The European Union's Leadership Woes Are A Result Of The Democratic Defecit It Created.

Throughout this crisis people in the UK and abroad have been crying out for strong leadership from their politicians, however it has not been forthcoming. This is no surprise, since a leader needs know which people they are leading in order to properly lead them. However, in the world of the EU, national boundaries have become all but meaningless, because the curse of the bond yield rise affects Eurozone countries regardless of which countries name is written at the top, making it difficult for EU leaders to know whether to represent their own nation or some wider European agenda. The economic crisis dictates that politicians are must work together to come to a mutual solution, but they are bound by their own electoral mandates, meaning that they cannot do what is best for Europe as a whole. Angela Merkel has done her best to work for a solution in the best interests of the entire Eurozone by refusing to issue Eurobonds (though she may be reducing her opposition now) but has been barracked by her own countrymen, and other European leaders for doing so. In private, as intelligent, rational people these leaders might see the logic in a less nationally selfish course of action, but they are at the mercy of their own electorates, precluding them from acting as sense dictates in public.

One might look to the EU parliament to provide leadership in such a situation. Its power and mandate should elevate it above the petty squabbles and confines of national electorates, however it lacks the power to be able to react in such a way, primarily because of the democratic deficit it has created for itself. Since its creation the EU has been in a catch 22 of self-identity. It was created to avoid one country becoming predominant, however through this struggle it became predominant itself, both because its constituent countries were vying for power (thereby increasing its stretch to indirectly boost theirs), and because it took on an ambitious quest of its own with the hope of rivalling rising behemoths in the East. Conversely, while people recognised the benefits of curtailing the conflict in central Europe, and the potential fruits of the single market, they did not specifically ask for a second government to rule their lives (neither in the founding referenda, nor in the more recent Lisbon “treaties”). This can be seen in the reluctance to adopt a European army and opposition to pan-European police powers. Without the necessary existential purpose EU bureaucrats did what bureaucrats do best, legislate. Lacking an overall plan, (which became even more an issue after the demise of Communism) tranches of legislation spewed forth from Brussels (not forgetting Strasbourg) with some hope that this would give legitimacy and purpose to the parliament. As a result, we have a situation where the government isn’t wanted and does little to arouse any democratic feelings among the people it claims to represent. Thus, the parliament has created a pseudo-purpose for itself, but purpose alone does not confer legitimacy. And without legitimacy the parliament can never hope to provide leadership in a time of crisis.

In light of the need for legitimacy the single market did require a democratic mandate, but this regime would always feel remote, unfamiliar and untrustworthy, while it did not fulfil the true intended role of a government – giving a voice to the people. Furthermore, it could never hope to become this voice in an area as diverse as Europe in the time scale it attempted to. Democracy and national identity took hundreds of years to develop among humans but the fathers of the EU thought that because they could understand each other, then there was little reason why shop workers in Burnley and fishermen in the south of Spain couldn’t be friends too.  

And so we come to today. The EU parliament cannot hope to provide the leadership the people ask of it, but because of the way people now perceive Europe, they expect that the national leaders of Europe can speak for both them and the whole EU together. The EU is often criticised in the UK for being a usurper of national power and undercutting UK legislation. In fact the EU does the same to European leaders. It undercuts national power by seemingly providing a platform for cooperation which is toothless, while at the same time what power it does have is meaningless compared to the pressures placed on national leaders by their own electorates.