The global economic crisis has distressed nations around the world. While some countries have survived the crisis relatively unscathed, a devastating period has begun for others, notably countries in the EU. Following Ireland, Greece, and Portugal, now Spain have fallen into the clutches of the economic crisis and will soon apply for EU rescue funds, therefore bringing the future of the EU into discussion. Established as a political and economic cooperation project to remove the remnants of the Second World War and avoid similar experiences in the future, the EU has continuously expanded. Now people wonder how this success story will end.
Today discussions center on the economic crises that have led to the resignation of the Italian and Greek governments. Nonetheless, the main reason behind this decline is the structural flaw which was ignored during the rise of the EU. To be more precise, Europe’s slide is the result of the future of the Union being in the hands of technocrats for a long time and the fact that, especially during the enlargement period, decisions were not made unanimously and elite cadres had the last word.
Roots of Europe’s crisis
Those struggling with the crisis today did not seriously question the decision-making mechanisms of the EU when they competed to join the organization. Their priorities were to open membership negotiations, to benefit from the EU funds and to have a place under the umbrella of its “civilizing” mission and European identity. As a matter of fact, Ireland, Greece, Portugal and Spain—which are on the verge of bankruptcy today—renewed their infrastructure and improved their education, health and security standards due to the EU funds they received before and after they joined the Union, even though they were in the periphery of Europe.
During the EU enlargement process, candidates and new member countries seemed to come out better off, but, at the same time, there were two factors that prevented countries from realizing the signs of upcoming crises. The first was, without a doubt, related to the economy. New members adopted policies that relied on EU funds and prioritized consumption more than production instead of adopting a production-oriented and export-oriented economic structure, like the powerful economies of Germany, France and Italy. It was known beforehand that these countries—new markets for countries with high productivity—will not be able to sustain the status quo for a long time without adopting production-oriented and growth-oriented economic policies. But there was another factor that also prevented countries from realizing the signs: the political decision-making mechanism of the EU.
The EU decision-making mechanism: Participatory enough?
Interestingly, today people do not question the EU decision-making mechanism and its role when discussing the economic crisis. People have, however, been kept out of decision-making processes on both fiscal and other critical issues that directly influence the future of the EU, such as foreign, social, and security policies and the EU Constitution. One cannot claim that the EU, which has continuously grown to include new members and therefore should have become more participatory, effectively accomplishes its “civilizing” mission and is sufficiently participatory when making crucial decisions. This is the main problem of Europe. The issue stems from the fact that the EU does not have a decision-making mechanism based on the accordance of member countries. Instead, powerful states impose their views on all members.
The EU also suffers from political problems in addition to economic ones. Europe—which shaped the world during the colonial period and created a dominant discourse for military, economy and politics is today fighting for its very survival. Each country retains its own influence but the EU, as a coalition, is far from being a leading actor while the world is being reshaped. As long as the EU fai