European Continental Assembly of June 2001 organised at the initiative of the Alliance for a Responsible, Plural and United World 

•	Framework text of the topic “Democratic governance for Europe”
Initial document launching the debate on the Europe electronic forum

•	Author: Alessandro Guiglia

•	Date of writing: September 2000

•	Subject co-ordinators: Alessandro Guiglia and Elise Massicard

Foreword

To write this discussion document, we have analysed the intellectual production of certain jurists, philosophers, political scientists and politicians of the past and present who, naturally, have different judgements, orientations and ideas. 
It is obvious that recourse to the thinking of J. Habermas dominates, likewise in a general way the writing of this text reveals the subjective orientation of its authors. 
We are also aware of the document's inevitable schematic presentation, mostly due to its short length and the choice made to make a collage of its authors' different ideas and assertions. However, we consider that this text's purpose as a working instrument to stimulate thinking allows us to accept such constraints.

1. The current situation

The democratic deficit of the European Union

The current situation of the European Union is characterised by a contradiction of a constitutional order.
On the one hand, it is a supranational organisation founded on treaties of international law, shorn of the powers characteristic of a modern constitutional State which are based on the monopoly of power and internal and external sovereignty.
On the other hand, the Community's institutions produce European legislation that restricts the sovereignty of its member States, thus it wields authority which up to now was reserved only for national governments.
The democratic deficit arising from this contradiction is obvious. 
The decisions of the Commission, the Council of Ministers, and those of the European Court of Justice have a profound effect on the internal relations of the member States. The European executive is able to impose its own decisions against national governments that do not apply its rulings. Moreover, the legitimacy of these rulings is not obtained from the European parliament, whose authority is limited, but from each national parliament in the form of ratifications of agreements between the governments and the Commission. 
One of the most striking examples of this reduction of internal and external sovereignty affecting nation-states is the birth of the single currency administered by the Central European Bank in total independence, without there being any suppletory political instrument to ensure democratic control at Community level. The result of this is that a crucial political act from the standpoint of European political unification becomes a decision to support the dominance of economics over politics and the independence and superiority of technicians over politicians who, unlike the former, must pass the test of elections. In other words there is a tendency for economic policy to be dictated by management type decision-making rather by democratic control.  
The successful tactical choice made by the promoters of the European Union immediately after the war was to solve each economic problem so as to encourage reconstruction and eliminate elements of competitiveness from economic production (the source of infra-European wars). Today, when this choice is proposed anew to us (by the functionalists) by the theory of economy driven politics as the strategy to be adopted, it becomes a barrier to genuinely democratic political unification.
Furthermore, the triangle formed by Parliament, Commission and Council of Ministers conserves a large number of ambiguities of which few European citizens are aware. 
The innovation of the essentially positive process represented by the analysis of a problem and the formulation of a decision to solve it (done by the Commission), the decision (Council), and application (done by the Commission) lacks transparency. In fact, it is at the root of an undemocratic process and mistaken choices.
The fact of preparing decisions behind closed doors highlights the vulnerability of the Commission's functionaries vis-à-vis economic lobbies. The decision phase includes bargaining and compromise by ministers to defend national interests (e.g., Bovine Spongiform Encephalitis, the Common Agricultural Policy, etc.). Lastly, technocratic behaviour becomes apparent during the phases of application and then evaluation. 
None of these phases is subject to democratic control at European level. 

State and nation

Although it might seem academic and obvious, it is useful to recall a few of the characteristics of the model of the modern State formulated during the last century and to define certain terminological definitions.
The State is a juridical concept referring to the internal and external sovereignty of the power belonging to that State over a territory defining its physical limits and within which the entire population is considered to constitute the people of that State. The concept of nation means a political community linked by an ethnic, linguistic, cultural and historic identity. 
Regarding European history, the formation of the nation-state has obeyed one of two processes: States that have become nations (France) and nations that predated the formation of the State (Italy, Germany).
The power of the State is organised according to laws; with the separation of private law and public law, each citizen acquires a considerable amount of private freedom.
In a system where the State and productive and commercial activities are separate, the State provides the general conditions for production, the legal framework and the infrastructures intended for the capitalist trading of goods and the organisation of labour. 
The State's financial needs are met by levying taxes.

The emergence of a national conscience has made possible a form of social integration via participation in decision-making structures of a political nature, leading to the status of political citizenship, a new level of political solidarity and a secularised source of legitimisation. 

The nation comprises two acceptations: the nation of citizens, chosen by them, is the source of democratic legitimisation, whereas the nation of ethnic nationals, innate, is the basis of social integration. 
Citizens are individuals who take the initiative to constitute a political association of free and equal persons; ethnic nationals are those who are born in a community characterised by the same language, history and culture.
The tension between the universality of an egalitarian legal community and the particularity of an historic community bound by destiny is constitutive of the nation-state.

Crisis of the nation-state

The nation-state is now threatened from within by multiculturalism and from without by the problems raised by globalisation. This makes it more difficult to conjugate a "nation of citizens" with an "ethnic nation". Moreover, this crisis is exacerbated by the fact that fewer and fewer citizens take part in the democratic process.

Globalisation

The nation-state was characterised by the complementary relationship between the state and the economy and domestic politics and international competition. This situation tends to disappear when domestic politics can no longer influence a country's internal situation.
Economic growth depended on factors that gave value to capital and the population as a whole, since it depended on expanding mass consumption, the growth of productive forces, qualified labour stemming from an expanding education system and, indirectly, from the development of services offered to citizens. 
The denationalisation of economic production has modified these conditions.
The speed at which new technologies have been developed to increase production, the expansion of the labour market to areas of the world with far lower labour costs, and the decline of manufacturing industry, which has the effect of withdrawing capital from the productive sector to that of financial speculation, have caused unemployment to reach worrying levels. 
National politics has lost control over the conditions of production liable to generate taxable profits. To stay competitive internationally, the state must finally accept structurally high unemployment rates, deregulation of the labour market and the dismantling of the entire welfare state.
The resulting spread of poverty, social exclusion, conflicts and insecurity generate self-destructive behaviour and rebellion, and delinquency and intolerance, which can often only be controlled by repression.

Hence society suffers from a kind of mental erosion harmful to the core of universality promulgated by those with republican ideals. The legitimacy of procedures and institutions is corroded when majority decisions, though correct in form, above all express the fear of a middle class in danger of losing its status.
All this undermines the most salient victory of the nation-state, that of integrating the population via democratic participation.

The process undertaken by European states which consists in building a supra-national body may constitute the political solution to the rise of the market economy, provided that this new body can be endowed with the attributes of a state capable of applying financial, economic and social policies, by having authority over the old national states.

Multiculturalism

The presumed linguistic, religious, cultural and historic oneness of citizens belonging to the same ethnic group and living within the borders of a given state, considered as the basic condition of the nation and the basis of social integration in European nation-states, is now undergoing rapid change towards multiculturalism.
Several phenomena are at the root of this transformation among which the most obvious and currently most discussed are immigration in Europe of persons from countries having very different cultures and with strong cultural identities 
However, it would be wrong to neglect other aspects of cultural differences endogenous to the original population, resulting from evolving customs. The considerable decline of religion caused by secularism, radical changes in gender relationships, the disappearance of sexual taboos and different attitudes to work due to deregulation, lead to diverse existential attitudes. This results in combats for recognition by groups and above all for lifestyles: equal opportunities for women, freedom of women to abort, recognition of unmarried couples and the right of young Muslim girls to wear veils at school, etc.

In a democratic state, multiculturalism requires the modification of laws. Full and public recognition as a citizen requires two types of respect:
-	respect for the unique identity of each individual;
-	respect for the way in which groups of citizens perceive the world and the way in which they live.

If democracy is the pluralism of collective individualities and lifestyles, then it must bring about solidarity between persons who recognise each other's right to be different.

Political participation 

Every European country has witnessed a fall in electoral participation, often interpreted as a sign of disillusion by citizens in the democratic process. 
This has occurred with the simultaneous development of a large number of diverse types of organisation and voluntary work by citizens marked by political and social solidarity and operating independently from and sometimes even against established political institutions.

The democratic deficit of the nation-state is more a structural crisis of delegated democracy combined with the suspicion of citizens regarding government institutions.
The choice of representatives every four or five years, without the possibility of sanction between two elections, is an imperfect means of identifying the will of the electorate.
Since the perspective of alternatives to the capitalist system has disappeared, and since government economic policy-making has lost some of its substance, electors often see the differences in the programmes offered by political parties as being insignificant. 

Political parties have abandoned their role vis-à-vis citizens of educating opinion and formulating projects for society. Electoral campaigns are more akin to advertising campaigns: electing a representative is like selling a product. Sensitivity to what the citizen thinks has been substituted by opinion polls; when difficult choices must be made, the mood of potential voters is probed instead of seeking the best solution taking into account the general interest. 

With the lessening of the disparities of economic situations, education and social conditions prevalent in the last century, an equivalent reduction has occurred between the competency of the politician to whom representation is conferred and that of citizen who elects him. Citizens are now more critical and use forms of passive resistance against those governing them. They demand direct involvement in formulating choices, i.e. they express a demand for participatory democracy.

Government policy is incapable of providing adequate responses to long term problems (environmental protection, international crime, financial speculation, etc.). It focuses overly on problems of contingence and everyday management, which leads to a feeling of insecurity and powerlessness among citizens. 

The perspective of a European democracy could be the opportunity for greater convergence between citizens and politics, by involving them in a transparent process that breaks with the current attitude taken by the “Eurocrats ” (“don't disturb the driver, can't you see he's driving”).

2. Paths of consideration and research

The consideration proposed aims at seeking an answer to the question: is it possible to set up a democratic government of states of the European continent?

Citizenship/Democracy 

Citizenship is the status bestowed by the relationship existing between a person and a political society known as the State, by virtue of which the person owes allegiance whereas the States owes protection. Citizenship is the status of the citizen in a democratic society based on the primacy of the law and the principle of equality.

The rights of citizenship concern essentially the nature of social participation of persons within the community as members fully recognised by the law. 
Citizenship can be considered as the authorisation for access to certain rights (civil, social and political). This access is regulated by politics.
Citizenship also implies the commitment towards contributing to the production of goods-rights, it therefore demands awareness of requirements for reciprocity (the citizen's duties).
The evolution of citizenship in the West has occurred via the historic process of the individual as a political subject in direct contact with the State, without intermediary bodies.
These definitions from different authors lead to the conclusion that the conditions required for citizenship and therefore democracy are not the products of an ethnically homogenous people but of a society that wilfully pursues the goal of political unity.
Of course, this political unity must have a collective identity, obey the same rules and practice solidarity, i.e. it must give itself a constitutional charter.
The welfare state, a characteristic of European nations, was born from the struggles of labour unions, but also from the development of the concept of citizenship itself. 
It should be considered as an instrument for developing democracy as a means of achieving solidarity within the nation-state and as an instrument guaranteeing social cohesion. 
The ideology that calls the welfare state into question and which transfers to the market the services it guarantees to citizens as a whole, inevitably leads to a change in the relationship between the ordinary citizen and the community, emptying citizenship of its substance: solidarity and equality.
Democratic citizenship can be a force of integration, that is to say it forges solidarity between strangers only if it asserts itself as a mechanism capable of mustering the material circumstances necessary for the living conditions desired. 
Democracy that guarantees rights to private freedom and political participation must also be remunerative in the enjoyment of rights to social and cultural distribution. Citizens must be able to see for themselves the value of using their rights through social security in the same way as through the reciprocal recognition of different cultural lifestyles.
In other words, since the welfare state is an integral part of democracy, dismantling it would be tantamount to reducing democracy.

Democracy, considered as the participation of "demos" in decisions concerning the community, cannot be restricted to the election of representatives to Parliament, regional governments and county and municipal councils.
The global fall in electoral participation in European democratic states should not be interpreted only as the result of increasing selfishness and the renunciation of political rights but rather, as said above, as that of suspicion of the democratic elective system.
Forms of democracy that go well beyond elections are common in European states. In particular, participation in decision-making has become more or less institutionalised in bargaining between trades unions and employers' federations, and also with the consultation of different citizens' organisations, economic groups, corporations, etc. 
Non-governmental organisations and other organisations, groups set up to protest against specific problems, demonstrations, debates and campaigns and civil society in general have a direct impact on the choices and decisions made at different levels of government. 
In particular, the mass media, which reflects and forms public opinion, also has a considerable impact on the impetus for participation.
However, forms of direct participation that have been proven and formalised (citizens' conferences, consensus conferences, citizens' forums, planning cells, citizens' juries, deliberative opinion polls, etc.) have problems in making headway.
The acquisition of power conferred by representation is a perverse interpretation of democracy whose spread is a subject of concern, since it revives forms of authoritarianism in our political culture, such as resistance to all forms of direct participation by citizens, seeking electoral majorities in order to limit the representation of minorities in the name of stable government, and the use of decentralisation in order to build new power centres at lower levels. 

One cannot consider the issue of citizenship and democracy without raising the question of the status of immigrant citizen, given to persons who make up a stable part of our societies. Circumstances oblige them to comply with the obligations of the indigenous population, work and thus contribute to GNP, pay taxes and also contribute towards financing the welfare state. For all that, what rights of citizenship are acquired by them? 
The project for European citizenship should take up the concept, considered by some European states, of the resident citizen. This provides for political rights (active and passive) at municipal level, by setting a probable period of time before acceding to full European citizenship. 

Social identity and integration

On 12 October 1999, the second section of the German constitutional court delivered the following pronouncement:
a)	the democratic legitimisation of political decisions is only possible if the political community is the expression of an organic demos, in other words of a culturally, linguistically and implicitly ethnically homogenous "people";
b)	Europe does not exist and a demos of this type will not exist;
c)	The legitimisation of European decisions must remain the domain of national parliaments, since "the union of States" can only be subject to the “full powers of States which remain sovereign”.
This pronouncement is based on a concept of collective identity conceived in prepolitical and extra-judicial terms. J. Habermas’ opinion, however, is in substance: “ … a single conception of socio-political cohabitation capable of providing a practical solution to the problems facing a society undergoing change should no longer take as reference the community’s historical and cultural identity, but rather multiple forms of inter-subjective communication. The political dimension of collective identity should be distinguished from the social dimension. A shared political culture becomes the skein that spreads to every non-political identity (culture, religion, ethnic group) within a given territory while permitting co-existence”. 

It is possible to identify three forms of inter-subjective communication that correspond to three distinct dimensions of the collective identity existing at the same time in each person:
1)	The “transcendental” dimension involves every human being, i.e. without presumption of specific political, religious or cultural affinities: this represents the domain of authority of human rights at world-wide level;
2)	“Political” interaction between human beings who decide collectively to set up political and social structures. The aim of this form of communication is to establish norms for regulating social relationships, access to decision-making, the attribution of resources and the rights and duties of citizens;
3)	"cultural" interaction between individuals characterised by a common history, shared ethnic and religious traditions, a collective notion of basic criteria of what constitutes a “good life” and which commits itself to ensuring the survival of values in which these individuals believe and the lifestyles that form the specific manifestation of their identity.
This distinction between the different spheres of individual and collective identity permits breaking down the ambiguous merging, specific to the nation-state, that exists between the political sphere and the ethnic-cultural sphere.
Seen from this angle, European political integration, which is based on a feeling of belonging and European citizenship, is possible if it nourishes itself on its common history without attempting to substitute itself for local cultures. The citizens of European states remain the nationals of their own countries in every way while developing a feeling of belonging to the supranational reality of a United Europe.

Systems of government/institutional innovations 

In the present historic phase of the crisis of sovereignty of nation-states and the stagnation in the construction of the European Union as a supranational entity, the quest for institutional, democratic and efficient innovations cannot be limited to the supranational level but must also consider every other level of governance, from the municipal to the continental. 
The common direction of this consideration must be the quest for more democracy.
The first element to be taken into account is the twofold process underway throughout nearly the whole of Europe: decentralisation of national governments with the transfer of power and autonomy to regions and local authorities and centralisation at supranational level with the transfer of national sovereignty to the European Union. 

Decentralisation stems from at least three requirements:
1)	it responds to regional claims for identity, resulting in certain countries in a federal type structure (Spain, Belgium, Germany and partially in the United Kingdom and Italy), whereas it still gives rise to struggles and conflict in others  (France);
2)	it increases democratic participation by bringing centres of decision closer to the populations concerned;
3)	it seeks more efficient government action, from functional decentralisation and the rationalisation of government management.
These two movements contradict each other only in appearance. In reality they manifest a considerable need for overhauling the entire political system either to make it more efficient to deal with the new world order (economic, political, social), or to make it give greater respect to the specific identities of different peoples and the increasingly incisive demand for democratic participation.
The quest for institutional innovation intended for the democratic government of Europe requires intervention on every level of government, over territories and populations. Discussion today on the institutional form to be given to the European Union is aberrant if it does not include the entire system of government: local authorities, counties and /or regions, and the States composing Europe. 
The required creative effort must avoid taking the approved model approach by conserving and accepting the diversity of statuses, types of executive systems, electoral procedures, etc., and define the roles and contributions of the different levels to the central government of the European Union.
This entails applying the principle of active subsidiarity, i.e. that each level of government must be able in complete independence to actively solve the problems that arise within its scope of influence, without interfering with higher levels (the principle of subsidiarity) but in an active way, with the obligation of co-operation between the different levels in such a way as to respond to the complexity and interdependence of problems.
The principle of active subsidiarity permits defining links between the different levels without setting up rigid rules applied in a uniform way but, on the contrary, by joint consideration organised by the level immediately higher, define guidelines that guarantee the consistency of the entire system.
It is then the task of each level, according to its own specificities, to decide on the best way to apply the decisions taken. 
This type of approach could ensure the dynamic matching of the procedures regulating the links between the different levels. 
Lastly, it entails, proposing an innovative form of federalism extended throughout the system of “governance”, from local authority level to that of the central government of the European Union.

Among the many citizens of European countries who already feel they are European, some are convinced that a Europe composed of regions (rather than States) should be set up. During this stage so important for the future of the United States of Europe and also for the future forms of governance of the Earth, whomsoever holds the power of decision over the institutional options that influence the procedures for building the United States of Europe, is the political entity that bases its power on the nation-state, i.e. the institutional level which must cede power to both a higher supranational level and a lower more localised one.
The paradox is that the political representatives of European populations have been chosen according to rationales and dynamics exclusively internal to each country and not to a mandate for European construction.
As President Chirac said, “for too long, the construction of the community has been left to its leaders and establishments. It is time our peoples became the sovereigns of Europe”. Fischer is even more drastic … “a democratic revolution against the Ancien Régime of Brussels is necessary”.
This goes in the direction of the proposal put forward by the Alliance and repeated further on in this text, to undertake consideration and research based on a wide-ranging debate scheduled from 2001 to 2004 between European citizens on the subject of the “The Europe that we want” with the aim of restoring the voice of Europe’s citizens.

Democratic legitimisation at every level of government must be ensured, as it is already, by the election by citizens of Councils and/or Assemblies and Parliaments (including the European Parliament) that will be the basis of procedures for the training, management and control of executive bodies responsible for taking specific decisions at government level. Of course, each national “federation” will define independently the links of power to be accorded to the Councils and Assemblies, especially for the function of producing legislation. 

The central level of the Union’s government, which must be created from scratch while taking into account previous experience, must involve every European citizen either via his/her delegates elected in their own national parliament, or by electing representatives to a constitutive European Assembly which could also coincide with the current European Parliament.

As already alluded to in the initial diagnosis, it would be useful to recover positive elements from the practice of separating the responsibility for formulating proposals and that of decision-making. However, since it is the power of proposal that is decisive, it is vital to ensure the transparency of the body to which this task is entrusted.
To avoid the current and serious democratic deficit caused by the discretionary power of functionaries regarding their choice of “experts” and the pressure exerted by lobbies representing economic interest groups and others, use should be made of the lessons gleaned from citizens’ consensus conferences, citizens’ forums, planning cell methodology, public hearings, etc. all of which could ensure the democratisation of this phase. For important subjects, ad hoc commissions could be set up in the different national parliaments.

The underlying problem remains: how can we construct the system of the Union’s central government?
Under Romano Prodi’s presidency, the Commission seeks to remedy the most blatant shortcomings, and rationalise its operability, which is useful during a period of transition but nonetheless remains a simple rationalisation, whereas the problem that other members States must face is, as stated by Jacques Chirac and Joska Fischer, the choice that must be made regarding the Union’s institutions.

The aim of this consideration is not to define the place of a central European government in legal-institutional terms, but to provide elements that guarantee democracy with the perspective of a “Greater Europe” in view.
A rather wishful scenario could be the following:
-	all Europe’s citizens elect members to the European Parliament from lists of European candidates, thereby guaranteeing democratic legitimacy, with Parliament fulfilling a role passing legislation, appointing commissioners to the Commission and ensuring control over it;
-	national parliaments elect members to a Chamber of States which in turn appoints an executive council, i.e. the power of decision or the government;
-	the Commission keeps its power of proposal and application of decisions as well as the management of European programmes.

Obviously, whatever structure central government takes, it is vital that a constitutional charter be drawn up by a constituent Assembly elected by Europe’s citizens. The constitution would then be validated by referendum.

To prepare for this the following is necessary:
1)	the Commission must stimulate and support, even financially, initiatives to organise debate between the Union’s citizens; Parliament should accept the proposals and suggestions of citizens' groups and organise public hearings on the main subjects concerning the rights of European citizens and the instruments of democracy;
2)	a system of participation by qualified representatives from candidate countries hoping to become members of the European Union in drawing up the future constitution. This participation is important so that the reality of these countries can be taken into account and so that a decision can be taken as to whether the rules should be established before or after enlargement.
The latter condition should prevail also with respect to the global harmonisation of laws and citizenship in particular.
Players

“… from the normative standpoint, no federal European State can call itself a “democratic Europe” if, in the framework of a shared culture, there is no integrated public sphere already in existence on a European scale, a civil society with its own interest groups, non-governmental organisations, civil movements, etc., as well as a party system adapted to the European arena; in brief, if no “communication framework” exists already that transcends the limits of public spheres that have been circumscribed to a national dimension up to now” (Habermas).

The non-existence of a European public opinion is certainly one of the greatest brakes on the construction of a democratic Europe.
Think of the mass media whose news structures are predominantly national: newspapers, when they do report news from other European countries place them in their international columns next to news from China or United States. As for television weather forecasts, Italy includes Sardinia but leaves out Corsica; the reverse is true for France.
This is not only a question of language or provincialism, it is a vestige of purely national vision.
Parties, unions, organisations and citizens movements have exclusively national structures. True, they have links with their counterparts in other countries, but these are maintained as international relations. Networks exist between organisations and social movements, though they remain low-key because they stem from participation in projects financed by the Community, which requires that these projects be of a transitional nature.
Unfortunately, the European political groups formed in the European Parliament are no longer European parties. If we are to elect a parliament that genuinely reflects the different political opinions of European citizens, parties should present lists of candidates for Europe without them taking national standpoints. 

Questions for the proposals 

-	What Europe: geographic dimensions, what States, what criteria of choice and acceptation?
-	A charter of basic rights or a constitution?
-	Constitution: A European Parliament or a Constituent Assembly?
-	What is the role of the different levels of the political system in formulating the constitution?
-	What are the procedures for participation by civil society and citizenship in preparing the constitutional charter and in making proposals?
-	How can a European public opinion be formed?
-	The question of official language(s)
-	European law, national laws, coherence or uniformity?