Newsletter
Euros du Village
Gli Euros
Die Euros
The Euros
Los Euros
Ajouter un commentaireIf abstention has always been a major threat for European elections, the prospects for this year are even worse. As shown by the Eurobarometer and Alice Radzyner’s article on The Euros, citizens have lost confidence in European institutions, which is taking the form of a lack of interest for European elections. Only 34% of European citizens, and 22% of UK citizens, will “definitely vote”. In a crisis context, marked by both the economic crisis and the European political crisis following the recent Constitutional attempts of the Union, the predictions www.predict09.eu are that the majoritarian party in the European Parliament will remain the largest group . That is to say that when European citizens are “angry” or “disappointed” they deny the whole idea of Europe instead of voting an alternative party which they believe could do a better job.
An EU crisis or a democracy crisis
It is argued that the main reason for abstention is the lack of a European identity. The fact is, however, that the EU is neither a state nor is it intending to be one. While the 19th century state-building relied on the invention of national identities based on a collective feeling, the 21st political constructions do not necessarily need to follow the same pattern. This means that we don’t necessarily need to feel European to be concerned about political decisions directly affecting our interests and preferences. In other words, the real reason for abstention may not be as much an irrational feeling but a rational decision with objective causes.
First, European citizens don’t vote because they feel they lack the necessary knowledge to do it properly. Most importantly, they believe that their vote is not going to make any difference. The reality though is that the European Parliament matters in the EU decision-making process and European elections matter in the positions the European Parliament will take. Political groups in the Parliament are well defined and votes clearly take place according to party lines. However, the sense of political opposition at the EU level doesn’t reach voters. The real issue, then, is less the knowledge on EU institutions – which has always been modest also for national institutions – and more the knowledge on political alternatives at EU level : political parties’ initiatives, real differences among the candidates and their visibility during the mandate.
Second, abstention in European elections needs to be understood within a wider context of crisis of democracy, also concerning the national level. Citizens’ concern about elections is decreasing everywhere. It might be the case that elections are no longer enough to guarantee the substantial “democracity” of a political system. This explains the development of initiatives such as participatory democracy in several European countries for instance.
EU efforts to bridge the gap between politics and citizens : the internet
European institutions are well aware of the challenges EU democracy has to face. If radio and television were the tools of the nation-state building, the EU is trying to exploit the internet to both spread information and “connect” with the citizens. In this sense, it is worth mentioning some initiatives launched by the Commission such as Debate Europe, Blogs of European Commissioners or EUtube.
Internet, unlike radio and TV, has the advantage of bidirectionality : not only can the EU publish information, but citizens themselves can express their views in EU web sites or engage in political debates in a forum. In consequence, participation channels are exponentially multiplied, potentially complementing electoral choices for the European Parliament and even creating a truly European public space.
Nonetheless, these tools have to be correctly used to promote real political participation. Otherwise, democracy will rest an illusion.
Democracy versus Propaganda
For the internet to serve the needs of EU democracy, it should not only inform about EU institutions and their roles but mainly about political alternatives and political debates on European issues. Also, it should enable citizens to express their views on these topics and make it easier for them to organize according to their interests and preferences in a way that affects EU decision-making.
Nonetheless, the EU finds it difficult to empower citizens through the internet. “Can you hear me Europe ?” is the latest EU initiative to engage young people in the EU, hoping that this will lead them to care about voting for the European Parliament elections. Young people met on the 30th of April in Prague, Berlin and Milan to shout altogether exactly the same words : “can you hear me Europe”. Nothing is said on what Europe has to hear and on what is Europe’s answer to it. Even if people can also express some opinions on the website, the main objective is to create a momentum to enhance the European feeling, not to look for a rational choice.
This kind of project seems to be part of a marketing strategy trying to sell the EU, which is now demanding to be seen as democratic. The risk is communication empty of content, a false modern exchange hiding traditional propaganda. On the contrary, if internet is used in a proper way, the opportunity is being able to build a truly European public space.
Who to blame ?
The European Parliament elections webpage suggests 10 reasons to vote. In a somewhat paternalistic way, it ends with a “come on ! It’s just a few minutes ; you can maybe combine it with a walk”. It is a desperate last call for citizens’ vote from an institution which may not be the one to be blamed for the lack of public debate on European elections. European institutions are responsible for giving information about the general EU decision-making process, as well as for calling citizens to vote. However, they cannot influence people’s vote. If the main problem is neither the lack of general information nor the lack of a European feeling – even if they both do contribute to abstention – there is little more EU institutions can do to solve it.
Informing about political opposition, the real alternatives at European elections, the choices to be made, is the responsibility of both political parties representing these alternatives and the media. These are the actors to be blamed if the poles of the debate are not clear and if the debate is not promoted among citizens.
We don’t need to be convinced that we have to love Europe. But the EU is actually deciding on issues that affect our everyday lives, and political parties have very different perspectives on what the outcome of these decisions should be. Only voting is certainly not enough. But if a part of the population doesn’t feel able to do it, it is basically because of a lack of public debate and clear information about political alternatives.
Ajouter un commentaire
(1)
