COURSE POINT

The Democratic Issue in the E.U.:

The Hypothesis of “Public Space”

Following the appearance of the European Union and the North American Freedom Agreement, regional economic integration has become an irresistible tendency in global economic. The success of the European Economic Community encourages the integrations in Latin America and in Asia. However, we are not going to discuss the economic success in Europe since the political issues are too often mentioned nowadays. The expansion of the European Union cannot be discussed without mentioning the subject of political integration. This enlargement brings new dimensions and difficulties to the task of building relationships between the Union and its people. More and more scholars are paying attention to the policy-making structure and the democratic issues, especially during a period of consensus concerning the E. U. Constitution.

In this Course Point, we would like to discuss the hypothesis of “Public space” which is brought out by Mr. Olivier Dabène in his course called “Comparative Political Order”. This is quite challenging to us since it is the first time we are doing a paper about European affairs and we are somewhat unfamiliar with this region. Nonetheless, this is a great opportunity to increase our knowledge about this subject, which is also our main motive of our choice.

(1) The existence of Public Space in E.U.

Before starting the discussion of this subject, one argument must be mentioned. According to Mr. Olivier Dabène, there were political elites who started the process of European integration. At this point, the E.U. is not a true, essential democracy because of its policy-making process. That is to say democracy in European Union is limited. The increased competences and responsibilities of the European Union resemble very closely to those of most nation states. But the Union’s institutions do not have a relationship with the general public that remotely compares with that of national institutions. This is part of what is called the “democratic deficit.” The EU has been built and shaped as a “top down” exercise by political elites. Despite relatively well-established supranational political institutions, European citizens have little in the way of a European political consciousness. Besides, European citizens’ focus on political attention and participation is too narrow and national. However, the inevitable regional integration is definitely affecting every member countries and making their citizens more concerned about what happens with their neighboring countries.

The hypothesis of the existence of public space was not created by the political scientists, but by journalists in the late 90s. To them, public space means a debate space, and the interest of participation is motivated by the consequence of the integration in this region. For example, the announcement by the French auto manufacturer, Renault, about the closure of its plant in Belgium, has caused a wave of indignation throughout Europe. The response by the unions was unusually rapid and massive, and took form in strikes in all the group's European plants, including a series of joint demonstrations. Not only the unions, but also several French political parties condemned the closure. This strike could be viewed as a transnational consolidation. Another example is the passage to the euro currency. Establishing the policy of Europe’s single currency brought out many debates at international levels. Some analysts consider the meaning of euro as more than at the economic level. They believe that the euro may represent the symbol of European Union’s culture. It is also a very tangible symbol that is not only of common interests, but also of common belonging to a European economic and political process that will itself generate new demands for participation in debate and decision-making.

There are also some academic reflections about public space in E.U. According to the research by Pierre MULLER, the analysis between the public politics of country members in E.U. and the public politics in the E.U. community, the political debates are less and less “national” and more and more “European”. He considers this change resulting from the emergence of “deliberation space” in the E.U. In his words, deliberation is a preliminary step to policy-making. To protect the agenda of integration, one has to invent the solution of different opinions. P. MULLER believes that if there is public politics in Europe, then it is the space of deliberation. Some other political theories illustrate that the identification of one entity could be cultivated, according to the intension of exchange. Without frontier barrier, the circulation of personnel now is common and regular. It’s certain that this circulation will influence the identification issue and become a rational solidarity. People think of themselves not only as a citizen of one state, but also as a citizen of Europe.

(2) Criticism of the hypothesis

Does the public political space really exist in E.U.? Isn’t it an overestimation of the growing solidarity between Europeans? The main criticism is judging the appropriateness to consider the solidarity as a concept of (transnational) public space that transcends the public political spaces at national level. Besides, it is always related to the national interests in transnational public political debates. On the other hand, it is doubtful whether the power of public political debates can influence the policy-making process since no country member of the European Union could control the process of integration. After all, the design of E.U. institutions is not based on “Down-top”. Even if European citizens seem to have certain political rights to intervene with policy-making, the question is how? We are not trying to look down on the European public space since the Pan-European political culture is absent.

The opposite opinions explain that the public political debate is supposed to base on a deliberate democracy, whose objective is setting policies with an agenda of integration through their participation since the agenda of the European Union is not based on public opinion but the actuality does not fill the bill. They could not deny the truth that there were many transnational debates on the policy of Euro. However, people paid attention on it may just because it would affect their daily life immediately. Taking this affection as a proof of the existence of public debate may not be persuasive. There is a funny question to ask: do the Europeans really care about what’s going on in the process of their regional integration? One report that we have consulted points out an interesting observation: generally, people are not aware of information about the E.U. reaching them from the institutions themselves, nor from their national authorities. What they know is what they have heard from the national media.

As we know, there are multiple identities in Europe and it is not easy to be changed. Despite the regional integration influencing the feeling of being a European citizen, it is hardly identical due to the intensity may not be across-the-board. In short, a sense of European citizenship has not developed on a widespread basis and it is hard to consider the public space is truly existent since such a citizenship is lack.

Conclusion

The European Union represents the highest level of regional integration and its capacity is definitely strong enough to change the world order. Following the process of integration, the criticism of democratic deficit is mounting. However, the process of integration in Europe is complex and difficult, especially with its expansion. Having democratic issues during the process is for sure, even in political science or in the knowledge of international relations it is a new invention. One thing is considered by many scholars as the orientation of European Union’s development: seeking more public support. Broadening and enriching the public debate on European matters should lead the way.