Why the EU must be able to say what it is!

At the time of the 75th anniversary of the Schuman Declaration, European democracy is under unprecedented pressure. Yet, the EU is at odds with itself over its democratic identity. Although the Commission vows to defend the EU’s own and original model of democracy, it presents itself in its publications as a mere union of European states. Apparently, it eludes President von der Leyen that pretending to defend European democracy is incompatible with presenting the EU as an ordinary union of states.

Clear and simple terms

Obviously, this contradictory state of affairs is highly detrimental for the defence of European democracy. If President von der Leyen is serious about her commitment to protect the EU’s democracy and the European way of life, as enshrined in the Commission’s 2024-2029 priorities, she must be able to say in clear and simple terms what the EU is and to explain how European democracy works. Portraying the EU as “a unique economic and political union between 27 European countries” as the Commission continues to do, does not in any way help her to achieve this goal.

The nature of the beast

The present confusion can be traced back to the EU’s notorious ‘nature of the beast’-conundrum. For decades, politicians and academics from a variety of disciplines have been at loggerheads over the question of whether the emerging polity should evolve towards a federal state or establish itself as an international organisation. Although the intensity of their disagreement was comparable to the religious battles fought between Protestants and Catholics in early modern times, they agreed that other options were not available for the EU. The polity had to be either a state or an association of states! Tertium non datur (“No third option is given”), as academics used to add in order to strengthen their argument with Latin incantations.

The citizens’ dilemma

The core of the ideological conflict between the intergovernmentalists and the federalists relates to the concept of democracy. If its precursors and the EU were to become a union of states or “une Europe des patries” as the former French president De Gaulle envisaged, the democratic life of the polity would take place at the level of the member states only. The federalists, however, argued that the EU had a ‘federal vocation’ and that it was destined to become a United States of Europe with a strong executive and a bi-cameral parliament. In their view, a democratic Europe implied a federal polity and required the member states to cede sovereignty to the Union. The dilemma facing the citizens in this traditional approach was that they could either have European democracy on condition of giving up national sovereignty or enjoy democracy at the national level on condition of abandoning the European dream.

Outdated ideologies

Seen in the perspective of the traditional ideological battle, the present description provided by President von der Leyen on the Europa-server as a unique economic and political union of European states, implies that the EU cannot be a democracy. Moreover, it suggests that the EU even does not aspire to function on a democratic footing as international organisations are a priori undemocratic. The consequence of the present portrayal of the EU is therefore that von der Leyen’s work programme merely aims to protect the democracies of the EU member states, not that of the Union.

European Democracy Shield

Fortunately, however, reality shows a different picture. Contrary to its identification of the EU as an association of states, the Commission is developing a European Democracy Shield aiming to protect the democracies of both the member states and the Union from disinformation and foreign interference. In addition, the Commission is undertaking sustained efforts to guarantee the rule of law and to encourage the citizens of the Union to participate in the democratic life of their polity. So, the gap between the presentation of the EU as an association of states and its functioning as a European democracy cannot be any greater.

The EU-27 definition

The reason for the inconsistent if not contradictory attitude of the EU towards its democratic identity lies in the outdated conundrum concerning the ‘nature of the beast’. It must be emphasised therefore that the EU has outgrown the binary opposition between state or international organisation by developing its own model of transnational democracy. Contrary to traditional thinking, the process of European integration has been informed by the principle that, if two or more democratic states agree to share the exercise of sovereignty in ever wider fields, their organisation must be democratic too. In line with this idea, the EU has evolved over the past decades from a union of democratic states to a union of democratic which also constitutes a democracy of its own. In short, the EU has established itself as a democratic union of democratic states.

So, the 75th anniversary of the Schuman Declaration is an excellent opportunity for the EU to leave past divisions behind. Saying in clear and simple terms what the EU is, forms an indispensable condition for the protection of its democratic system of governance. The EU-27 definition is doing so with one word for each member state: The European Union is neither a state nor an organisation of states, but forms a union of democratic states which also constitutes a democracy of its own.

The views expressed in this #CriticalThinking article reflect those of the author(s) and not of Friends of Europe.