Discussion on Democracy and the European Union between Antigone Lyberaki, Wayne Hall and Christos Kotsireas, recorded 17/12/’13
Category: European Integration / Democracy
-
European Union: Disintegration or a New Beginning?
An exceptionally successful function was held on 23rd June in the forecourt of the Church of the Saviour in the Capodistrian Orphanage in Aegina. Entitled “Capodistrias – Spinelli today – European Union: Disintegration or a New Beginning”, it was organized by the Aegina Association of Active Citizens with the support of the Municipality of Aegina, providing continuity with past initiatives.
In this moving, historic and captivating milieu in Aegina town, a large audience listened attentively, for two-and-a-half hours, to presentations from Messrs. Panagiotis Paspaliaris, Andreas Koukos and Giulietto Chiesa, then contributing observations and comments and asking questions. The mayor of Aegina, S. Sakkiotis, greeted the meeting, emphasizing the special contribution of the Association of Active Citizens to publicizing the Capodistrian heritage of Aegina, modern Greece’s first capital. He announced that there had been a stepping up of the efforts by the Municipality and the Greek government to promote the maintenance and utilization of our island’s Capodistrian buildings, with the relevant works about to get under way shortly, starting with the Kyverneio, for which tenders have already been called.
Opening the function, Mr. Wayne Hall, the key organizer, referred to previous functions of the Aegina Association of Active Citizens under the same title from 2008 onwards, for the purpose of renewing the references to the pioneering and indeed titanic work of Ioannis Capodistrias in Aegina, in Greece but above all in Europe, linking it to that of the architect of the European Union’s first Constitution, Altiero Spinelli.
Subsequently the historian and writer Panagiotis Paspaliaris gave a brilliant presentation of the creative diplomatic achievements of Ioannis Capodistrias as a functionary, and later Foreign Minister, of Russia before, during and after the 1814 Congress of Vienna, marking the end of the Napoleonic Era and the beginning of reorganization of the European continent. He emphasized, among other things, the lean, uncluttered reforming presence of Capodistrias and its contrast with the wasteful, opulent and scandal-ridden presence of the crowned heads of state and their staff whose aim was to restore the old balance of power over the heads of the peoples of Europe. As he said, an examination of the activity of Greece’s first governor leads to the conclusion that he was the most important reforming diplomat promoting democratic principles throughout the European continent. Capodistrias later put the experience and the connections he acquired at that time in the service of the vision for which he was finally to give his life: the emergence of the Modern Greek State.
The journalist and former European parliamentarian Giulietto Chiesa then developed a powerful problematic concerning today’s crisis in Europe, and particularly in the countries of the South, thanking the Association of Active Citizens for giving him the opportunity to become acquainted with Capodistrias and his activity in Europe, foreshadowing Spinelli’s later work in constructing the foundations of the European Union. He stressed how Europe’s democratic deficit is continually widening, highlighting the dominant, and corrosive, role of the world of finance, and particularly the banks, including the European Central Bank, which is a private institution, in undermining European democracy. He made the observation that today’s crisis of the euro is in fact a crisis of the dollar, a consequence of the sub-primes crisis. He proposed a strengthening of democratic institutions in the European Union and specifically the nationalization of the banks of European Union member states and of the European Central Bank (ECB).
He referred to the case of one trillion euros being made available to European banks by the ECB at 1% interest, capital which the banks use for providing loans to southern European countries at 4% interest, reaping significant profit for themselves.
Summarizing the content of the two previous speakers’ addresses, Andreas Koukos, historian, professor at the Military School and President of the Society for the Study of the Work of Ioannis Capodistrias, mentioned his numerous visits to Aegina in recent years to take part in functions, primarily of the Active Citizens and of the Municipality, for study and transmission of the work the Governor, highlighting Capodistrias’ pioneering role in Europe. He referred to the specific allusion to Capodistrias made by Henry Kissinger in his writings, describing him as Europe’s constitutional referee. He also announced the forthcoming publication by the society of which he is president of important new archival sources on Capodistrias in a number of European countries. Emphasizing the importance of historical archival research and of the archives themselves, A. Koukos reminded the audience of the unique value of the small local Capodistrian archive of Aegina, Greece’s first state archive, and the need to maintain its accessibility.
In the protracted and intense discussion that followed there was much airing of citizens’ profound concern and anxiety in the face of the long-term structural crisis through which we are living and there was a call for the drawing-up of an Aegina declaration for democratization of the European Union in the spirit of Ioannis Capodistrias and Altiero Spinelli. A proposal by the Association of Active Citizens is under discussion with the Municipality for European recognition of the work of Capodistrias and indeed the naming of an official building in Brussels as a tribute to the Governor.
Alexis Krauss
More information on the speakers
-
Capodistrias – Spinelli Today
European Union: disintegration or a new beginning?
This is the question posed by the crisis we are living through, which has triggered so much speculation (!) over the fate of Greece.
Ioannis Capodistrias, Altiero Spinelli: two emblematic personalities of pan-European stature marking two different phases of the course towards a united citizens’ Europe. Anyone who has visited the European Parliament will be well aware that Spinelli plays the same symbolic role for the political circles of the European Union as Capodistrias plays for the majority of Greeks who regard the establishment of the modern Hellenic state in 1828, at Aegina, as a historic advance not just for the citizens of this country but for Europe as a whole.
Today in the midst of crisis the European Union seems vis-à-vis Greece and other EU member countries to be introducing policies that are extremely problematic for the peoples of Europe. Is it possible in this conjuncture for anyone to believe that the ideas of these two visionaries, Capodistrias and Spinelli, have any chance of influencing the reality of our days and opening new prospects for the European Union?
Our three speakers will attempt to provide an answer to this.
Andreas Koukos
Andreas Koukos was born in Chania, Crete. He studied at the law school of the Aristotelian University of Thessaloniki and the Officers’ Military Academy and holds a post-graduate diploma in Naval Science and Strategy from the Naval War College. He is also a graduate of the National Defense College. In 2012 he completed his doctorate in the Philosophical Faculty of the University of Athens. He is a professor of modern history at the National Defense College and the Naval War College, has participated in numerous scholarly symposia in Greece and abroad and has published articles in scholarly journals. He has been consultant to the Capodistrian Cities Network has won a number of awards and distinctions. He is a Brigadier in the the Corps of Legal of Consultants of the Greek Armed Forces.
On 21st September 2010 he founded the “Association for the Study of the Work of Ioannis Capodistrias”, currently serving as its first president.
Giulietto Chiesa
Giulietto Chiesa was born in 1940 in Piedmont. In the 1980s during the Berlinguer period he was a correspondent for the L’Unita newspaper and then for La Stampa, experiences which transformed him into one of the world’s best “Sovietologists”. He has written for a number of different newsagencies of Russia, the USA, Switzerland and Germany, as well as broadcasts for Vatican Radio. In his articles, which are required reading for comprehension of the USSR in its last years, he examines globalization, the international system and the media, and the wars of recent decades. From 2004 to 2008 he was a Europarliamentarian. In the 2009 European elections he was a candidate for the Party of Human Rights in Latvia, a member of the parliamentary grouping of the Greens which promotes the human rights of Russian speakers in Latvia. He is a member of the New Policy Forum of the former president of the USSR Mikhail Gorbachev.Panagiotis Paspaliaris
Panagiotis Paspaliaris was born in Nafplion in 1975. He studied history and archaeology at the Aristotelian University of Thessaloniki. He is the author of “The Drachma” (2007), “Great Hellenes: Ioannis Capodistrias” (2008), “Great Hellenes, Pericles” (2009). “The History of Mediaeval Hellenism in Asia Minor” (2010). He works in the private sector and is a regular contributor to the magazine Hot Doc on historical and other subjects.The meeting will be co-ordinated by Zoe Georgiadou.
-
Independent Citizens’ Assembly
Direct democracy cannot substitute for parliamentary democracy. If it confines itself to abusing and criticising parliamentarianism it will simply remain a second clientele for the corporate mass media, to be pitted against the parliaments in a «divide-and-rule» game refereed by the media. The «indignados» must move on and propose a system of organized competition between direct democracy and parliamentary democracy, to be enshrined in new constitutions.
There is a general recognition even in the mass media today that the liberal democratic political system is in terminal crisis and that what is needed are new forms of citizens’ democracy, direct democracy, deliberative democracy.There are many names for it.
What one unfortunately never sees, though, is specific, easily understandable blueprints of the forms that this citizens’ democracy might take, what its relationship would be with the existing forms of multi-party liberal democracy or parliamentary democracy, what its relationship would be with existing forms of direct democracy, such as referenda, plebiscites, the activity of citizens’ groups, non-governmental organizations, and so on.
The Swiss model is often cited and here I think it is worth a mention that the forms of democracy that exist today in the Swiss confederation, and indeed Swiss neutrality, are very largely the work of someone we mention frequently: the first governor of modern Greece, Ioannis Capodistrias. The specific type of polity of modern Switzerland was designed to keep the country out of the sphere of influence both of France and of Austria, which in the nineteenth century was of course among the great powers. Capodistrias was the foreign minister of the Czar of Russia at this time, and Russia had the most rational of geopolitical reasons to try to reduce the influence both of France and of Austria.
Having said that, does the Swiss model of direct democracy have anything to offer? Does it suit our specific needs now? We would argue that it doesn’t, because it does nothing to curb the power of mainstream mass media. The mass media can influence the outcome of a referendum just as easily as they can influence the outcome of an election. This is particularly the case if the subject of the referendum is in any way complicated or technical.
What is the situation with the mass media? Quite simply that the priority is on deceit and distortion. The most important realities will be subject to media blackout. What cannot be blacked out will be distorted to guarantee confusion and non-comprehension to all but the tiny minority that has found out the reality by other means. Issues that are given systematic high-profile media attention are very often fictitious.
Politicians who rely on this mass media for their election, that is to say virtually all politicians, cannot be expected to bring it under social control. The only solution then is to organize around it. In the age of the internet, unless it too comes to be controlled as tightly as the media, this is technically possible.
The desideratum, then, is for an Independent Citizens’ Assembly to be established. Independent citizens are citizens who can communicate with each other and with political supporters directly, not via channels that are mediated and under the control of others who can give and withdraw support whenever they want to, and also distort, change and manipulate content whenever they want to. Politicians and public figures who appear on the media that is not under citizens’ control should not have the right to a vote in the Citizens’ Assembly. They should have the right to act as advisors if their advice is sought, but not to participate in voting or decision making. This amounts to nothing more than restoration of a convention that used to exist in Westminster democracy before the age of the NGO in the form of a professional civil service. Civil servants were not supposed to speak directly to the media, but only through their responsible minister. The Citizens’ Assembly would restore, and indeed itself assume, some of these functions that used to be assumed by a professional civil service.
The Citizens’ Assembly would seek to compete with the universal suffrage parliament through a periodic referendum say once every five years that could decide on whether legislative powers should for the coming five year period be exercised by the Citizens’ Assembly or by the universal suffrage parliament. Whichever legislature lost the referendum would have merely an advisory, not a legislative, role. If the Citizens’ Assembly should win the referendum at the Pan-Hellenic or Pan-European level, this would automatically entail transfer of powers from the multi-party legislatures to the citizens’ assemblies at every lower level: national, regional and municipal, subject to challenge at these lower levels, where local referenda could be organized at the initiative of the losing side. This situation would be reversible, applicable also if the pan-European mandate should go to the multiparty legislature.
At the level of the European Union, the head of state should be chosen by a body of electors made up of the heads of state of the member countries and representatives either of the multi-party legislatures or of the citizens’ assemblies, whichever held the mandate. This would help to deal with one important source of the lack of legitimacy of the European Union which treats the national parliaments of the member states as if national sovereignty is vested in them. Sovereignty in Great Britain, to take just one example, is not vested in the parliament. It is vested in the Crown in Parliament.
The Citizens’ Assembly would have to make it clear at all times that it is not a political party. The political party allegiance of members of the Citizens’ Assembly, and other forms of allegiance such a membership of trade unions, employers associations, non-governmental organizations and so on, would be relegated to private status, similar to the status of a citizen’s religion in a properly functioning secular democracy. There would have to be a court with powers to judge when a member’s behaviour in the citizens’ assemblies was in violation of this rule. Any person behaving in a citizens’ assembly like the member of a party would be required to withdraw from the citizens’ assembly and participate in public life through the multi-party assemblies, not the independent citizens ‘assemblies. This is just a brief sketch of how a Hellenic and/or European Citizens’ Assembly could be feasible and how it could operate. There is nothing stopping European citizens from making the first move towards constructing such an assembly, and seeking powers for it. Under Article 11, paragraph 4 of the Treaty of Lisbon, “not less than one million citizens who are nationals of a significant number of Member States may take the initiative of inviting the European Commission, within the framework of its powers, to submit any appropriate proposal on matters where citizens consider that a legal act of the Union is required for the purpose of implementing the Treaties.”
