By the people, for the people?

Is there a parallel between the recent Eurovision Song Contest and this week’s European elections? EU-enthusiasts certainly hope so. The Song Contest’s “vote for tolerance and diversity” was an indication, they say, that we Europeans love each other really (except for the Russians, obvs). If our 28 electorates would only approach the EU elections in the same positive and high-minded spirit, just think what a Schulz or a Juncker might achieve as Commission President.

Funnily enough, eurosceptics also think there is a parallel. Thanks, they reply, but if the Eurovision Song Contest is really your idea of participatory democracy then you can stick it. After all, the song entry that topped many national phone-ins was secretly voted down by technocratic juries in favour of the “correct choice”. When we express a preference for metaphorical buxom Poles, they ask, is it really democratic to give us an Austrian fella in a dress?

There is a serious point trying to get out here. Protest parties across the EU complain that we are heading towards an age of “liberal totalitarianism”: Europe may have buried the old totalitarianisms of the Left and the Right, but here is a new and subtler form of social control. The Song Contest was just the latest incidence: a system established with a laudable aim (preventing voters from allotting points along national lines) is now restricting our choices for a whole range of other reasons.

Seen from this angle, the EU elections are an altogether more serious example of liberal democracy being traduced in order to constrain our political choices. Electorates are being asked to vote for a “top candidate” whom (with the exception of the Green party’s duo) they did not have a proper chance to pre-select, under a system that they did not ask for, and from a range of personalities who profess almost identikit views. There is a real sense that, just by casting a vote for a mainstream party, we will end up legitimising a liberal politburo.

But is this such a new predicament? In many ways this is just the latest iteration of the old problem of “government by the people, for the people” – the tricky task of ensuring that policies reflect the wishes of the people (“by”), but are also in their best interests (“for”). Or, in the lingo, it is about reconciling responsiveness to voters with policy-innovation and risk-taking (ie, giving voters solutions which they did not know they wanted).

Critics would suggest that the EU has so far failed at both. It has concentrated arrogantly on defining the best interests of the people, with the result that its policies are neither by nor for citizens. Renationalisation is seen as the best corrective: repatriating European power and politics would not only bring political choices closer to citizens, it is claimed, it would also encourage states to compete for innovative policies and put an end to the Brussels one-size-fits-all approach.

Under present circumstances, the case seems almost open-and-shut. But can a counter-argument be made? Might a more Brussels-heavy system like the one associated with the top candidates actually tick our two boxes? Well, yes actually.

When it comes to the first imperative, ensuring government by the people, it is worth remembering that the EU is not a simple hierarchy of powers that has Brussels at the top, then the national level, then the local. The European Union, like the US, was created by its member states and it is the member states that remain squarely at the top of the hierarchy. That means that “repatriation” does not equal “localism”.

Shifting powers back from the European to the national level does not automatically decentralise power and bring decisions closer to voters. This strengthening of the states would instead re-centralise power. And the current myths about “Brussels diktats” only permit governments and parliaments to abdicate their responsibility for EU affairs – hardly conducive to proper accountability.

As for the question of government “for the people”, healthy competition between European states for innovative policies occurs only under certain conditions. You need a strong Brussels to provide a safety-net for states taking policy risks, not to mention a robust system of free movement so that high-flyers can vote with their feet, and an overarching system that allows policy innovations to spread between very different states.

Oh, and you also need a political system where the figures in Brussels enjoy a high profile. After all, if there is no kudos attached to gaining a post in Brussels, then there is one less incentive for national politicians to compete and excel. Central Europe is a good example. The region may not have provided one of the “top candidates” in this European election, but the prospect of gaining a prestigious post in Brussels is certainly encouraging them to think of innovative policies back home.

So, will today’s top-candidate system improve responsiveness and innovation? Hell no – it’s a mess. But it is still worth engaging with the idea so that, at the time of the next elections, we are one step further on – further towards an EU system where our politicians take proper blame and credit for policies; further towards a system where European politicians compete with each other to create world-beating local models, rather than engaging in some glum “global race” with China and India setting the pace.

In short, don’t let a technocratic jury in the European Council spoil your vote this weekend.


twitter: @roderickparkes

  1. #1 by Calvin on May 23, 2014 - 7:05 pm

    It’s not been for the people in a long time. Indeed, most of the time the people have been given a say, eg on the Lisbon treaty, they said “no, we don’t want this” and the EU turns around and keeps asking until they get the ‘correct’ answer. They think the public are an inconvenience and it’s a great relief that the public are now realising that rather than a boring waste of money, the EU project is actively harmful, dangerous and in the case of Ukraine a warmonger.

  2. #2 by wg on May 23, 2014 - 7:48 pm

    Seconded Calvin.

    The most benevolent outcome of the author’s ‘vision’ is that people won’t bother to vote.

    I have long believed this to be the EU’s desired outcome but free will is a persistent companion – one that no amount of twisting of the meaning of democracy will ever subdue.

  3. #3 by Victor on May 25, 2014 - 6:01 am

    How come people that love referendums have a problem with voting twice on the same issue or even similar issues?

    Elections are voting almost always for the same parties.

    In Parliaments members vote on the same issues all the time.

    It is inherently democratic to have debates about the same issues all the time.

    Is for some reason the first referendum the only one that is valid? Then why aren´t the accession referendums respected?

    Doesn´t the different circumstances or text argument also apply to the different treaties and their amendments?

    Doesn´t the turnout also matter, as well as the fact that a vote was preceded by parliamentary approval or even prior elections?

    The logic is simplistic and misguided.

  4. #4 by Lasse Riise on May 26, 2014 - 9:48 am

    Many Europeans have revealed this scam as the fake so-called elections they are. The Citizens have been totally stripped of all influence on their own lives. It’s like an ant trying to make its voice heard all across an entire continent. Ever more Europeans realize this. So, why bother to put a Peace of paper into a “star-spraggled” blue ballot box (it might just as well flushed down the toilet). Ever lower turnout is a very logical consequense, reflecting the most rational response human beeings cangive to this charade.

  5. #5 by asklepion on May 26, 2014 - 10:43 am

    Your arguments are valid enough, but they do not apply to the matter at hand. We are not talking about the decision to take ham and eggs or a continental breakfast on Monday or on Thursday.
    The matters at hand were a decision of a once and for all time. This hardly justifies the approach of repeated voting and on the irish case coercion untill the populace fullfills the correct political expectations.

    • #6 by Victor on May 27, 2014 - 10:33 am

      So if the issue is really important then it can´t be reconsidered?

      And voting two times is a form of coercion…

  6. #7 by asklepion on May 27, 2014 - 11:04 am

    You seem to miss the point again. As to the circumstances of the irish vote, the term coercion is mild, “bully” would be appropriate.

  7. #8 by septic tank on June 9, 2014 - 10:07 am

    Admiring the hard work you put into your site and detailed
    information you provide. It’s great to come across a blog every once in a
    while that isn’t the same unwanted rehashed information. Great read!
    I’ve saved your site and I’m adding your RSS feeds to my Google account.

  8. #9 by Lasse Riise on June 12, 2014 - 6:13 am

    I’s strange the EPP-group continues to be titeled as a centre-right group by some journalists. This has become quite Undeserving. The emerging policies of the EPP is very little Centristic. This is getting ven more true, for each month that goes by.
    Quite opposite in fact. They are resembling ever more like far-right extremists (in the true sence of the words). Just like the “Lazzie-Fare mania” of the American Republicans.

  9. #10 by Lona on June 17, 2014 - 12:00 am

    Banks are quite concerned about defaults, so a business plan is
    an important tool that every businessman cannot do without.
    Niche Too european union death penalty SmallIs your
    niche too small? As the entrepreneurial and investment world changed over the years and is something that many home
    based business, consider these important rules. Those experiences often serve as
    the contact point for the customers, etc. This will lead into
    the Strategy and Connection to the CommunityIf you are trying to attract.
    The last thing you write.