Democracy

Alin Mituța

Institutions, democratization, citizen participation

Although it has been progressively simplified through consecutive treaty changes, the EU’s institutional architecture remains very complex and difficult to understand for the average citizen. The Conference on the Future of Europe is an opportunity to discuss the European institutions, their coherence and decision-making processes, as well as their share of competences at the European, national or local level.

Citizen participation

What doesn’t work well?

One of the reasons why citizens often feel disconnected from the European Union is the lack of an European public space. The current framework in which the leaders of the European institutions are elected, a tangled and cumbersome decision-making process and especially how citizens can (or rather cannot) contribute to this decision-making process are obstacles to creating a real space for ideas, in order to attract the attention and interest of citizens.
At the moment, citizens are rarely involved in decision-making at the European level. For the vast majority of citizens, it only happens once every 5 years, when they elect representatives to the European Parliament. Between elections, there is the possibility of using the European citizens’ initiative. However, the tool is difficult to use and has not shown that it can have a concrete finality. Contributions to the public consultations launched by the Commission on legislative proposals in preparation are another method of involvement, but the decision-making impact of such contributions is not easy to quantify. Ultimately, citizens’ participation in decision-making at the European level is not sufficiently stimulated and facilitated.

What are the solutions we propose?

The Joint Declaration on the Conference on the Future of Europe argues that European citizens must gain new opportunities to express themselves on the European stage. Indeed, to create a genuine European public space, we need to think of ways for European citizens to be directly involved in the political life of the Union as often as possible, not just every 5 years, when they vote. We, therefore, propose the creation of a mechanism for structured consultation of European citizens, in order to integrate their views into the European Union’s annual priorities program. The annual European Assembly would aim to stimulate and facilitate citizens’ participation in EU decision-making as well as to build a European public space (see details below).

European democracy

What doesn’t work well?

Representatives sent by citizens to the European Parliament do not have equal decision-making power with the EU Council on some very important issues, such as external relations, enlargement, taxation or social security and protection measures. Although the Treaty of Lisbon largely enshrines decision-making equality between the European Parliament and the EU Council, many areas remain in which the Council takes precedence, without Parliament having an active role. This represents a democratic deficit, as the decision-making power is unbalanced in favour of the representatives of Member States, a result of the founding philosophy of the EU, as a union of the Member States, not necessarily a union of the citizens.

The democratic deficit is also visible in the process of electing the President of the European Commission. This process should, according to the logic of representative democracy, be based on the vote of the citizens in the European elections, but, as we have seen in the last elections, it has mostly been decided in negotiations behind closed doors. This situation causes general confusion and decreases citizens’ confidence and interest in the European elections. Moreover, there are very important bodies at the European Union level, such as the Eurogroup, which operate according to their own rules, not being fully integrated into the Community institutional framework. These bodies often reflect a differentiated integration at the EU level.

The way European elections are organized must be reformed. At the moment, the European elections take place within different national systems and are controlled by national parties. Most often, in this process the citizens are being called to the polls through messages focused on national political disputes, rather than European solidarity. This way of holding elections takes away the chance of debating EU-wide topics and of connecting citizens to a European public space, which gives the electorate the feeling of alienation from the institutions in Brussels.

What are the solutions we propose?

The voice of European citizens should be heard not only more often, but also more strongly. The European elections must be a defining moment in the life of the Union, and the vote of the citizens must be the basis for electing the European Union’s leaders. The President of the European Commission must be appointed based on the election results, reflecting the proposal of a majority formed in Parliament. Candidates for the post of President of the European Executive could run on transnational lists to obtain a mandate from all citizens. The introduction of transnational lists would also reform the electoral process, reducing the influence of national disputes in the election campaign and connecting citizens to European debates. The transnational lists should reflect the European geographical balance and the Members elected on these lists should be added to those elected according to national seat distributions, without affecting the current distribution of seats.

In addition, it is necessary for the European Parliament, directly elected by European citizens, to obtain equal decision-making power with the Council over all European policy areas in order to strike a balance between the decision-making power of citizens’ representatives and the decision-making power of Member States. Moreover, like any national Parliament, the European Parliament should acquire the power of legislative initiative, as at this time, only the European Commission has this prerogative.

The European Parliament must also have the authority to carry out one of its most important parliamentary tasks, namely the capacity for democratic scrutiny of the European institutions, including for the euro area. The European currency is currently governed by the Eurogroup, an informal body that acts according to its own rules. We do not want a separate parliament for the euro area – the European Parliament must be the institution that, by virtue of the democratic mandate received from European citizens, also has decision-making power over the euro.

Institutional efficiency

What doesn’t work well?

In sensitive areas such as taxation, external relations, enlargement, the headquarters of the European institutions, etc. unanimity is needed in the Council, which may allow for the blocking of important decisions. It is thus necessary to consider whether the decision by a qualified majority should be introduced in some of these areas.

Moreover, the current institutional framework is confusing for both European citizens and the European Union’s external partners. Who is actually the leader of the European Union? The President of the European Executive, the President of the European Council, the President of the European Parliament or the Council of the EU? Who should Washington call if it wants to talk to Europe? This situation also creates problems in terms of institutional efficiency.

What are the solutions we propose?

The Conference on the Future of Europe is an opportunity to discuss the effectiveness of the European institutions.

The EU Council is often stuck in making a quick decision, usually by the unanimity rule. We, therefore, need to consider whether in certain areas where we need an EU rapid response capability, the unanimity rule in the Council could be replaced by that of the qualified majority.

What is qualified majority voting?

Decisions in the EU Council can be taken with the vote of 55% of the Member States (15 out of 27) representing at least 65% of the citizens of the European Union.

The efficiency of the institutions also depends on simplifying the way they operate. In this respect, a suitable option is to unify the Presidency of the European Commission with the Presidency of the European Council. The President of the Commission is currently attending the sessions of the European Council, but the sessions are always chaired by the President of the European Council who acts as a mediator between the sometimes divergent views within the European Council. We believe that this role can be taken over by the President of the Commission, who would thus have a stronger role in relation to the leaders of the Member States. Such a measure would streamline and simplify the functioning of the European institutions.

What will change for you?

For a European citizen, a real European public space would mean that he would be able to constantly participate in setting EU priorities.For example, every year, between january and april, in each Member State, national assemblies will happen, in which citizens, civil society representatives and academia will be involved, together with representatives of Parliament and the Government. These national assemblies will put forward priorities that should be included in an Annual European Program that will be presented to the European Commission, after it was debated in an European Assembly.

The introduction of transnational lists in European elections would also change the way citizens vote. Citizens would have two votes, one as before, for a representative in the European Parliament elected at the national level, and the second vote for a representative elected in a single European constituency. Diversifying options would be beneficial, as citizens would be able to vote for people who would not normally be on the ballot in the current system. The transnational lists will have to respect the balance between the countries of the European Union, and the MEPs elected on these lists will be added to the current quotas of representatives appointed for each Member State.

Moreover, Europeans could find the future President of the European Commission on these transnational lists. Many citizens are disinterested in the European Parliament elections because they perceive them as a distant process with no immediate stake. A reform that would provide a face to this process and an immediate stake such as the appointment of the President of the European Executive, would increase interest in the European elections and confidence in the European democratic system. All the more so, as the person whom the citizens vote directly could also become the President of the European Council, in the case in which the two presidencies would be merged.

Over time, extending the qualified majority rule in the Council and transforming the European Parliament into an equal partner of the Council in decisions regarding all areas would lead to the strengthening of European democracy, the simplification and efficiency of the European institutions, and thus a better understanding of the decision mechanisms.

We believe that these proposals need to be debated at the Conference on the Future of Europe. Although these are sensitive topics, which may require amendments to the Treaties to be implemented, it is necessary to discuss them.

HERE YOU CAN DOWNLOAD THE MANIFESTO IN A PDF FORMAT

Stefania

I've learnt some useful advice from reading this. https://atomizelink.icu

Malcom

Your writing creates striking pictures in my mind. I can clearly visualize every element you depict. https://quero.party