Between the 4th and 7th of June, European citizens were invited to elect new MEPs (Members of the European Parliament), but indicators show a disappointing turnout: only 43.09% of electors went to the poll stations.

The media have called it a lack of interest of citizens, but aren’t they themselves, along with politicians, at fault?

Disclaimer: I can only truly speak for Belgium, as I was not present in other Member States at the time of the campaign. What I observed may nevertheless ring true for many other Member States, as the general idea present in both physical and digital media is that “citizens don’t care about Europe”.

How the campaign took place

In Belgium, the European elections were held on 7 July, a Sunday, but Belgian also held its regional elections that same day. These are elections for the “Regions”, a bit like the German “Länder” and the American “States”. There are three regions: Brussels, Flanders and Wallonia.

The media focussed their efforts on the regional elections, to a point where they had an average of five pages discussing the regional campaign, and only the occasional page on the importance of the European Parliament.

Politicians plastered walls with posters, but (surprise, surprise) most of them (probably 90%) concerned the regional elections.

There was only one field in which the European campaign took great proportions: a duel between to heavy weights of Belgian politics, Jean-Luc Dehaene (former prime minister, with a long history of activity in the European institutions) and Guy Verhofstadt (former prime minister, nowadays still the most popular politician in Flanders). This duel, however, was only discussed at length in the Flemish media, not in the French-speaking media, as the two politicians are Flemish.

All in all, the European campaign was completely dwarfed in Belgium by the regional campaign, despite the fact that the same parties were presenting themselves to both elections.

Role of the Regions and of the European Parliament

Given how the campaign took place, it’s important to take a look at the importance of both levels of power. Surely, if the regional campaign takes such proportions, it must mean that the Regions have a greater role to play… right?

The Regions in Belgium have competence for certain rules pertaining to public infrastructure, taxation, tourism, energy, employment, …
The European Parliament has competence is the great majority of fields of competence of the European Community, from rules pertaining to trade to energy, from consumer rights to certain fields of criminal law.

As can be easily seen, there is overlap.
There is a “principle of subsidiarity” in European law, which requires that the European Community act only if action would be better at the European level. This principle is not always fully enforced, and it means that there are both fields in which the European Community acts that would be better regulated at national level, and fields in which the countries refuse action by the European Community, despite the fact that it would be better to act at that level.

As such, there are many fields in which Regions are competent that are regulated at the European level, and the European Parliament plays nowadays a crucial role in adopting this legislation. As I mentioned before, the European Community enacts 70-80% of the legislation of Member States of the European Union. 70-80%!

One can therefore easily expect that Regions have seen their degree of initiative drastically reduced over the years, to the point where most of the major decisions on principles are taken at the European level.

In light of this, the lack of coverage of the European elections in the Belgian media seems to be completely absurd: why waste so much time speaking about the regional elections, when far more important decisions will be made by the European Parliament?

Why this lack of interest?

It seems that the European Community is suffering from its own success: it has had such an impact on our everyday lives that it has become both invisible and a scapegoat.

The abolition of barriers within the Community has perhaps been the greatest achievement of the European Community in the past 50 years, and it has become such that European citizens only realise what they have when they go outside the EU. To illustrate, in the majority of EU countries, we have the Euro, a single currency. We have the Schengen area, which eliminates the need for border passport checks. We can order products from the other side of the EU with virtually no added cost. Within Europe, we have become so used to this that the action of the European Community has become invisible.

When Europe shows its hand, however, people feel frustrated, as if they have lost control of things. This showed during the adoption of the controversial Bolkestein Directive, where (irrational) fear of losing national jobs caused massive protest throughout the EU, and it shows in many discussions relating to immigration: many conservative minds feel that the loss of sovereignty of Member States is a bad thing, and they therefore blame every problem relating to immigration on “Brussels”, a convoluted bureaucracy.

Because of this dual character, Europe is not often seen positively by citizens these days. Furthermore, outside of Belgium, many feel that Europe is foreign, as it is seated in Brussels, a city that does not belong to their own country. The European Community is therefore more distant that one’s own government and parliament.

Why perpetuate this lack of interest?

The big question I have for the European media is this: if the citizens are not interested in Europe, for a number of reasons I find unfortunate, why do the media perpetuate this lack of interest by giving priority to other matters? Is it for fear of losing readership?

This European election has got me convinced that the problem lies not in Europe nor in its citizens, but in its media: the amount of information given to the citizen does not correspond to reality. The reason the citizen is ignorant of European affairs is that he/she does not receive this information from the media, his/her first source for similar information!

The US elections of 2008 taught us one thing: if a politician can speak to citizens, be felt as real and tangible, the citizens will respond. The media, both physical and digital, are the easiest way to attest reality and tangibility of politics.
The greatest way for Europe to be felt as real and tangible is thus for the media to serve this purpose.

If anyone is to blame for the all time low in turnout to these elections, it is therefore the media.
Get off your backside then, European media. Stop shying from the importance of Europe.
Hopefully, the next elections will be better covered, and citizens will realise the importance of Europe in their everyday lives.

/end of rant

Today, it seems that the example of the new President of the United States is being employed “à toutes les sauces”, sometimes even “à tort et à travers”: I have heard people mention him in religious, political, economic, legal and social contexts. Could it be that his person and message have become a universal metaphor?

Everyone in the world (except for hermits and primitive tribes) knows his face and his main slogan, “Hope”. The latter is a concept that inspires people all over the globe, particularly in a post-”Bush era” phase.

Why though should his name be used pretty much everywhere I go, every day?

Let’s look at a few examples of uses.

Politics and social issues

The media and therefore the public made a huge deal about the fact that Obama is Black (here in Europe, so-called “political correctness” hasn’t reached the same proportion as in the USA: we don’t see the point in saying “African-European” or whatever, especially given that Blacks in Europe come from Europe, the Americas, Oceania and, you know, Africa). Suddenly, in a land perceived by many to be the epitome of a racist society, the people managed to transcend the question of race (at least, that’s the most widely accepted idea – “reverse racism” is another idea) and elected the first Black president ever (after the “24″ series hammered the American people with that concept).

Fortunately for Europe, this led to a general questioning about the representativeness of politics and social structures: how many people stemming from “minorities” are there in Parliament, in a firm’s higher circles, …
[Note: I dislike the use of the term "minorities" because I believe it leads to segregation]

I recall reading about a young politician whom newspapers suddenly felt to be “the Obama of London”, and when the German Cem özdemir, of Turkish origin, became the leader of the German Green Party, comparisons with Obama were made by the score.

It seems that the issue of race exploded in the faces of everyone. Positive discrimination seems to have gained importance, all because one man who happens to be Black was elected to become the President of the USA.

Economy and development

It’s kind of obvious, but most eyes are turned to Europe and the United States to come up with a solution to the crisis.

Member States of the European Union started by trying out their own policies (strangely reminiscent of protectionism). Upon seeing most of them fail or only stop things from getting much worse, they turned to the “higher level”, the EU. While a solution still has to come, I’ve noticed a few comparisons relating directly to Obama in the media on the subject.

The main comparison drawn is linked to the goals set by Obama for the whatever-its-name-is plan he proposed to Congress. Apparently, a fair portion of the money would go to the development of eco-friendly technology, and that strikes a chord with European rules, who see in eco-friendly technology not only an electoral interest but also a future (interesting to see that politicians are starting to care about the future, beyond their time in office).

Religion

I don’t like talking about religion , because it can lead to very extreme reactions (I’m an atheist, myself, and have been so for a couple of years, but still go to Church to help with the sound system every three-four weeks). Even more so than in political and legal contexts, every word must be triple checked not to get it wrong or ruffle others’ feathers.

First, one should state the following: atheists like him because he doesn’t seem to invoke God quite as much as Bush, who in comparison seemed to justify everything he did by God’s will; Christians like him because he seems to actively believe in God and to be kind of heart. I’m afraid I haven’t talked about such things with Jews, Hindus, Muslims, …, and have never been any of those, so I am unable to say what they might like in Obama.

Obama’s life seems to have inspired Christians in particular. He has a record of being a good man, a loving man too, and has been active in his faith.

Just last week, I heard a sermon where the preacher established a parallel between Obama’s journey to becoming President, which involved a massive amount of planning, and the journey of a Christian and of Jesus Christ. Now, I smile when I hear things like that, because I see so many other examples of lives that illustrate the good things the Bible tells Christians to do, … Thing is, Obama is alive, and his story is still fresh in the minds of people, so the allegory works.

Preliminary conclusions

There, you have it, a number of examples of where the name of Obama is used, sometimes abused. I’ve come to find it bothersome, because it seems that everything must be subject to a comparison with Obama to have any value today.

In a way, however, it’s an interesting development. I’m too young to remember the way the world worked before the year 2000, but I know I haven’t ever seen so many positive comparisons with any living human, US President or not. As John Lennon might have put it, “Obama is bigger than Jesus”: everyone in the world is talking about him (most of them in a positive way), regardless of political background, religious belief, ethnic origin, social class, …

So, universal metaphor? I hope not, because it would take out the fun of allegories, and no one likes to be told “you’re not half the man/woman X is”. Still, it’s a metaphor that seems to work. For now, at least.

While it was by far the best English I’ve heard in politics in a few years (I felt like smiling every time he used “upon/with which” instead of sending the preposition to the end of a sentence as most people do nowadays), I feel sorry that patriotism still has such a massive role to play in American politics.

It might be linked to my knowledge of history, to my knowledge of Belgian politics and to my dislike of the GWBush era, but I see nationalism as only good in small doses.

Yet here was Barack Obama, the “world’s favourite American”, the President whom we believe shall reconcile the US with the world, using the “God bless America”, saying “we shall lead the world again”, and so on.

Why is patriotism so pervasive in the US, and why haven’t the Americans understood that their pride in America is not only their strength but also their greatest weakness?

It’s because of pride that America has been disliked, even hated, in many parts of the world for a long time.

The invasion of American culture and products does not attest of any kind of quality, but rather of the extreme pride of Americans. Outside of the US, people often watch Hollywood films as well. Not because of their quality, but because they are often the only thing showing (yes, I blame the cinemas as well). Therefore, why do these films always have to include a highly patriotic moment? Call me anti-American, but I cringe every time I watch a movie that starts showing US flags and plays the US national anthem.

Interestingly, the USA are probably the only nation of which I know that insist on linking their patriotism to religion.

While I was glad to hear Obama speak of the Muslim, Jewish and Hindu communities (and the “non-believers”… couldn’t he have said “atheist”? “non-believer” is the term used by believers, and implies that they should believe), I thought it slightly hypocritical when later on, the “God bless America” was used (whereupon the crowd rejoiced) and a Christian reverend came along to say a prayer. In Europe, tying religion to politics is seen as extremely dangerous (with reason – if you are unaware of how bloody the Protestant Church’s birth was, you don’t know a thing about the dangers of religion; even then, most of us in Europe are safe from the persecution that has been observed in some other countries).

Is it because America has yet to be ruled by non-Christians that this practice is perpetuated?

I am glad to see Obama become president, and his speech, while illustrating in great detail why some Americans consider him to be a socialist (and by extension a communist – why the USA still don’t understand the distinction, I don’t know), gave me confidence in him. Despite the use of religion and patriotism to make the crowd stir.

Welcome to the White House, sir. I hope Americans and terrorists won’t be stupid enough to kill you, and I hope you won’t let us all down. Just stop pretending the USA were created by God to save the world, and we’ll be happy.

Good luck.

It’s probably the last we’ll see for a while of a man who insulted French-speakers but got a record 800.000 votes during the 2007 Federal elections. And this resignation comes just months after he was starting to seem like a capable Prime Minister.

Back in September, I started to believe that maybe Yves Leterme had a chance of leading a real government, when a Flemish-nationalist party allied to his party left the government.

Unfortunately, the economic crisis arrived. It required that Belgium save two major banks, Fortis and Dexia, which the Belgian government did rather swiftly. Too swiftly, it would seem, as this safeguarding procedure led to Leterme’s resignation.

Indeed, when bailing out these banks, and in particular Fortis, procedure was set aside. The shareholders did not have their say in the actions led by the government which resulted in the acquisition by BNP Paribas of many of Fortis’s assets, and the European authorities were apparently not contacted either (Leterme said there had been contact, but the Commission basically told the press that this was a lie).

Shareholders instigated an action against the government before the courts, and more blunders were made which made it apparent that the executive power (the government) had meddled with the judiciary power (the courts), which is highly unconstitutional and contrary to the fundamental principles of democracy.

All in all, it was a mess, and in the end, Leterme’s government fell.

A few days later, though, a successor government was in place. All thanks to the determination of our unwilling new Prime Minister, who is seen as a much more competent and safer man.

Well, Mr Van Rompuy, I wish you all the best on this New Year’s Day. And I hope this government won’t stumble as fast and often as the previous one did.

For those not in the know, Belgium (that little country of just 10 million inhabitants, housing most of the EU Institutions and NATO in Brussels) has been undergoing the most “serious” political crisis it has know since its birth in 1830-1831. And as a foreigner, a European, a “Brusseleer”, a silent observer, I’m really annoyed at how things have been going on for the past year.

I’ve always been sceptical about politics, because I never felt democracy was the best solution nor well implemented, and because I never found a party to relate to. But studying law forced me to take a new look at the political scene, forced me to try to understand it, most notably because the current political issues in Belgian politics are so closely related to the Belgian Constitution and other such fundamental laws.

Crisis: a historical summary

Last year, when the federal election took place (Belgium is a federal state since 1970), I was really unsure about the future, because the biggest winner of the election was a formerly moderate party, the CD&V, forming a cartel with a separatist party, the N-VA. 33% of the vote in Flanders went to this cartel, a very rare and powerful result in Belgian politics (and I should mention Belgium imposes the vote on its citizens, which means you get an 80-90% turnout or something like it).

Since the election, over a year has passed, and we had to wait until the end of March 2008 to even have a real government. The problem was that neither of the two main sides (“Flemish” – “French-speakers”) ever tried to listen to the other one, and so there was no true negotiation. When there was a negotiation, you could always count on the extremists on either side of the linguistic border (most notably the FDF [French-speaking] and the N-VA) to spice things up and make any agreement fall to bits.

But the bickering continued. See, the CD&V/N-VA cartel won by promising a major reform of the federal system to give far more autonomy to Flanders. Yet no matter how hard they tried, the French-speakers never showed any intention to undertake such a major reform. And whenever the French-speakers agreed to this or that change, the N-VA shouted all over the media that it wasn’t sufficient, and the CD&V felt compelled to adopt the N-VA’s stance (for your information, the CD&V is almost six times as big as the N-VA).

Then, when the French-speakers thought there would be no change, Yves Leterme, who collected an almost unprecedented 800.000 votes in the election and became the Prime Minister, grew a spine. He shed his skin of “Flemish autonomist” and became a Belgian politician. He started to work towards real agreements, sometimes even foregoing his party’s stance on a subject.

14th of July: death of a temporary dream

Unfortunately, it didn’t last. On the 14th of July, the eve of the day for which he was supposed to find an agreement, Yves Leterme offered his resignation to the King.

And as they have done throughout this crisis, the newspapers presented only one side of the story, blaming the other linguistic community for Leterme’s failure (in Le Soir, the N-VA & the CD&V were blamed; in De Standaard, the French-speakers as a whole were blamed). Talk about “professional journalism”.

The real reasons for Leterme’s resignation are numerous. And from what I gather, both sides are to blame. Leterme cannot command his troops. The CD&V cannot distance itself from the N-VA. The Flemish parties are frightened the elector might not consider them Flemish enough at the next election. The French-speaking parties are either too full of themselves to realise better governance is possible or too fearful the electorate might disapprove of any concessions next time around.

The King rejected Leterme’s resignation, and got three new people to help him out, all French-speakers. The Flemish side seems pessimistic. The French-speaking side seems pessimistic.

Opinion of the people

If the political parties and the media seem pessimistic, one thing is certain: the people are fed up, frustrated, annoyed, and generally wish the political elite would implode and never be seen again. All right, not “all the people”. But “more and more”.

These people wish the politicians would stop bickering and started acting on socio-economic matters, where another crisis has appeared over the past year, something that affects these people’s lives much more directly.

Peter’s opinion

I really wish the parties involved would realise that they are playing a very dangerous game, and that they cannot solve this only through political negotiation.

Better governance is indeed possible, and I know that the current federal system is far from being the most efficient and useful one. But “better governance” does not equal “giving more competencies to the Regions”. At least, that’s just part of the equation. Some competencies should probably go back to the Federal level. But which ones?

A real multidisciplinary study is necessary for anyone to come even close to a realistic solution that can satisfy everyone. And it shouldn’t be some random one-week study. Time is needed for such a study to be of any quality.

Until someone in the political process shows enough courage to suggest it and others decide to follow the suggestion, all these current discussions will be void of substance.

So here’s my suggestion, just in case anyone would be watching/reading/listening: how about all the media stop speaking about this crisis and the politicians start focusing on what really matters? That way, in a year or so, they can start discussing this institutional stuff with some real basis for their ideas instead of just using ideology as a basis.

The Irish “Say No to the Lisbon Treaty” campaign has been the perfect occasion for people to express their dislike of a number of elements: the “Europe of Defence” military idea, increases in taxes, …

Yet who are the Irish to say “no” to a project they do not approve in its entirety? When has a veto on a small part of a project had any positive impact? Especially when the issues at stake had nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty?

Back in the days of the Constitutional Treaty, France and the Netherlands said “No” to the Constitutional Treaty, after a campaign that used many completely irrelevant arguments to convince the French and Dutch that the Constitutional Treaty was a bad idea.
The result was almost inevitable, a “no” vote to Chirac and the Bolkenstein directive in France, and a “no” vote to the Dutch government and to the European plans for Turkey in the Netherlands.

So what are the reasons for the Irish “no”?

Apparently, the ballot had this question: “Do you want to change the Irish Constitution?” (source).
This in itself was good enough a reason for many Irish voters to reject the idea. Who doesn’t take pride in his/her country’s Constitution (except for the Belgians)? Who, in their right, patriotic mind, would want Europe to come and impose a change in the Constitution?

Secondly, many completely unrelated arguments were used in the “No” campaign: find me one place where the Lisbon Treaty mentions the word “abortion”, for example.

Thirdly, many people throughout Europe believe that the EU does not need changing. “It’s good as it is.” But then try explaining the co-decision procedure to those people. Try explaining the legal uncertainties as to the EU’s competence in a number of fields. Try explaining how institutions take on different roles depending on the subject matter. You’ll see: they’ll ask you how on earth things could get this complicated.
And where the Irish are concerned, they don’t like the idea of a more efficient procedure regarding commissioners, … What is the point of objecting to that by rejecting the whole text?

The EU does need change. The EU needs the Lisbon Treaty, just like it needed the Constitutional Treaty. The text might not be perfect, but no text ever is, and it is therefore foolish to think that, with time, the text proposed to the Irish will be genuinely acceptable by all.

The main problem is that Ireland needs to hold a referendum to amend its Constitution. And until Ireland’s politicians can get the people to understand the Lisbon Treaty, the “no” will resound and make Europe scorn at the Irish.

Until then, I will have lost all faith in the idea of a referendum. After all, a referendum basically says “this is what the government wants – if you don’t want it, you don’t adhere to the government’s plan”. It’s no surprise that most people who turn up to vote are those who don’t agree with the plan, because they are the ones who are more partisan.

As the Ancient Greeks knew, democracy is not the best answer to all problems, because the people rarely know what they want or what is good for them. The only way for them to know is if they are informed. And I think we all know how little true information is passed on to the people in general. Why should a referendum campaign be any different?

How are you? Long time, no see.

You may not remember me, so here’s a little reminder: my name is Peter, I’m twenty-one years old and I’m British. I’ve lived in Belgium, Brussels to be precise, for the past 16 years. I speak English and French, am fluent in Dutch and know basics in German and Japanese.
I read Le Soir and De Standaard every day, and watch only the television channels you have to offer. I’ve had university Law courses at St Louis and the KUB in Brussels, am now at the UCL and am hoping to do a “Master na Master” in Leuven in a year and a half.

I was writing to know what is going on, because the media have been talking a lot about you lately. Awful things, about how you and those close to you have been forbidding people to speak any other language than yours, for some reason.

Now, I’ve known you for a long time. Well, I’ve watched you. Never really got the chance to meet you properly because I went to a French-speaking school, and I can’t say I learnt to speak your language perfectly there. But I understand you, and I know your story. I understand how you feel about your language. I know it would be great if everyone could speak it.

But, bloody hell, why did you have to go and deal with it this way?

Yes, I am annoyed. Writing this letter is getting me more and more flushed. I really don’t care how proud you are, because it doesn’t justify being so closed to change.

Some of these decisions might not have been made by you personally. You may even disapprove of them. But can’t you see they are giving you a bad name? Every time someone around you says “Flanders is great, and has the right to impose her language on everyone who approaches her”, it reflects badly upon you. The problem being that many people say that nowadays. And as someone who isn’t fully trilingual, I resent that.

If I am given the choice of being forced to talk to you in your language and not talking to you, I’ll take the second option because I don’t want you to send me away if I fail to find the words in your language.

You scare me.
And it’s not because of your slow-minded sisters who live down South, French-Speaking Community and Wallonia. Sure, they influence me, but most of all your ideas go against my culture.
You scare me because I fear you will never see me as “Flemish enough”.

I am European. I am Brusseleer. I am British. Heck, I even feel Belgian at times.
But I am no “Wallon” or “Vlaming”. I don’t mingle in your inter-sister bickering. My opinions on the matter are my own.

It is as a third party that I write and urge you to start reconsidering.
Integration is a nice idea. I know you mean well. But where will your pride bring you?

Think twice about where you are going.

Yours sincerely,

Peter