THE CONSTITUTION IS DEAD. LONG LIVE THE ANNUAL REPORT
Stephen Benians*
The EU risks dying by suffocating on the details of its own success. The declaration of an existential crisis when the constitution was rejected was to nurture a self-fulfilling prophesy: telling the ‘citizens of Europe’ that it no longer knows where it is going or what it stands for will surely cause them to lose any faith in the system they may have once had. However, for the EU to understand its real strengths and convey its positive achievements to both the world and its citizens would do more to foster an EU sense of citizenship than anyconcert, flag…or constitutional article. The one difficulty is that strength of the EU is its ability to ‘muddle though’- the combination of a visionary few and a reluctant many interacting in a complex, changing, intangible process of consensus building between multi level networks -and by its very nature representing in a constitution is counterproductive. Rather than fostering a proud citizenship, it will be at best be turn off. In fact, it does not matter if people don’t understand it – they won’t care too much even if voting rules were a simple understandable process - it’s the results that count when it comes to generating any feelings of EU citizenship. Indeed, some streamlining of decision making processes is needed in a larger union, but one should not present such procedural rules as the EU’s fundamental premise, by making it the core of a Constitution. The rules on how to actually run the EU efficiently and the rest of the acquis, should be kept in a ‘rule book’ with a suitable title like a ‘EU treaty’. But don’t call it a constitution – that would really disappoint the reader.
Instead, a ‘constitution’ should take the form of a ‘narrative-manifesto’ or simply an ‘EU consensus’ from which to hang a set of common values with which its diverse peoples can identify. Timothy Garton Ash has already suggested that these common values should be freedom, peace diversity law, prosperity, solidarity. One could take it a step further however. The narrative manifesto should be accompanied by an annual report, perhaps at the end of each commission or EP term, that sets out its achievements under the heading of these values. What concrete benefits has the EU brought to my life andto the world, that would not have been possible by my nation alone? By answering such questions the report would show how the EU has ‘walked the talk’. The EU already has many successful feats to report to its citizens, that they are unaware of. This report will be a tangible asset that can be communicated widely within the EU and thus create support for it (as opposed to a warm feeling of belonging which is not the objective) as well as help keep the EU’s ‘governors’ to account. The report however should also explain the EU’s failures in a transparent way. This would engender greater turnout in the EP elections, the latter being the vehicle for voting out the commission if these achievements were deemedunacceptable failures. This mechanism would thus also help to counter the cynical political blame game where member-states pin home-grown problems on the EU.
This kind of reporting should be done through a small but balanced committee of MEPs, EU trading partners of the developing world, and in particular, candidate countries. This would help the latter understand how the EU works, and call the EU to account on any foreign policy inconsistencies such as its stance on Turkey. By having third countries draft the report, this mechanism would also help place Europe’ role in the world - rather then its internal procedures- at the heart of European politics and the source of pride for its ‘citizens’. A more outward looking ‘global Europe’ is key to its success for the next 50 years.
The advantage of this ‘plain talking’ is that the substance would be more communicable. Any rhetoric other than the truth is just going to sound dull at best, or else simply not believed. For example, the most exciting thing to hear at the EU’s 50th birthdaywas certainly not the lowest-common-denominator, slightly dated mainstream pop performed in the public concerts, nor Merkel’s attempt to rouse the crowd with a birthday speech, but rather the Luxembourg leader who said that the ‘EU does not do what it knows it should, simply because its constituent sates don’t know how to get re-elected afterwards’. This could be the EU’s epitaph if nothing is done about it soon. Reporting both successes and failures could be an answer as it will, over time, help to create an (evidence- based) trust, a kind of European level public value, where till now only antagonism has grown in the face of many, often necessary, decisions.
In this sense, European leadership can proactively foster some kind of pride in Europe, a group of peoples in different nations that share clear values and pride in some common achievements, or at least, a trust in the system. But a ‘constitution’ of rules and legal articles is not the vehicle for engendering this pride – anything too complex and that can be spun one way or the other can generate mistrust. The EU tried to create a European Demos through a constitution packed with complex rules. Both the objective and method were mistaken. Instead, in order to create an EU of citizens that ‘merely’ trust and appreciate it, the sui generis EU needs a sui generis common narrative of values and a concurrent reporting mechanism to ensure its delivery and accountability.
With this kind of vision, come its 100th birthday, the EU will look back and see, through the trees of details, the forest of accomplishments that it will have achieved, consolidating its common set of values, by which its citizens will understand and appreciate the actions taken. There may have been few dramatic headlines year on year, but a background of quietly trusting, prosperous European peoples will be the result. That should be the cause for the centenary celebration - that is, if we don’t mess up half way by persuading ourselves we are dying.
* Stephen is an expert in creative communications and in establishing dialogue and policy networks. He has extensive experience in managing and evaluating cultural
and political projects.
PREVIOUS PAGE
|
