to widen the action, participation and control of the citizens at all levels and at every stage of the building of Europe”, the EL manifesto states (1). Direct democracy is the key. People all over Europe have a clear, stated vision. They don’t want Europe to become a drag-along of the US model, as prescribed in the Lisbon Strategy 2010 (2). They cling to their welfare states that have been well-functioning for many decades, to social security and workers’ rights.
As for the militaristic concept of the planned Constitution / ESS. In spring 2003 people all over Europe stated their anti-war protest in massive, powerful rallies. 70% to 90% of all EU citizens were against their country participating in America’s war on Iraq - no matter what their leaders wanted. History once more proved the people right. As for direct democracy: Blair opened Pandorra’s box when indicating a British referendum on the EU Constitution. Spain, Portugal, Czechia and probably Poland plan referendums too.
Transparency is the key. If people are informed - not the least by our Trojan horses in the EU Parliament and in the Committees - they will pressure for direct democracy, for referendums on all relevant issues, be it GV food, EU militarisation, or the Constitution. Already 60% to 90% of all decisions on a national, regional or community level are influenced by EU rulings. The EU - this burocratic monster behind blind panes - is influencing the life of each and everyone of us in almost every respect. We cannot afford to let them get away with it. As for the planned EU Constitution. One of its central points is the non-optional commitment of all member states to Nato, EU militarisation, the EU Army, to a joint EU foreign policy and a joint EU foreign ministry. Remember the situation back in spring 2003 when France, Germany and some other EU member states (Rumsfeld’s “Old Europe”) opposed the war on Iraq but most EU European Governments supported Bush? What, if Europe had spoken with one voice then? Would it have been the voice of the German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer or that of Jack Straw?
1 http://sozialisten.de/sozialisten/el/programm_eng.htm
2 The Lisbon Strategy was adopted in March 2000 and aims to make the EU the most dynamic and competitive economy by 2010. This strategy involves a whole set of policy areas http://europa.eu.int/comm/lisbon_strategy/key/index_en.html