THE END OF STATES : END OF EUROPEAN DEMOCRACIES ?

emiliano varanini parlamento europeo

THE END OF STATES AS THE END OF EUROPEAN DEMOCRACIES  ?

The new coming elections ( 2014) of the European  Parliament,the second of  the globalisation’s  saga, after the signature of Lisbon Treaty, have been an opportunity to argue about the conflict between democracy and capitalism , or rather between European democracies and their structure : Body of  Government, Territory , Public opinion, Administrative Organisation, division of powers, finance.

But on the opposite, the topic shifts openly to populistic subjects as migrants, right wings issues such ad securiy , justice, or left wings topic such as environment, and others… and not on how all those elements, are so far affected by the global finance which nowadays rule the democracy’s structure per se.

So on as far as finance power have been raising its influence up within European Institutions, the idea of democracy is changed and it is still  changing…

Like a swinging circle, democracy’s elements such as market, public opinion, and as we see, the so called ” legitimacy”,  turn in to another shape.

At what point is, theorically speacking, the  conflict between democracy and capitalism?

The origins

During the signatures of the Maastricht Treaty  (1992) technocratic lobbyists at the covenant,  have allowed a structure which reflects the “privatisation ” of those who were considered in the 70ies social benefits who were supporting the market form the the demand side. SO far in the treaties the Ue compenteces  benefited from a transfer of skills and powers from the Stares. But UE , at thst time still CE,  it is an  empty forms of government and concretely run by tecnocrats who can decide whether or not a single state could be in debt, and furthermore the cost of the capital for the State’s obligstion .

Decision taken barely relevant for its consenquences, ignoring the akwnoledge of the population, at the level of an hyperbaric room of power, despite the  unique  historical and sociological process of the individual european States from the Magna Charta ( 1215) trough the centuries.

So far to run a democracy depends more than all subjects on  the power to get finances for its debts, nor any other idea seems to be dominant and relevant.

But what is not clear  it is how this idea makes its way through to the european’s politicians and more than further on its populations who former were citzens of a state.

Tecnocrats, are less capable to merge massa opinions than the old socialist/ liberal politics.

Not only the idea of democracy changes but States are changing.

With  the new coming treaties to be signed at the UE level over the head of more than 100 milions of electors, the shape of rights and the duties of the citizen overcome the shape of the single parliaments, TREATIES such as TISA ( trade in service agreement) , Sharing Economy, TTIP ( trans- atlantic parteniarate) which seems to able to destroy our small companies,  OGM biodiversity, all these elements  make a single european state ressembling  to a single shoes buyer, on the 42nd street in NY city, but  special client which, rather from a pair of shoes, it is able to buy AIRCRAFTS, WAR weapons, energy ..GOODS….

As far as the same  difference between a blues ballade and a jazz routine of dance, technical aspects are put at the top of the agenda, in comparison to social needs. Lobbysts would have opportunity to create new profits through the balance sheet of a STATE . And so, CE mooved ( amsterdam treaty 1999)  to EU. But  to mantain a control on it, it has been the need of a super organisation,  which would have taken an overview over the States, and besides this, over the european citizens.Here you are you have Lisbon treaty.

Shifting the meaning of democracy.

EU it is a body consistent and large enough, to face important decisions in the World ( obiouvsly  because of its economic capacity).

Decisions are for example the power of license commerce in big areas  , rationalize the credit to a state , establish the cost of the money, ( ECB), and its power to influence the debt market,  which fly over the public state opinion makers. 

Nobody now unless he is an expert, can follow and even have a serious opinion on legsl documents approved by the Body or its agencies, nothwistandig the fat a subject as the public state obligations and the ESM system,  or the stocks market ( the so called free movement of capitals) are crucial.

Public european opinons are switched to more followed  subjects, capable of  aggregating , or dis aggregating  opinions , such as migration fluxes, islamic fobia, or less important as the freedom to launch a new patent…et coetera…

Today the democracy’s  gap between state functions and the theme of their costs has start to exist, toghether with a gap of awareness form those who presumibly would have been the consumer and former the single elements of the sistem : citizens.

Functions such as’ education, health  have been included and rationalized in all Europe, in to a logic of active / passive budget.

Despite all, it should be noted the question about what citizens have in return of this ?  citizens, who were before part of Costitutional Monarchy , then  Republicans, are now kept in this so called “tecnician democracy”, when the old parliaments cannot guarantee intacted their  control on absolute power of decisions, decisions all taken elsewhere. ? 

We may say… the same benefits from the past , got in their single member state ?

We would say not. Since EU has a different scheme, compared to the states, where citizens have some rights to express the powers of checks and balances over the parlamentarians decisions, in the EU , citizens face much more difficluties to control its acts, committees, parlamientarians, Committee Delegation, bilateral treaties etc …decisions of the  agencies -… etc . and to be informed over the life of its bodies.

On one side, but this will be spread in to another article,  Eu try to kept citizens informed and involved with a very detailed web  approach, ( White Book, GREEN BOOK etc.) but in other side you may need deep tecnical and market informations to really partecipate to the decisions with a formed opinion. Sometimes legal acts which are written by the comitess before, and even futher bu the large big law firm whoich surrounds brussels’s office.

So the question is : on what is based the istitutional system of the EU? Which are the structures , the so  called guarantees for citizens?

As  all democracies in the history[1] , and in general as all social phenomenons,  democracy is lead to end, because of its own. Many factors like the  enlargement of its scope are able to determine new exigences and so as to modify its shape

The mercerization of state functions

But how much the process of transforming shape of government, shapes of the single states. After Lisbon treaty the governmence of EU per se, it is a subject strictly connected by the influence of the “financiarisation”, a phenomenon which has broken down the gap between state functions such as education, health , transports and their costs.

Any state now has  a budget deficit  but moreover a “budget  logic” under the EU supervision; budget ratio  which  makes them the same as en entepreneur who run a company, like those which ask for a loan.

After  Maastricht Treaty , European States , including Italy,  were victims  of their lack of confidence in themself. Especially this due to economic and the concurrence between World economies, and because they after have transferred powers and competencies to this  supra -state organizations ,   the European Union.

Above all we should keep in mind that  relationship between states , their organizations and their  citizens, it is something “historical”, human and moreover   crucial for the european democracy. As it has  been  stressed by Prof.  S.CASSESE as  far as  the “democracies’ systems”  are  concerned,  democracy it is run by “legitimacy” which means for Cassese in one world, an acknowledgment from the bottom.

What is it legitimacy ? Legitimacy  can be either  considered as a sort of judicial review of the behavior, such  elections , or even  the public opinion all merged in a public cooperation of all the bodies made of control or check and balances mechanisms.

A t the same time “accountability”  it  is on the contrary ,  the way  how  the state’s  authority  permeates and shapes and affect or influence  the lives of citizens .Professor Sabino Cassese, member of ITALIAN CONSTITUTIONAL COURT , in the book “To rule  the Italians” (2014 , published by Il Mulino ),  in the chapter on “Globalization and the States”,   essay also  written in to the English language on international review of public law (http :/ / http://www.iilj.org / gal / documents / THEGLOBALIZATIONOFLAW.pdf )[2] ,   does not clarify whether the end of democracy and the end of the states are an unavoidable phenomenon jointed as a consequence of globalization.

Despite the stature of huge Professor , an astute reader will find no answers to those similar question.

Even Cassese is not clear himself about  in what form democracy in the future will be conceived . Cassese,  Emeritus Professor of Administrative Organization  and especially of Italian State administrative organization  seems to be disappointed by the phenomenon or of what he himself calls “GOVERNANCE without a government” . The globalization , in a one world, means new bodies  ,  multitude of satellites of forms and multi – world organizations , designed to perform  state functions. It doesn’t seem a phenomenon who has been completely clarified in all its aspects.  Cassese  strives to conclude that states are bound to maintain an even greater role through it. But this “Parmentier[3]” optimism on the new possibilities for the states , and theyr original power to influence,  including those cited by him which are the new skills on a global scale with  such as the  global norms against terrorism , piracy and other, which in fact that increase of the space of their influence , appears to fade compared to other observations with which glosses commenting that at the end  , their apparatus must be prepared to standardize rules and behaviors, in one world to end and transform in to another organization.

So in the end Cassese , a giant among scientists in government,   does not seem convinced by the answers that he forcely tries to give ,   its  forecast seems t be based more  on assumptions, than on factual data of future scenarios.

But Cassese does not transcend nor hides the current novelty  : more than 40,000 organizations and over inter -state , to the global level, exist. It seems that he doesn’t want to admit to where their scope will bring ,  failing in to drawing  the logical consequences which normally he authoritatively given on every norms and innovations of laws of the single states,  and so that these future organizations , are intended to steal the power of ‘ exercise of all or most of the functions once normally run by the single state.

Some of these functions will be or  are already cancelled , and the states[4] , the old states arose in the nineteenth century and or even before ,   those mixed organizations, melt  of territory , population, army , language, customs and manners ,  mixed in to single  social corps,   laws, and administrative apparatus with its own  system of government, with a uniformed legitimacy , with any distinctive single recognition    from below, or better shaped in to  a CHART or a COSTITUTION ACT , will never be again what,  he himself has , admirably for more than half a century ,   studied.

However, if   the end  of states as we knew, it is already clear, it is not uniformly clear in what seems it will mean the end of democracies which they have shaped from the end of the second world war  to now.

A hiatus seems to be  the one between    European state administrative organization’s history and may be for the democracy,    the period 1945- 2007 , when  Lisbon Treaty  act was signed by member states ( originally named Reform Act).

The debate to where and how European institutions will enact democracy  and its bundle of rights and fair principle at the more enlarged global dimension,  enacting of  CEDU and other principles ,such as single citzen freedom , dignity, privacy etc.,  it is still on going between Professors ,Lawyers, and Judges[5]

At most Cassese refrains from any legitimate criticism of what the system of global governance want to appear as inevitable .

In the absence of a on single global public opinion , of one territory , and above all , of one   system of legitimating action from the bottom to the top of all the new regulatory institutions such as European commission, European Council and European Parliament and their derivative bodies such as the Court of Justice and European Court of Auditors (Luxembourg) European Economic and Social Committee (Brussels) Committee of the Regions (Brussels) European Ombudsman (Strasbourg) European Data Protection Supervisor (Brussels); The European External Action Service) , what we called democracy assume other meanings.

Cassese identifies more than 40,000 world public-private global regulatory agencies of interest whose scope will  entails some   state function, without , but without judicial review of their behavior at single state level they emerge as far from the control.  So far  at the end is not well clear what forms of democracy, they will  run.  This  new global democracy  must be identified and either carried out with something which neglect the idea of the” differences” ; in view of the fact that, and we would say providentially,  it is difficult to build a single “legitimacy” by a single public opinion in a world where any member states and their populations are different with different views of the facts , ideas , religions , cultures , reactions ,   disbelief ,   costumes  ,languages .

So while providing polished and original segment analysis ,   Cassese’s essay on globalization  says more  about the uncertainty of the democracy rather how  this will influence the old  administrated  ordered -state which are now merging together in a new world order, whose democracy check and balances , in  one world whose   “legitimacy” is not well shaped.  If you consider    they have been constituted   as  result of historical struggles and compromises , ruled in more than 4 centuries or more,  at least in Europe ,  those quick move  of Lisbon treaty  could also being  seen as something easy to  evaporate.

We  can at least conclude that the democracy as the historical process who gave  the state the form which they had till 2007, was a phenomenon  predestined to end , but certainly it is not clear how.

Emiliano Varanini, 2014, Lawyer Rome, LLM studies Pallas Nijmegen K.u.n.

[1]See. http://www.pbs.org/empires/thegreeks/background/48.html   A year after their defeat of Athens in 404 BC, the Spartans allowed the Athenians to replace the government of the Thirty Tyrants with a new democracy. The tyranny had been a terrible and bloody failure, and even the Spartans acknowledged that a moderate form of democracy would be preferable. As a system of government, democracy quickly spread to a number of other leading city-states, despite the authoritarian grip of Sparta on the Greek world. However, Sparta’s dominance was not to last. Overextended and unable to adjust to new battle techniques, in 371 BC Spartan hoplites suffered their first major defeat in 200 years at the hands of the Theban general Epaminodas. Only a decade later Sparta had been reduced to a shadow of its former self. But Thebes’ dominance of Greece would be short-lived. A new power had begun to assert its leadership over the country: Macedonia. Once a backwater, the Macedonian king Philip II had turned his country into a military powerhouse. Philip’s decisive victory came in 338 BC, when he defeated a combined force from Athens and Thebes. A year later Philip formed the League of Corinth which established him as the ruler, or hegemon, of a federal Greece. Democracy in Athens had finally come to an end. The destiny of Greece would thereafter become inseparable with the empire of Philip’s son: Alexander the Great. See also  https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Athenian_democracy.html Athenian democracy developed in the Greek city-state of Athens, comprising the central city-state of Athens and the surrounding territory of Attica, around 508 BC. Athens was one of the first known democracies. Other Greek cities set up democracies, and even though most followed an Athenian model, none were as powerful, stable, or as well-documented as that of Athens. It remains a unique and intriguing experiment in direct democracy where the people do not elect representatives to vote on their behalf but vote on legislation and executive bills in their own right. Participation was by no means open, but the in-group of participants was constituted with no reference to economic class and they participated on a scale that was truly phenomenal. The public opinion of voters was remarkably influenced by the political satire performed by the comic poets at the theatres.[1]

[2][2]See also TRANSNATIONAL LEGAL APPROACHES TO ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: CONCEPTUALIZING PUBLIC CONTRACTS IN GLOBALIZATION in  Rivista Trimestrale di Diritto Pubblico, fasc.1, 2014, pag. 1

Stephan W. Schill

[3](Montdidier August 12, 1737 – December 13, 1813)  Augustine Parmentier  a French nutrionist  influencer,  who first commercialized  potatoes in French during  the XVIII centuries together   with their  optimistically benefits.   His many other contributions to nutrition and health included establishing the first mandatory smallpox vaccination campaign (under Napoleon beginning in 1805, when he was Inspector-General of the Health Service) and pioneering the extraction of sugar from sugar beets. Parmentier also founded a school of breadmaking, and studied methods of conserving food, including refrigeration.

[4]  (3) J-B. Auby, La bataille de San Romano. Réflexions sur les évolutions récentes du droit administratif, in AJDA, 2001, p. 922 ss.   Per  Jean-Bernard Auby,   I fattori causali di tale destrutturazione, secondo il giurista francese, sono connessi a tre logiche nuove, affermatesi a partire dagli anni settanta dello scorso secolo: «un mouvement de globalisation du monde, un mouvement de désétatisation de la société, et un mouvement de décentralisation du pouvoir»; il diritto amministrativo, come diritto del «volto amministrativo» del potere, ne ha sentito il peso, prestandosi alla raffigurazione come oggetto di una sorta di assedio che va guardato secondo piani prospettici distinti, vale a dire non solo dall’alto e dal basso, ma anche lateralmente. In particolare, innanzitutto l’impatto della globalizzazione ha comportato un movimento di internazionalizzazione del diritto amministrativo, in forza del quale da un lato «on a assisté dans les dernières décennies à une intrusion massive de normes et standards externes dans notre droit administratif», dall’altro lato si è formata una pressione sul sistema nel senso della omogeneizzazione dei concetti e delle soluzioni, che hanno complessivamente prodotto l’effetto di «une perméabilisation du système» stesso. In secondo luogo, il «double mouvement de réduction de l’espace de l’Etat au profit de celui du marché, et de réduction de l’espace de l’Etat au profit des citoyens» ha combinatamente prodotto sul diritto amministrativo effetti di privatizzazioni e deregolazioni, di incremento della «democrazia amministrativa» e «inflazione» del contenzioso con l’amministrazione, ove la trasformazione ha operato nel senso di «rendre plus “satisfactoires” les décisions» del giudice amministrativo. In terzo luogo, il movimento di contestazione della centralizzazione del potere si è sdoppiato in una duplice direzione, l’una di «démultiplication de l’appareil d’Etat», di cui la creazione di autorità amministrative indipendenti è la manifestazione più evidente, l’altra di «décentralisation territoriale», la quale ultima ha comportato che si è venuto a formare un diritto amministrativo locale che si è separato dal diritto amministrativo statale, dando altresì corpo ad «une étonnante efflorescence contractuelle». In Massera  IL CONTRIBUTO ORIGINALE DELLA DOTTRINA ITALIANA AL DIRITTO AMMINISTRATIVO (*)

Dir. amm., fasc.4, 2010, pag. 761 ALBERTO MASSERA .

[5]See” LA CONTRIBUTION DU DROIT À LA DÉTERMINATION DE L’IDENTITÉ DE L’UNION EUROPÉENNE (*)

Dir. Un. Eur., fasc.3, 2011, pag. 585 Prof. Paolo Mengozzi  who says “Les règles d’une telle entité, dans leur champ d’application, limitent l’exercice des compétences et l’efficacité des organes législatifs et judiciaires étatiques et engagent ces derniers à coopérer avec la Cour de Justice pour assurer aux personnes physiques et morales le respect des droits qui leurs sont conférés par le droit de l’Union. Ce changement de la société politique où nous vivons et, par conséquent, de son identité, s’est réalisé puisque l’intégration européenne a été et continue à être considérée comme étant apte à faire face à la globalisation….La conséquence qui a découlée pour l’affirmation de l’identité de l’Union européenne est que cette dernière se caractérise amplement par la poursuite de finalités, non uniquement de prévention des risques que la globalisation peut comporter, mais aussi de maintien d’une fonction sociale au marché, en subordonnant les phénomènes qui peuvent se déterminer dans ce dernier à la sauvegarde de la dignité des personnes qui, ce n’est pas par hasard, est considérée être la pierre angulaire de l’ordre juridique de l’Union tout entier (32) . IX. Doit-on estimer, comme je me le suis demandé dans me propos introductifs, que l’identité acquise par l’Union au fil du temps a été ternie suite à l’insuffisante efficacité que la politique étrangère et de sécurité commune a montré face aux récents évènements ayant affecté les pays d’Afrique du Nord et à la faible attention que les institutions et les Etats membres de l’Union ont montrée à l’égard des exodes massifs qui s’en sont suivi, vers quelques Etats membres de la Méditerranée? L’impression qui a pu en être tirée à cet égard n’a certainement pas été positive. On ne peut toutefois pas négliger le fait qu’avant les évènements actuels l’Union a pris soin de prévoir sa propre action en matière d’immigration.”

Annunci

Rispondi

Inserisci i tuoi dati qui sotto o clicca su un'icona per effettuare l'accesso:

Logo WordPress.com

Stai commentando usando il tuo account WordPress.com. Chiudi sessione / Modifica )

Foto Twitter

Stai commentando usando il tuo account Twitter. Chiudi sessione / Modifica )

Foto di Facebook

Stai commentando usando il tuo account Facebook. Chiudi sessione / Modifica )

Google+ photo

Stai commentando usando il tuo account Google+. Chiudi sessione / Modifica )

Connessione a %s...

%d blogger hanno fatto clic su Mi Piace per questo: