Europe's future depends on rebuilding its democracies

The situation has finally calmed down by the European Parliament elections held in May. Fear of increasing populists and nationalists was not realized. The race for the bloc's main posts is almost over. While the new European Commission leaders have yet to pass auditions next month, the EU has ready a team to run it over the next five years.

These years are likely as turbulent and difficult as half the last decade. Even if the EU and its member states are able to weather the disturbing storms from a US-Kine trade war to increasing tensions in the Middle East, the reasons for Europe's recent problems should not be forgotten. Only through reflection can the EU renew its position in Europe and the rest of the world.

Thinking about Europe's future also means seeing its democratic life. A passion for working together can come only through political participation and a common sense of purpose. All have been eroded, along with a weakening of democratic societies and institutions. Look at Hungary, Poland, Italy, and Britain for vivid examples of democracies affected by the challenges of our time.

To be sure, democracy worked badly in the Western world. After decades of improvements, the 2010s provided the worst democratic obstruction “since the birth of fascism before World War II, according to American political scientist Ronald Ingelhart.

The reasons are many and complex. The idealology of neo-liberalism deprived governments of their ability to manage globalisation, with former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher “'s slogan no alternative” serving as an excuse for the disorder. One consequence has been to reduce the welfare state and pressure on governments' ability to provide basic services, which in moments of slow growth or economic contraction has exacerbated inequality throughout O club ECD of wealthy nations.

Noting that nationalism, globalisation and democracy cannot all exist at the same time, economist Dani Rodrik wrote to “Paradox of globalisation” that <x2hiper-globisation requires the contraction of internal policies and the isolation of technocrats from the demands of popular groups”.

The state of democracy is also in decline due to poor governance, corruption and abuse of democratic institutions. Parts of Europe have seen the consolidation of superstitious democracy, with some countries resorting to authoritarianism. The opposition space is shrinking amid media freedoms clashes and civil society denigration.

The work of nongovernmental organisations, for example, in supporting refugees has been hampered through legal and financial means and by new surveillance policies introduced in the name of the war against terrorism. Meanwhile, the increasingly concentrated power of populist and right-wing media including the media owned by politicians and their oligarch friends has helped delegate civil society.

These trends are common even if they do not appear equally in all lands.

Europe is in the particular situation of having some of the best democracies in view of a significant democratic attraction. The continent also has countries that are still making the transition to democracy. Thus, the example set in a country can have consequences for its neighbors.

Europeanisation has included a transfer of decision-making powers away from the national level in which democratic life is developed mainly. Although accompanied by an expansion of the European Parliament's competencies, representative, responsible and democratic decision-making at the international level is still on the run.

The joint decision-making has allowed the EU to be innovative and to have good relations with its individual members. It has helped member states jointly manage globalisation. But it comes at a cost, which is now visible. EU governments have long taken decisions based on the allowed “consus, which allowed little public discussion. But the past 10 years have seen one crisis after another along with a politicisation of trade issues, management of the Eurozone, immigration, security, which were previously handled by representatives of national governments in collaboration with their partners.

With the collapse of the allowing consensus, the country was opened to contest the validity of the EU and its elites. That is how populist anti - populist voices arose - The EU and authoritarians. So did Brexit. And questions arose about the foundations of our democracies and our being together.

For all EU mistakes, the most serious erosion of democracy has occurred at the national level, though not uniformly across the continent (which remains home to some of the most advanced democracies in the world).

National institutions have eroded. In many countries, national parliaments are weak in reviewing EU legislation. Rare are public debates held on pan-European issues. At the local level, Europeanisation has corresponded to efforts to strengthen federal and local powers through decentralisation and subsiliarity. But these have been equally successful.

While all this has led to a new dynamic, especially when urban areas have been empowered to manage their issues, transfer of competencies to local authorities has been limited by austerity and budget cuts. This has made it harder for local administrations to provide such vital services as well-being, education, health and housing.

The area for decision-making has also been transformed and displaced, as the effects of policy decisions feel beyond national borders. Most politics now have a transnational dimension exceeding the EU itself. Migration, climate change, and the fight against terrorism are striking examples.

Streaming, education and prosperity are policies that are often managed at the local level, but immigration control, which has an impact on housing needs, increasingly considered foreign policy that should be delegated to third states, thanks to the inability of the EU and its member states to reform immigration policies and integration.

Who is responsible?

Management contemporary policy complexity requires united decision-making on transnational issues. But these efforts have been marred by the inability of political organisations to adapt democratic discussion to such a multilevel government from which the EU is the most advanced example worldwide.

Who decides? Who has the legitimacy to decide? Who is responsible?

These are questions that the future EU leadership must address. Great inventions are not necessary, as there are many inspiring initiatives and experiments that are taking place throughout the continent. Increasingly, successful policies are made by a host of actors working at different levels: EU, national and national institutions, private sector, NGOs and citizens' associations.

The Paris Agreement on Climate Change was the most successful global alliance of mobilised local societies and national, intergovernmental and multilateral institutions. Listening to all views and finding solutions through dialogue and confrontation has always been the way to make politics. This once focused on government, factory, and workers. Now that society is more fragmented, the process must bring much more voices.

The EU is well committed to doing so, precisely because it is capable of dealing with complexity. But it must translate some of its good intentions, such as keeping counseling with citizens, into meaningful action. Instead of collecting thoughts on matters from a variety of backgrounds, it should turn them into pan-European issues to debate concrete policies, bring appropriate actors and set aside political excuses for policy elections.

There are many areas in which this can be done, beginning with fighting climate change ] a topic that already fuels passions and mobilizes networks. These methods, when properly guided and with the inclusion of multi-planed governance in the EU, can find comprehensive solutions to concrete policy challenges while giving life to democratic policies.

Strengthening down-high policies may sound paradoxically, when wind is blowing in the opposite direction, towards strengthening the EU at the top so that it can show its muscles with other world leaders. But, the EU force stands in a comprehensive, democratic and prosperous life. This should not be forgotten. / BIRN/