EUSA Review Winter w Winter w 2004 1 EUSA REVIEW EUROPEAN UNION STUDIES ASSOCIATION Vol. 17, No.1 ISSN 1535-7031 Winter 2004 www.eustudies.org Information and Ideas on the European Union EUSA Review Forum w Forum w Is the EU Democratic, and Does it Matter? THIS FORUM ORIGINALLY CAME IN the form of a roundtable I organized at the American Political Science Association meetings in Philadelphia (August 2003) in an attempt to bring together a wide range of views on the democratic challenges facing the EU. Amitai Etzioni questioned the sustainability of the EU if it did not become a truly supranational political entity. Philippe Schmitter insisted that the democratic deficit problems were real, and most pressing at the national level. I followed up on this, arguing that were the EU to be appropriately understood as a regional state, it would be clear that democratic legitimacy is much less of a problem at the EU level than at the national. Fritz Scharpf concluded by showing that one’s view of the democratic deficit depends upon whether one looks at the EU’s institutional functioning or its problem-solving ability. The panel generated a lively debate, and the audience was not disappointed. I trust that EUSA Review readers will not be either. — Vivien Schmidt, Forum Guest Editor Vivien Schmidt, Forum Guest Editor The EU as Test Case of Halfway Supranationality Amitai Etzioni GIVEN THAT FULL INTEGRATION OF even two nations into one polity is very difficult to achieve, and limited supranationality is woefully insufficient, one is bound to ask: can “halfway” integration suffice? I define halfway integration as giving the nations involved nearly full autonomy in some important matters while providing nearly full control to a supranational authority on other important matters. The findings reported in my book Political Unification Revisited show that two of four attempts to form supranational d show that two of four attempts to form supranational d states, the United Arab Republic and the Federation of the West Indies, did not develop the capabilities that my theoretical scheme suggested are needed for such an integration to be stable. As expected, both collapsed in short order. The third attempt, the Nordic Council, developed only low integrative capabilities but survived by doing little transnational work, leaving high autonomy to the member nations in practically all matters. The fourth case, and by far the most relevant one for the issue at hand, the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Union (EU) that evolved out of it, provides the most telling experiment. The EU is trying to largely integrate the economies of the different nations involved, but so far has allowed them to maintain political independence. I suggest that halfway integration cannot be stabilized. The basic reason halfway, mainly economic, integration is not sustainable is that the libertarian model is erroneous. Society is not composed of individuals seeking to maximize their pleasure or profit, nor are markets self-controlling (guided by an invisible hand). People are not merely traders and consumers but also citizens whose sense of self is involved in their nation. Hence, when economic integration that benefits their pocketbook threatens their national identity, people will tend to balk. Furthermore, in free societies, major economic policy decisions must be made in line with a nation’s values and politically worked-out consensus—or by other institutions that have acquired the legitimacy previously commanded by the national institutions. Otherwise the sense of alienation will increase to a level that will endanger the sustainability of the regime. Moreover, communities have shared bonds of commitment that make members care about one another and be willing to suffer for them, make sacrifices they would not dream of making for non-members. The argument advanced here is not that the EU is not politically integrated at all. After all, there is a European Parliament, a Commission, a Council of Ministers, a European flag, and some other shared symbols. However, the power of these institutions and symbols is very limited compared to the national ones, by practically any measure. The European Parliament is weak compared to the far-from-powerful national ones; the Commission is weak compared to the national governments; and the European flag evokes little sentiment among most people. That is, they do not meet the important crowning criterion of supranationality—that the supranational layer be stronger than the national one. Also important is that these European bodies are largely international ones and not truly supranational ones. The Commission is composed of national representatives. Although, theoretically, the transnational parties of the Parliament represent like-minded Europeans across national lines regarding European issues, in reality these parties are largely controlled by the national parties that compose them. In short, while there is a measure of political integration, it is much lower than the level of economic integration. And, while economic integration