The Future of Democracy: Could It Be A Matter of Scale?

Social Research, Fall, 1999 by Philippe C. Schmitter

To those who, welcoming the prospect of the EU's losing its integrative dynamic, argue that it is high time to reign in this increasingly obtrusive organization, I would respond that it is not clear whether this can be accomplished without endangering what has already been accomplished that famous acquis communautaire.(18) And that acquis consists not just of the four freedoms for the movement of goods, services, capital and persons with all the private benefits that accrue to them, but an increasing variety of cooperative efforts in other domains which produce more difusely distributed public benefits. Failure to tackle these issues--especially those which compensate for the uneven distribution of benefits generated by market liberalization will almost certainly mobilize various affected publics and increase the overall controversiality of the process. The more that this takes place in a a "proto-democratic" EU, the greater will be the challenge to the legitimacy of prevailing policies, including those famous four economic freedoms of the single market. It is even possible--but I hasten to opine, unlikely--that a decrease in these benefits (or, even a marked increase in the equity of their distribution) could trigger such an atmosphere of f sauve-qui-peut and beggar-thy-neighbor that the most fundamental and valuable transformation of the postwar European state system--that Deutschian "pluralistic security community" in which all member-states are confident that their conflicts will never be resolved by the use of force, or even the threat of it--could be placed in jeopardy (Deutsch, 1969).

Proponents of integration like to rely on the analogy of a bicycle to describe it: unless it continues to move forward or even if the process begins to lose momentum, it risks toppling over and throwing its riders back where they came from. Its opponents presumably believe that the analogy should be that of a tricycle that can be parked safely whenever and wherever one wishes. Frankly, there is no way that we can know which is the proper analogy for the EU in its present condition, but even the remotest prospect that the Europe conveyance might tip over--and, after all, even tricycles do this occasionally--should be regarded with alarm. Reverting to its status quo ante integratio of pervasive anarchy, constant threats of violence and unstable balances of power punctuated by international war would most certainly be against the interests of everyone.

I also assume that the basic strategy that has guided integration since its origins in the European Coal and Steel Community: the Monnet Method with its reliance on functional interdependence, indirection, unintended consequences, spillovers from one issue area to another and package-deals that increase the scope and level of common institutions is no longer capable of providing further momentum to the process--pace the potential impacts of monetary unification--then a more directly political strategy based on democratization might be able to take up the slack. However, if and when this happens, its promoters are going to have to invent novel forms of citizenship, channels of representation and rules for decision-making that are specifically appropriate for the emerging Euro-polity.