EU Elections

by Andrea Noll

The largest transnational election ever held was a public relations
desaster. Of the 345 million European voters a lousy 44,2% went to the
ballots (in Poland the turnout was 20%!). The ruling German
Socialdemocrats (SPD) faced a disasterous result while the German
Socialist opposition (PDS) was doing fine. I’m especially pleased that
Tobias Pflüger - an independent candidate on the PDS list and dedicated
anti-war activist, standing trial for “inciting desertion” (Iraq war) -
will be in the new Parliament (http://www.
imi-online.de/2002.php3?id=170).

Results in nearly all of the 25 EU member states confirm what I wrote in
one my recent ZNet Commentaries: “If we saw general elections
synchronically all over EU Europe”, I wrote in April, “hardly any national
Government would survive” (“From Welfare to Warfare”:
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2004-04/10noll.cfm). In these
Thursday to Sunday elections ruling parties on a national level faced
weak, sometimes disastrous, results - no matter if Socialdemocrats (f.e.
in Great Britain, Germany, in most of the new EU member states) or
Conservatives (f.e. in France, Italy, Malta). One exception was the new
Conservative Government in Greece, the other Spain - where the people said
thank you to their new Socialist Government, for bringing the troops home
from Iraq.

No clear ideological pattern is discernible: In Britain or Austria anti EU
parties did stunningly well, in most of the new Eastern EU member states
the oppositional right or center right won, in Portugal, France, Denmark
or Italy the Socialist opposition won. “Never since the end of WWII were
people in Europe so dissatisfied with those who ruled them” (“From Welfare
to Warfare”). In these elections people showed their dissatisfaction
threefold: either they abstained from voting or voted for opposition
parties or for parties skeptical of the EU.

EU means democracy in very low doses, almost homeopathic. I’m a fan of
homeopathy, but not when it comes to politics. The EU Parliament being the
only EU institution EU citizens can vote for at all. All other organs of
the supranational European Union - EU Commission, EU Council and EU
Council of Ministers - are composed of people either never elected or
elected on a national level. Burocrats, technocrats, states leaders,
ministers, ex politicians. They represent national governments, or are the
delegated representatives of representatives. Democracy in very low doses,
as I stated.

The EU Parliament has very limited competences - a toothless tiger. Even
in the legislative field is it hostage to the EU Council of (national)
Ministers. Consumer rights and environmental issues being nearly the only
fields the EU Parliament tiger has set its scent-marks in the past
decades. The planned new EU Constitution is supposed to strengthen the
Parliament’s power. But, it is doubtful if it would allow the tiger to
even develop milk teeth - far less a real bite, concerning legislative
matters / the Parliament’s controlling functions.

How isolated and disconnected the EU Parliament is from the real powers to
be in Bigger EU is illustrated by the fact that even if European voters
had overwhelmingly voted for the European Left, this would not in any way
be reflected on the EU “governmental” level. As we all know,
representative or indirect democracy - as opposed to direct forms of
democracy - doesn’t work on the level of the people, far less remote
controlled representative democracy. The pseudo Parliamental structures in
Strasbourg/Brussels resemble those constitutional monarchies that were so
characteristic for European national states in the 19th century, where you
had almost powerless Parliaments - to “suggest” and “consent” but with no
real decision power; that remained with the monarchs.

So, what’s all that fuzz about EU elections? Isn’t it all a big fake, a
carnival, a Potemkin’s village?

Many European leftist parties, groups, movements have called up to abstain
from June 10-13 voting, arguing that we can’t change things on a EU
Parliamentary level and in supporting this pseudo institution in the first
place we would support its fig leave function for corporate Europe and the
planned neoliberal Constitution.

But other leftist groups, parties, individuals took part in the elections.
Here some pro arguments for participating in EU elections.

Two things characterize the democracy deficit in the EU: a lack of
transparency, and a lack of structures and institutions that enable direct
decision-making processes for the people of Europe. As far as transparency
is concerned, nearly all relevant decision-making processes on a EU level
go on behind blind window panes. Leftist parties have promised to change
this in the EU Parliament - to clean windows for us.

In May 2004 the European Left (EL) was formed in Rome. It’s a coalition of
15 socialist and communist parties - from the French Communist Party, to
the Estonian Social Democratic Labour Party, from the United Alternative
Left of Catalonia to Hungary’s Labour Party. Except for the Labour Party
of Switzerland, Romania’s Socialist Alliance Party and San Marino’s
Communist Refoundation all EL members are EU parties
(http://sozialisten.de/sozialisten/el/mitglieder/index_eng.htm). In their
manifesto at the foundation congress on 8-9 May 2004 they state: “We want
to build a project for another Europe and to give another content to the
EU: autonomous from US hegemony, open to the south of the world,
alternative to capitalism in its social and political model, active
against the growing militarisation and war, in favour of the protection of
the environment and the respect of human rights, including the social
economic ones. We stand for the right of citizenship for all those living
in Europe.” (1) In regard to the EU Parliament the manifesto states:

“We want to act so that the elected institutions, the European Parliament
and the national parliaments as well as the representative committees (the
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions) have more
powers of action and control.”

But, concerning the planned EU Constitution the manifesto is
disappointingly vague:

“Today whatever may be our overall opinion of the “Constitutional Treaty”
being discussed, we are opposed to a Directorate of Great Powers. Nor do
we accept their wish to impose ultra-liberal economic criteria and
militarisation on us leading to substantial social regression.” Asked on
that point Gennaro Migliore, member of the EL executive council, states:
“. In the meantime all members of the EL have found to an unanimous
rejection of the neoliberal EU Constitution. We will be part of the
resistance building up against Europe’s undemocratic constitutionalisation
process.” (“Durch Ungehorsam zu Alternativen”, ND, June 5/6 2004).

The EL manifesto states a very important point when committing itself to
working together with progressive movements, with the workers’ movements
and social/civic organisations:

“We will promote an enhanced role of the Committee of the Regions and the
Social and Economic Committee as substantioal instutional organs of
democratic and regional policy in the EU, taking part in the decision
making of the European institutions... The Social Forums have been
essential moments of debate, of confrontation and of building popular and
civic alternatives to the present neoliberal Europe. The social movements,
the social and citizens’ struggles have their own dynamics, their
independence of analysis, of proposals and initiatives. We are in favour
not only of defending the rights of workers and trade unions against all
kinds of discrimination, but in favour of defending workers’ rights
including for unemployed and for workers in precarious jobs, extending
democracy at the working place and in economic life, at all levels,
including the European one.”

Gennaro Migliore: “Our initiatives ought to fit in the framework of the
social movements against this EU. Such movements, like the peace movement
and the movement that criticizes globalisation, are the most important
actors in the upcoming struggles... Leftist parties have to be part of the
movements. The social and democratic margins in our societies have become
minimal. Disobedience against the neoliberal rules and institutions are
the only realistic way to successfully struggle for alternatives. Unless
this is so all political action in the institutions is unreliable and
without perspective.” Hopefully, this is not just a lip service but an
important step forward to forge a joint social power in Europe. At least,
it is a manifesto against sectarianism - the most virulent illness of the
Left.

But, hasn’t the (global) struggle for social rights, for a civil society
and against militarism in Europe to be led outside EU institutions?

The fight for altermondialisation can be led outside EU institutions and
it must be led outside EU institutions. But, why not combine forces with
Trojan horses inside the devil’s den?

“In the EU various interests are in conflict with each other. For us this
creates a new political space for class struggle and for the defence of
the interests of workers and democracy, of the European society with its
organizations and institutions, and, among them, the European Parliament”.
(1)

Some of the parties signing on to the manifesto - like the German PDS
(Party of Democratic Socialism) - know what they’re talking about. They
have already done a great job in the European Parliament - combining
forces with other undogmatic Leftist and Green parties by joining the EU
Parlamentary Group United Left/Nordic Green Left (GUE/NGL). The European
Left will remain a strong force in the new Parliament too. Especially the
Greens did astonishingly well in these elections. But, overall,
traditional parties prevailed (the Conservatives will reach around 250 of
the 732 seats in the new EU Parliament, Socialdemocrats/Socialists around
200).

Fig leave or civil societies’ Trojan horse? It all depends on whether the
European Left stands on our, the people’s, side in our struggle for real
democracy. First and foremost we want/need direct voting processes
(plebiscites).

“We will unceasingly strive to widen the action, participation and control
of the citizens at all levels and at every stage of the building of
Europe”, the EL manifesto states (1). Direct democracy is the key. People
all over Europe have a clear, stated vision. They don’t want Europe to
become a drag-along of the US model, as prescribed in the Lisbon Strategy
2010 (2). They cling to their welfare states that have been
well-functioning for many decades, to social security and workers’ rights.

As for the militaristic concept of the planned Constitution / ESS. In
spring 2003 people all over Europe stated their anti-war protest in
massive, powerful rallies. 70% to 90% of all EU citizens were against
their country participating in America’s war on Iraq - no matter what
their leaders wanted. History once more proved the people right. As for
direct democracy: Blair opened Pandorra’s box when indicating a British
referendum on the EU Constitution. Spain, Portugal, Czechia and probably
Poland plan referendums too.

Transparency is the key. If people are informed - not the least by our
Trojan horses in the EU Parliament and in the Committees - they will
pressure for direct democracy, for referendums on all relevant issues, be
it GV food, EU militarisation, or the Constitution. Already 60% to 90% of
all decisions on a national, regional or community level are influenced by
EU rulings. The EU - this burocratic monster behind blind panes - is
influencing the life of each and everyone of us in almost every respect.
We cannot afford to let them get away with it. As for the planned EU
Constitution. One of its central points is the non-optional commitment of
all member states to Nato, EU militarisation, the EU Army, to a joint EU
foreign policy and a joint EU foreign ministry. Remember the situation
back in spring 2003 when France, Germany and some other EU member states
(Rumsfeld’s “Old Europe”) opposed the war on Iraq but most EU European
Governments supported Bush? What, if Europe had spoken with one voice
then? Would it have been the voice of the German Foreign Minister Joschka
Fischer or that of Jack Straw?

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=41&ItemID=5708