editorial" "
The drafting of the European Constitution in recent months represents for the European Union the only way of ensuring that enlargement does not result in the dilution of an historic idea, but its development in a new phase, after fifty years. There’s always the risk of the European debate becoming self-referential, of remaining a prisoner of own neuroses and jargon and reproducing the “deficit of democracy” which it has long been lamenting and which risks being exacerbated at a time when the very forms of politics are changing in the world. Yet the impression is that, albeit with the need to develop a broad consensus, and therefore adopt a more prudent timetable, the work of the Convention is proceeding and that responses are beginning to emerge, in particular to three major concerns, on which the history of the Union will depend. The first has to do with its democratic design: the process of drafting the European Constitution does not contain neo-federalist accelerations: it reaffirms the role of the state institution, while articulating it in a framework of pluralism and trying to implement the principle of subsidiarity. In actual fact there’s still a lot of work to be done, also to overcome those prejudices that still oppose the albeit timid article 37 of the draft under discussion, which makes mention of the Churches as institutional subjects. Only by coherently playing the card of pluralism (and solidarity) will European democracy be able to overcome some of its persistent rigidities and thus be better able to play its role in a rapidly changing world. The development of European democracy, however, has a need for more suitable and innovative central institutions than the traditional models. In this sense a crucial problem is the system of relations within the so-called “triangle”, headed respectively by the European Parliament, Council and Commission (as well as the Court of Justice). This system, which must creatively go beyond the “federal” or “confederal” models, must reconcile the traditional (and traditionally conflictual) poles of “politics” and “administration”. And what is at issue here are not only the relations between Council and Commission, but also two very sensitive fields that represent at once a great achievement and a great missed opportunity in the history of the Union: the single currency and common defence. The ECB (European Central Bank) has a need for a proper political counterpart. And the commitment to establish suitable military institutions, almost half a century after the failure of the European Defence Community (EDC), can no longer be deferred. The clarification of the constitutional profile of the Union cannot but help to define its identity ever more clearly. That brings us to the third great constitutional theme, relating to the frontiers of the Union and its role in the world. The world, even the “unipolar” world of America as the world’s single military superpower, has a need for Europe and for the European Union, just as Europe has a need for a strong partnership with the USA. The framework of the second half of the twentieth century needs in short to be updated and redefined, as the Iraqi crisis clearly showed. And this commitment to updating and redefinition also holds good in relation to two areas close to Europe, connected with Europe and with the EU by many old and new ties, even if traditionally distinct: Russia and Turkey, gateway to Transcausasia and the Arab world. Defining the identity of the Union is undoubtedly a long-term commitment, which can only be understood in a dynamic sense. But it is already clear that the Union, like the Community before it, is not merely an economic area or a political alliance. The history of the Union itself demonstrates that it is possible in history to substitute peace for war, cooperation for hatred. Defining itself, and at the same time defining its own frontiers, does not build barriers. On the contrary, it forms new ties, also by reviving, and re-actualizing in the contemporary world, the meaning and significance of Europe’s Christian roots.
