Which democracy in the EU?

“A man of thought, action and inspiration, who devoted body and soul to the unity of Europe. We all appreciated his indefatigable dedication, his great professionalism and his extraordinary contribution to the creation and the consolidation of the European Central Bank and the European System of Central Banks (ESCB, established with the Maastricht Treaty, editor’s note)”. On December 19 2010 the then president of the ECB Jean-Claude Trichet paid a non-formal homage to Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa in the circumstance of his sudden death in Rome. A year after the death of the Italian economist and politician -former general vice-director of the Bank of Italy and president of Consob (National Commission for Corporations and Stock Exchange), member of the BCE Board from June 1998 to May 2005, president of Nôtre Europe (association created in 1996 by Jacques Delors) – we hereby propose excerpts of his reflection contained in the last chapter of the book “Democracy in the EU after the Lisbon Treaty” (Nuova Cultura, Rome 2011) edited by Raffaello Matarazzo, that was presented a few days ago in Rome.Institutions and “human spirits”. “If institutions aren’t motivated by ‘human spirits’ nothing will prevent society from succumbing to changes and disappearing”, remarked Padoa-Schioppa, according to whom “the institutions, although they are essential, remain insufficient. They must be animated by internal vitality, or else they could disappear, along with civilizations”. “Democracy – he continued – is a principle that was interpreted in different ways in different epochs, according to the territorial dimensions and the political situations. It isn’t easy to find a single understanding or a common experience of democracy”. It “regards people more than territory. There are different levels of government: therefore democracy is achieved only when it is present at all levels”.Lack of efficiency. Starting from the idea that “an efficient government can be non-legitimized and a legitimised government can be inefficient”, Padoa-Schioppa remarked: “Today the EU suffers from a lack of efficiency. In some political systems the foundation of legitimization is the legislative process (input legitimacy), whereas in others it’s the efficiency of government performance (output legitimacy). Rather than the lack of legitimization processes, today the EU is suffering from the lack of efficient performance. In other words, between the demos of the EU and its kratos , the latter presents more problems than the former”. For the economist, “this lack of efficiency is posing a risk to the integration process of the European Union. For the first time acquired conquests may be nullified. In other terms, the risk is not a standstill in progress, but the destruction of all that was created. Without the euro currency for example, the single market could not survive”.The “actors” of the democratic process. Moreover, Padoa-Schioppa pointed out, “this danger is prompting the EU to take steps to overcome its ambiguity. The crisis triggered destruction forces – such as the support to the re-nationalization of certain policies – and construction drives. It’s too soon to establish which of the two will prevail. However it is a challenge for EU institutions”. From the democratic angle, he pointed out, “the Council of ministers, in the areas where unanimous decisions are taken, is an aggregation of national governments, lacking European legitimacy, while the European Parliament and Commission possess such legitimization”. Considering the various actors and the institutional tools, Padoa-Schioppa underlined that for European development and democracy “parties are important, but they remain national actors; ICE (European Citizens Initiative, editor’s note) should be employed, but it has limited powers; national parliaments are indispensable institutions but they are limited by national criteria”.The role of the European Parliament. There is “also a fourth actor”, warned the economist “which in my opinion has the greatest potential, namely, the European Parliament. It’s the institution where the anti-disintegration forces should be concentrated”. Entering the heart of the debate on the EP’s role as a “political and institutional facilitator”, also as relates to the enhancement of stronger “bonds” between Brussels and EU citizens, Padoa-Schioppa remarked that “the European parliament could break the coalition of the ‘unwilling.'” “The Lisbon Treaty – he explained – stepped up the powers of the European Parliament and there are positive signs that this fact will be welcomed. The European Parliament can raise the stakes and use its veto power for a positive purpose”. What “is needed” – he concluded – is to step up the separation of powers, thus enabling the enhancement of best performance”.