EU democracy re-assessed in the light of Kiev
No one should be judging the health of democracy inside the EU by the norms of Ukraine or Russia.
The demonstrations in Ukraine and the overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych are a timely reminder to citizens of the European Union that democracy and freedom are worth defending.
On the other hand, the admiration of outsiders – those demonstrators in Kiev’s Independence Square waving European flags – flatters to deceive. While those inside the European Union are accustomed to thinking that it is admired across the world for its democratic values, they should beware of being lulled into complacency. By waving European flags, those opponents of Yanukovych may have been expressing nuanced admiration for European parliamentary democracy. But it is more likely that they were simply taking sides. As Yanukovych dithered between Russia and the EU, they expressed their preference for a European future, meaning – among other things – improvements to their economy (they want the living standards of Poland and the Baltic states) and an end to kleptocracy.
Compared to Ukraine or Russia, European Union states are much more democratic. Elections are fairer and freer. Opposition voices have more liberty of expression. Parliaments are, on the whole, better at holding governments to account.
But no one should be judging the health of democracy inside the EU by the norms of Ukraine or Russia. European citizens should aspire to something much better. European parliamentarians should be held to higher standards than those that might apply to members of Ukraine’s parliament.
Sadly, elections to the European Parliament have not always lived up to such standards. European political parties and individual MEPs – whatever they may have preached to Ukraine – have not consistently treated a democratic mandate with the respect that it merits. The gap between Ukrainian and EU standards has not been as great as it should be.
The message that the Parliament is now trying to put across to the EU’s voters is that this time things are different. More is at stake, they suggest, than in previous contests – and for the European Union as a whole. The European Parliament elections, its champions suggest, should not be treated merely as a proxy contest relaying local and national rivalries.
However, the idea that the elections might be given greater meaning (and that therefore the voter participation might improve) if the European political parties each put forward a lead candidate for the post of president of the European Commission looks – at this stage – unwise.
More and more, this is shaping up to be a contest between warriors of Europe’s Old Guard. If Jean-Claude Juncker does succeed in securing the nomination of the centre-right European People’s Party, then the campaign in its cross-border form – and in the televised debates – will be dominated by politicians from founding states of the EU. But at least in the EPP, party members will get to choose. The Party of European Socialists, on the other hand, denied its members a choice: no one stood against Martin Schulz, whose candidacy will be duly confirmed by a party congress this weekend. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats in Europe flirted with a run-off, but opted instead to neutralise Olli Rehn and anoint Guy Verhostadt before any blood was spilt.
The upshot, assuming a Juncker candidacy, is that the candidates from what are currently the three biggest groups in the Parliament are drawn from cities barely 200 kilometres apart (Juncker – Luxembourg; Schulz – Würselen; Verhofstadt – Ghent).
The European Parliament elections are developing an unfortunate resemblance to a convention of oligarchs. The irony might be lost on the people of Ukraine and Russia, but many voters inside the EU will get the message.
Click Here: cheap nrl jerseys