A Parliament in touch with the People

The French have never held parliament as an institution in high regard. They see all the outcry over current issues and the empty rows during parliamentary sittings as at best a necessary evil, an archaic concession to the democratic rite. The only real power, which fascinates and around which the whole political debate revolves, the ultimate authority, is the executive, with the Republican monarch at the Elysée at the top and the tutelary figure of the mayor at the base. Assemblies appear needlessly quarrelsome and are seen as talking shops. They represent the ‘political class’, not the citizen. For the French, the real political debate is the one that periodically places power on the street in front of the television cameras. Doesn’t the future belong to direct democracy, with the use of national or local referendums, almost daily surveys and, now, the incredible capacities for exchanging ideas over the Internet and the profusion of blogs?

I don’t think so. Experience shows that the methods of direct democracy, like the aspiration for ‘participative democracy’, represent real progress only when combined with representative democracy. Today’s complex societies can no longer claim to be governed by an omniscient monarch who has the monopoly of inspiration from the Holy Spirit or the best experts. Participative democracy is too easily hijacked by lobbies with specific interests, supposedly apolitical associations, and experts at political manipulation who are experienced in the art of concealing the fact that they are not representative behind the apparent nobility of their cause: the use of the Internet by anti-globalisation campaigners during the referendum campaign shows that it is a medium well suited to the know-how of good old agit-prop of the far left, as is the case elsewhere on the web for religious sectarianism.

It is the sense of community, at local or national level, that is gradually breaking up. A town is not just the sum of different districts, workers, traders and customers, permanent and temporary residents, tenants and landlords, noisy youths and peace-loving senior citizens; it is a community built on daily life. A nation is not the sum of producers and consumers, taxpayers and benefit recipients, rich and poor, creative inventors and environmentalists, Christians, laymen and Muslims, extremists and moderates, trade unionists and civil servants; it is a community with a shared destiny. All these parties must be able freely to express their concerns, aspirations, plans, questions and fears (hence the value of meetings, dialogue, blogs, etc.), but they must also be filtered through an elected, democratic, genuinely representative assembly, which has the power to debate, to weigh up, to balance, to place in context, to arbitrate. And, when the time comes, that assembly will have to report back to all the citizens – and not just the ones that make the most noise – on the choices that have been made in the name of the common interest.

We do not really have this culture of debate, of compromise-seeking, of politics seen as a way of living together and not as a substitute for civil war or for the war between Good and Evil incarnated as different factions within the same society. It is more familiar to the ‘pacified’ democracies that are our partners in the European Union, and it is fundamentally the culture of the European Parliament. The sectarians will deplore it, but all democrats will be delighted: the Strasbourg Parliament shows us that it is in touch with the citizens, with ‘grass-roots Europe’, to use an analogy with ‘grass-roots France’, and not just with the governments on the one hand and all manner of demagogues on the other.

One month ago, it showed this when it completely rewrote the directive on free movement of services: I reported how the new text had been adopted by a very large majority from the centre-right and the left, to the satisfaction of the trade unions.

This week it took on board other concerns which had been expressed during the referendum campaign in France and in the Netherlands.

– Relocation. Investment abroad is not to be condemned. On the contrary, it is a necessary condition for winning new markets and, in many instances, for creating new jobs. This is not the case where workshops are moved to benefit from lower labour costs elsewhere. Parliament has called for the complete repayment of public aid granted to undertakings that close down a place of business or relocate it in the seven following years. It has also supported the creation of a Globalisation Adjustment Fund. Endowed with €500 million, this Fund will assist workers affected by restructuring brought about as a result of globalisation.

– Protecting Europe’s identity. First of all, Europe’s identity must be protected through our regions’ products. Recognition of geographical origins has been accepted at European level for some time. However, such origins are not protected outside the Union. So the Columbians are discovering the benefit of protecting ‘Columbian coffee’ and the Thais of protecting Siam rice. Parliament is calling on representatives of the Union to make global recognition of geographical origins one of our main objectives in the WTO negotiations.

Last and by no means least, to define Europe’s identity is to give it borders. The debate on the ultimate boundaries of the European Union had never taken place in Community or national bodies. We know the role played by concern over a Europe without borders in the victory of the ‘no’ votes in the referendum on the Constitution, both in France and in the Netherlands. The European Parliament has called on the Commission to propose criteria before the end of the year for the ultimate borders of the Union and for its capacity to absorb new members. One year ago, a large majority of the Strasbourg Parliament was still refusing to address the issue. On 16 March, 9 out of 10 MEPs decided to begin work on this key issue. There are still good times ahead for democracy and for Europe if the elected representatives stay in touch with the citizens!

Alain Lamassoure, 18 March 2006