The French vote is good news for Europe
Natalia Leshchenko*
I rather admire the French - for their ability to say ‘no’ when everybody with any account of political power in the country so had unashamedly asked them to say ‘yes’. The French vote on the European Constitution Treaty was an expression of popular discontent for sure. But to interpret it merely as a ‘mob revolt’, as the political elites seem to have already done, is to repeat the same mistake that got the French leaders into their current pitiful position in the first place.
The French ‘no’vote should not and cannot be summarized as anger of infantilized plebs who had kicked their guardians for failing to deliver them ‘bread and entertainment’. There are enough signs to argue that the voters took the question seriously and their decisions were based on much consideration and clear reasoning. The problem for the French elites, was, of course, that the popular thoughts on the constitution were different from their own. And since politicians cannot re-elect the people, as much as they might cherish the dream of being able to, the only thing remaining for them is to get the people on their board. This does not mean mere listening to the people or yet more attempts of ‘sell’ them the idea following the leads of pollsters and focus groups. This means giving up some ownership of the project.
The disparity of between the people’s and elite’s views on Europe is a symptom of a wider problem with all old democracies, the disconnection between the political establishment and the public. Academics, NGOs, the media have been ringing alarm bells about this for several years already, but their proposed solutions have been either not feasible, or not heard. It seems that politicians prefer to blame the people for being not understanding enough, or being not able to grasp their, politicians that is, grand and well-meaning ideas. It would be incorrect and unfair to say that the individuals who shape the European integration are doing it exclusively in their cynical or pragmatic interests. The eastwards enlargement of the Union must have been a hard leap of faith for them. They may as well be genuinely committed to the united Europe, but simply too afraid to leave it to ‘the masses’. Yet, when the division lines start to go not between political platforms, but between the politicians and the people altogether, the danger is that somebody else, from outside the established circles, can come and connect to the people instead, with precarious consequences for democracy. Take the example of Belarus. In 1994, all elite groups lost the presidential election to a political novice, who could convincingly talk to, and in the name of, the nation. Over 10 years, he quietly turned the country into his single realm of authority, earning it the label of ‘the last dictatorship in Europe’. If a postcommunist example seems far-fetched, one does not have to leave borders of any old European democracy to think of the cases of populist, exclusionist, and extremist forces on the rise. They thrive of the popular frustration and feeling that they no longer own their countries, and have no say in the way they are run. The exclusive rhetoric has already targeted and scathed the European idea.
The way to take the European integration forward, therefore, is to make it people’s project as much as it is currently an elite project. The elites, as we have seen, are at loss as to how to do it. It is time young people took the leadership.
The young people are the most likely and the most willing champions of the European cause. They rely on the European unity for their travel, education, work and relationships. Interaction across the geographical and national spans is a part of their everyday reality, and they will not be pushed back into the cells of nation-states. What they need is to turn from mere customers, consumers of the values and benefits of the integration into the force that shapes the process altogether. Of course, it is up to us to claim our voice. In the great democratic tradition of Europe, we do not need to be given it. And we should not simply come and tell the current leaders of Europe our agenda in the hope that with sufficient persistence, they will hear. In that case, we would not be any different from many lobbying and campaigning groups, who undermine the representative system and perpetuate its failures. Instead, the young people have to come up with a redefinition of the European political system, in a way that would bridge the chasm between the political elites and the people. There are two imperatives for the alternative system we should propose. One, it must render decision-making and policy formulation more open so that more people feel the ownership of the European idea. Two, it must account for people’s permanent time pressures and therefore offer new methods of participation in decision-making.
This is a big challenge, but it is within reach, because a united Europe is already a reality. It is united by a distinct set of values and principles: popular vote cannot be oppressed or rigged; difference is tolerated and fruitful; nobody has a monopoly on truth. The French vote confirmed all three and also demonstrated convincingly that people will not be fooled or pressured, thus proving that democracy is alive in Europe. The current dismay among the elites means that there is an opportunity to give it a new shape.
June 2005
* Natalia Leshchenko is a PhD candidate at the London School of Economics and Political Sciences.
PREVIOUS PAGE
|
