Democracy Hypocrisy
After a week at the International Youth Leadership Conference in Prague, Sarah Whyte explores the fragmentary nature of democracy in the European Union.
This July, five University of Sydney students attended the International Youth Leadership Conference in Prague, Czech Republic, for a week-long immersion in global politics and discussion of the role of international organisations. The experience revealed some deep flaws in international democracy, played out by bodies such as the European Union, which is plagued by coalition loyalty and fragmented political parties. These factors, combined with the diversity of international politics, have a profound impact on the mechanisms of international democracy and transnational politics.
The European Union has seven political parties comprising members from all 27 member states. Politically and ideologically, these parties frequently clash over economic policies, the independence of member states and the support, or lack thereof, given to the European Union. Members have disagreed vigorously on the Iraq War, Turkish and Serbian membership, and the recognition of Kosovo as an independent state, despite its gaining of independence in February this year. Most important is the ongoing debate over whether the European Union can implement a transnational constitution. The recent ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon in 2007 suggests that this is a definite possibility for this emerging collective superpower, but many commentators remain sceptical.
Indeed, the policy lines of the various parties within the European Union are diverse and fragmented. The relatively new Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) argues for economic and constitutional uniformity within the EU. By contrast, the Independence and Democracy Party (IND/DEM) are EU sceptics and use the fear of a European super-state to bolster voter support. IND/DEM strongly opposes a single European market, rejecting the EU’s interference with national decisions. IND/DEM’s policies therefore seek to dismantle the EU framework, in favour of a neorealist market approach. Alongside this debate, a coalition of Greens parties advocates for environmental and human rights concerns, European integration and a move towards a more inclusive Union. However, their focus is less on the economic reforms of the EU and more on the environmental costs caused by economic development.
“The traditional primacy of the nation state is strangely absent in the decision-making and policy-making processes of the EU Parliament.”
Such ideologically divergent political parties inhibit the decision-making processes of the European Parliament. Any ‘consensus’ cannot possibly accommodate every party’s policies and coalitions, giving rise to strong opposition against an EU transnational constitution. Furthermore, members of the European Parliament are torn between party loyalty, coalition loyalty, and their home constituency. As democratically elected representatives to the Parliament, members face a tough decision if their constituency conflicts with the line of their political party, or coalition. Accordingly, members must choose whether to support their party, their coalition, or to comply with the wishes of their constituency, which can often be diametrically opposite.
These strained divisions of loyalty are not inimical to a democratic process in which a member is elected for the sole purpose of representing his or her constituency. With a collective population of over 500 million, the European Union cannot provide a democratic system in which 500 million voices can be heard or the sovereign integrity of the 27 member states can be upheld.
The IYLC hosted 120 delegates from over 50 countries. For many of these delegates, the conference provided an avenue through which they could raise their concerns about the lack of representation their home country faces in the EU, and other international organisations and treaties. The delegate from Georgia, a country that is waiting for membership from the EU and NATO, attempted to raise many issues for embassy delegates concerning Georgia’s status on the world stage, which has very recently been the subject of world headlines. Similarly, the participation of the Puerto Rican delegate, whose ‘country’ is an unincorporated territory of the United States, but whose citizens do not have full protection under the U.S. Constitution, highlighted a reality where so many populations are not represented by their governing bodies. Furthermore, the rhetorical accountability of an international body such as the UN is often not borne out in practice, underscoring the questionable nature of ‘democracy’ in such bodies.
Unlike Australia’s two-party politics, democracy in the European model is not intrinsically linked to the geopolitical sovereignty and legitimate government of the nation state. The traditional primacy of the nation state is strangely absent in the decision-making and policy-making processes of the EU Parliament. Some may argue that, in disregarding the concept of the nation state and operating under John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarian framework for the greater good of the collective Union, the European Union is respecting the mechanisms of democracy. However, from my experience attending this conference, I would strongly disagree. One union, whose parties are so deeply divided both ideologically and politically, cannot possibly expect to uphold democracy for its collective population of 500 million, or maintain sovereign integrity for all 27 member states.
