Potential courses of action for the European Union moving forward

The European Union that exists today is a product of the battles fought in World War 2 by Germany and France to bring peace to a continent that had seen centuries of conflict. The Rome Treaty of March 1957, which leaders commemorate today, marked the beginning of the European Unification's economic and political union. However, the current EU is riven by conflicts over populism, immigration, and the economy, as well as worries about its future in the global context and life after Brexit. Whereas the mantra from the founder of EU, Jean Monnet, indicated that Europe would be driven into crisis, there are worries that it would be fatally weakened. Stefan Lehne said that “This mantra, you couldn’t hear it anymore during the last years in the Brussels bubble” (SBS). Lehne further said that the problem with the EU is not just a single crisis but multiple, very complicated and severe challenges.

In the 20th century, the EU succumbed the most storm on politics, economics, and power. A timeline of events since 2007 to 2017 is briefly described:

2007-EU members signed the Treaty of Lisbon that streamlined the organizational structure of the union besides the establishment of a full-time foreign minister and a president for EU. However, the treaty was effected in 2009.

2012-EU won the Novel Peace Prize for the six years due to their contribution to the enhancement of democracy and human rights, reconciliation and peace in Europe.

2016- The United Kingdom held a referendum in June to discuss whether to leave or remain in the Union. Those who voted for the exit won by 51.9% while those who voted against had 48.1%.

2017-The Prime Minister, Theresa May triggered Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty that would lead to the UK leaving EU by 2019.

Europeanists Theory-European Disintegration

Under this theory, questions exist. Will the EU survive to the future? What happens to the Union once member states start leaving? The questions are broad and complex with exact answers still anonymous. The storm in the Eurozone is culminating, and there are no signs of calming down. Jacques Delors had estimated that EU would disintegrate by 50% after it enlarged in 2004 while Valery Giscard had anticipated the end of the Union after the accession of Turkey. Maybe, Jacques and Valery's estimates were a symbol of the current French predisposition towards ‘decline’ that intrigues great concerns to the future of the European Union. The majority of European governments had emphasized on EU’s capacity to absorbing new member states. Whereas the absorption capacity was initially viewed as EU’s capabilities to counter the escalating diversity of the socio-economic systems, it is today seen as the EU’s incapability to grow devoid of stringent disintegrative responses within the union.

The context of political analysis is determined by the mood of the day. The same analysis can be applied in the prevailing attitude of the EU member states. Following the end of World War Two, many books had been published claiming that Europe would become a powerful continent in the political arena after 50 years of the American lead. This period was followed by pessimistic treatises regarding the future of EU due to its failure to halt Yugoslavian wars. Thus, it is challenging to predict the survival of any polities within political contexts as William Riker asserts in his work on federalism regarding Czechoslovakia, Soviet Union, and Yugoslavia (McKay). Initially, these members were thought to remain stable due to centralized federations, but they split later. Instability in Europe begun immediately after World War 2. The bipolar and nuclear stalemates between Russia and the United States have prevented the sprout of European wars for many decades. However, the current situation depicts a different picture. The Europe Union is no longer pacified or restrained by the superpowers and thus faces a more insecure future. In his theory or realism (Oxford), John Mearsheimer states that after the end of Cold War, an imbalance in Europe can be attributed to nuclear proliferation, beginning with a more unified Germany. Thus, distrusts among member states governments are the likely cause to undermine any attempts to endure the European Union, and only temporary coalitions would be created to combat any aggression by e.g. Russia, Germany, or patriotic movements in Eastern, Central, and South-Eastern Europe.

Looking at the current situation, the cooperation between EU member states is threatened by what is happening in US, Russia, and Europe. Germany, being the largest economic player in the region tries to keep the bloc together, but the crises are complicated to handle since some member states see Germany not a solution but part of the problem. According to a post on Geopolitical Weekly (Bosoni), US President Donald Trump describes EU as a vehicle for Germany. He argues that Germany has benefited the most from the Union. Moreover, Germany is powerful compared to other member states. Going back to Mearsheimer (Oxford) on realism, great powers would pay careful attention to their capabilities regarding economic and military powers about others. Thus, great power would shift the balance of power in favor of itself. This is the same case with EU, Germany has amassed most power in its favor. Other member states are not happy, e.g. Britain and this led to triggering of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty that will see it exit the union in 2019, what is described as Brexit. France also wants to follow the same direction. Given the nature of politics in this region, the likelihood of the EU disintegrating is higher compared to integrating.

Lines of Criticism of Democratic Deficit in the European Union

There are many lines of criticisms regarding democratic deficit of EU. First, the European Commission as an institution is not elected. Thus, it enjoys excess political power and does not take legitimacy from citizens. It plays active and significant roles in decision-making processes. On the other hand, EU is elected but is disapproved due to imbalances in the representation of power. Hypothetically, the representations of power should remain imbalanced and proportional between two institutions with one commissioned to represent people’s concerns and the other not approved. Second, EU Parliament does not have much power to make decisions regarding EC. This springs waves of criticisms as the union is unable to guard or protect people’s entitlements and rights. Also, EU design is complicated making it be separate from people and their concerns. Third, there is no association between the concept of domestic politics, viewed as democratic, and the ideology of EU politics viewed as technocratic and elitist. Those running EU institutions are not even elected indirectly. Fourth, People under the EU see a democratic deficit since in their understanding that EC’s headquarters rests in Brussels, it is viewed to be democratically unaccountable and remote with national governments running the union as cartels. Moreover, Euro-electorates have no control on decision-making processes in Belgium/Brussels. Lastly, EC is not accountable for the decisions it makes but rather, the public opposes and grow apathy concerning EU and its elections, institutions and other issues.

Democratic deficit reflects, on abstract levels, particular models of democracy considered to be appropriate for the European Union. Hence, as EU diverts from the ideals of democracy, the more the deficit becomes pronounced. As polity size increases, the probability of citizen participation is negatively correlated. Thus, concerns raised by these criticisms can only be satisfied when comprehensive reforms are implemented.

There are many solutions and reasons about democratic deficits in the European Union, which have caused complex interpretations. According to Azman, literature around EU democratic deficit depend on two opposing arguments, majority, and minority. For majority arguments, a democratic deficit exists within the European Union. The minority argument rejects this. The majority arguments are dependent on two aspects. First is that EU’s structure and institutional designs are not democratic. Second is that EU is incapable of becoming a ‘real’ democracy in principle due to social and structural prerequisites that the democratic rule relies on, and is deficient at European level. The main issue in EU is whether the union is to be considered an international organization of sovereign states or a federal state. Thus, questions on how decision-making processes can be more democratic in these conditions remain unanswered. Such concerns are the reason for the democratic deficit in EU. The future of EU can be saved through unity between member states. Thus, unity is not an option but a condition for political relevance and economic prosperity. There is supposed to be responsibility and solidarity from EU’s more affluent countries and ultimate responsibility and accountability for those countries needing reforms. Moreover, unity for EU can be strengthened when member state maintain integrity. Member states should not just take issues in the Union as European only, but as a subject that extends to the global level.







References

Azman, Kübra Dilek. "The Problem of “Democratic Deficit” in the European Union." International Journal of Humanities and Social Science 1.5 (2011): 242-250.

Bosoni, Adriano. "A Storm Is Brewing Over Europe." Geopolitical Weekly 14 February 2017. .

McKay, David. "William Riker on federalism: sometimes wrong but more right than anyone else?" Journal of Regional & Federal Studies 14.2 (2006): 167-186.

Oxford. "Structural Realism." realism, Introduction to. JOHN J. MEARSHEIMER. London, UK: Oxford, 2006. 72-88.

SBS. "As Europe faces unforseen challenges, can the EU weather the storm?" SBS News 22 March 2017. .