Europe: No democracy without self determination

© Peter Jósika

European society is changing dramatically. Most of our ancestors were born into predetermined social and economic structures and had little scope to alter their lives considerably. Europeans today have substantially more control over their destiny. The underlying concept behind this development is the principle of self determination. 

Personal self determination includes the freedom to choose our educational and professional path, the people we associate with, the language we prefer to speak, the place we want to live in, but also our religious, sexual or political orientation. All these freedoms are recognised as fundamental rights in Western societies, although they were restricted in the past and remain contested in some parts of the world today.

An important part of personal self determination is the concept of collective self determination. We all belong to a variety of collectives, be it a nation, a region, a commune, a religious group, a family or the company we work for. While in the past most collectives were governed by predefined hierarchies, often based on class, gender, age or race, there is growing pressure to increase democratic participation. This is to ensure that all members of a collective have a voice and can attain at least a certain degree of self fulfillment within the collective.

This trend has also reached public life and politics. Half a century ago democracy meant little more than the right to vote for a political party that represented ones social class or a general political view. The modern notion of democracy is substantially more participatory. People want to be directly involved in the decision making process. They expect for politicians to maintain constant two way contact with their constituencies and for important matters to be put directly to the people.

To a limited extend politics has adapted to the need for more grass root democracy by strengthening direct democracy and community involvement in certain areas of the decision making process. However, our overall political structures remain stuck in the early 1900s. They are marked by Europe's ongoing division into ethnic nation states with centralist political systems that are far removed from the people and the needs of an increasingly individualised and multicultural society longing for more self determination. The calls for secession or more autonomy in many regions across Europe are only the tip of the iceberg, but they highlight how out of step the nation states are with the needs of our time.

Therefore, it is not only the often critizised EU that needs to be reformed, but much rather the centralist nation states themselves. While many parts of Europe would benefit from a leaner but also stronger EU in certain fields, it is equally important that we strengthen communes and regions as they are not only closer to the people, but also much closer to most issues that affect them.

Competencies across all levels of government should generally be divided on the basis of the principle of subsidiarity as already defined in the Treaty of Lisbon. In other words: We need to bring the decision making process to the people by giving local and regional government substantially more power. This should translate into more grass root democracy, less nationalism as well as a more flexible and need-based approach in economic and fiscal matters. 

In turn this will enable for Europe as a whole to become stronger and more effective, and for Europe's regions and communes to become more responsible, self sufficient and competetive. Such a EU-wide decentralization process is not only long overdue, but of critical importance to Europe's future.

Peter Jósika is a Swiss based author. He can be reached via his website www.europaderregionen.com. 

Gebietsreformen sind kein Allheilmittel

© Peter Josika (Föderalismusblog)

http://www.foederalismus.at/blog/gebietsreformen-sind-kein-allheilmittel_36.php

Gebietsfusionen sind gerade "en vogue". In ganz Europa ist in den nächsten Jahren mit einer Vielzahl von Gemeindezusammenlegungen zu rechnen. Auch auf Länderebene preschen einige immer wieder mit Fusionsideen vor. So dachte die saarländische Ministerpräsidentin Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer kürzlich laut über eine Zusammenlegung mehrerer deutscher Bundesländer nach. Aus den heute sechzehn Bundesländern könnten, so Kramp-Karrenbauer, dann konkret sechs bis acht "Großländer" entstehen.

Kramp-Karrenbauer schielt wohl, was ihre Fusionsideen betrifft, mit einem Auge auf das benachbarte Frankreich. Dort setzte Präsident Hollande kürzlich eine gigantische "Réforme Territoriale" durch. So wurden unter anderem die Regionen Elsass, Lothringen und Champagne per Pariser Dekret zu einer neuen Großregion zusammengelegt. Trotz großer Proteste und mehrmaliger Abstimmungsniederlagen im Senat hielt Hollande eisern an seinen Plänen fest. Regionale Volksabstimmungen lehnte er ab.

Jene, die Gebietszusammenlegungen fordern, verfolgen meist zweierlei Ziele. Einerseits wollen sie Kosten senken und finanzielle Altlasten tilgen. Andererseits versuchen sie die politischen Mehrheitsverhältnisse in ihrem Sinne zu optimieren, oder gar, wie insbesondere der Fall in Frankreich, unliebsame regionale Abspaltungs- und Autonomiebewegungen aus dem Weg räumen.

Zuerst stellt sich die Frage, ob solche Fusionen wirklich die versprochenen Einsparungen bringen? Eine Studie der Universität Zürich behandelte konkret vier Gemeindefusionen im Kanton Solothurn. Sie kommt zum Schluss, dass Fusionen vor allem die Abkoppelung der Bürokratie von den politisch Verantwortlichen verstärkt. Statt der erwarteten Skalenerträge durch die Zusammenlegung administrativer Dienstleistungen, verselbständigt sich vielmehr die Bürokratie. Das wiederum erschwert das budgetäre Controlling. Zusammenfassend kann also gesagt werden, dass der Übergang von "Klein" auf "Groß" die Verwaltung unübersichtlicher und weniger kontrollierbar macht, was eher zu erhöhten Kosten führt.

Neben der Frage der Wirtschaftlichkeit stellt sich die mindestens genau so wichtige Frage der wirtschafts- und demokratiepolitischen Folgen.

Erstens setzt eine funktionierende, auf Konsens aufgebaute Demokratie voraus, dass sich die Bevölkerung mit ihren Institutionen identifizieren kann. Mehrheitsverhältnisse durch von oben aufoktroyierte Zusammenlegungen auf den Kopf zu stellen, oder gar Selbstbestimmungs- und Autonomiebestrebungen zu unterdrücken, ist daher zutiefst kontraproduktiv. Zweitens muss eine moderne politische Institution bürger- und wirtschaftsnah agieren, um flexibel und bedürfnisgerecht auf die sehr unterschiedlichen regionalen Anforderungen eingehen zu können. Das ist in überdimensionierten Gebietseinheiten oft nicht ausreichend möglich.

Es besteht daher die Gefahr, dass kurzfristige fusionsbedingte administrative Einsparungen wieder schnell durch einen zentralistischen, wachstumshemmenden Einheitsbrei aufgefressen werden. Das oft gebrauchte Argument, dass nur große politische Einheiten überlebensfähig seien, wird ja durch die kleingliedrigen Kantone der Schweiz eindrucksvoll widerlegt.

Interessant ist diesbezüglich auch, dass die Studie der Uni Zürich nebenbei noch zum Schluss kommt, dass der in der Schweiz praktizierte Steuer- und Dienstleistungswettbewerb zwischen Gemeinden einerseits und Kantonen andererseits diese vielfach kosteneffektiver macht. Daraus kann man schließen, dass die fehlende kommunale und regionale Steuerautonomie in der Mehrheit anderer europäischer Staaten negative Auswirkungen auf die Effizienz der dortigen Verwaltungen hat. Verfügten das Saarland und das Elsass, zum Beispiel, über Steuerautonomie und mehr Kompetenzen, könnten sie also durchaus von ihrer Kleinheit profitieren.

Statt Großregionen am Reißbrett zu entwerfen, sollte die Politik in Europa daher viel eher über mehr direkte Demokratie und eine Stärkung regionaler und lokaler Kompetenzen nachdenken. In manchen Fällen ist eine Zusammenlegung von Gemeinden, Kreisen, Regionen oder Bundesländern vielleicht sinnvoll, in anderen Fällen wäre wiederum eine Aufteilung oder Abspaltung in kleinere Einheiten die effektivere Lösung. Solche Entscheidungen sollten allerdings prinzipiell weder in Berlin, Rom, Paris oder Wien, noch in den jeweiligen Landeshauptstädten fallen, sondern auf lokaler Ebene, einzig und allein durch die betroffene Bevölkerung getroffen werden.

Informationen zum Autor

Peter Jósika ist ein in der Schweiz lebender österreichischer Historiker, Politikwissenschaftler und Föderalismusexperte


peter.josika@euro-heritage.com

From Scotland to Eastern Ukraine: Calls for self determination divide Europe

© Peter Josika

Category: Viewpoint 

Published: 13 September 2014

Written by Peter Jósika 

On Sept. 18 the Scottish people will choose between remaining part of the United Kingdom or becoming an independent country. Although the outcome is unlikely to have any great economic implications for the European Union, the referendum sparks hopes and fears across the continent. Irrespective of the result of the Scottish vote, the calls for regional autonomy and independence across Europe simply cannot be ignored.

Referendums on the complete secession of a territory from a state have been exceptional in European history. They mostly occurred after Wars or other political upheavals and were always highly controversial as they questioned one of the foundations of the modern nation state- the indivisibility of its territory.

International law recognizes two in many ways contradictory principles. On the one hand there is the right to self determination, on the other hand the principle of territorial integrity. It's a matter of great controversy which of the two has precedence over the other and under which circumstances.
Whenever disputes over the status of a territory arose in recent history, the big powers supported “self determination” or defended “territorial integrity” selectively depending on their geo-political interests. While Russia justifies the “re-attachment” of Crimea and the support of “pro-independence forces” in eastern Ukraine with the right to regional “self determination,” the West is defending Ukraine’s “territorial integrity.”

In the case of the Kosovo, on the other hand, the two powers follow completely opposite policies. While the West recognized Kosovo's split from Serbia after its 1991 referendum, Russia rejects Kosovan independence on the basis of Serbian “territorial integrity.”
In other words: Due to the perceived strategic interests of major powers and power blocks, the will of the people in regional Europe were consistently ignored. Therefore, it does not come as a surprise that Europe's current states and their boundaries have little to do with democratic evolvement and much more with decades or even centuries of nationalist power politics.
Many regions were occupied and forced into states against the will of the majority. Most of Europe's nation states implemented strict centralist political regimes destroying historically grown regional and local structures while assimilating or often even expelling all or parts of the autochthonous regional populations.

These policies led to inner and outer conflicts culminating in the rise of extremist movements. Both World Wars, the Cold War and the Balkan Wars were largely the product of ethnic nationalist power politics in Europe and its consequences.

The current independence and autonomy movements are the logical consequence of historic failings in combination with outdated centralist-nationalist structures and a growing demand for more political participation on a regional and local level.

Besides Scotland, there are dozens of other regions in Europe seeking more autonomy or even independence. Catalonia, the Basque Country, Galicia, Wales, Northern Ireland, Yorkshire, Cornwall, Brittany, Alsace, Corsica, Bavaria, South Tyrol, Friuli, Veneto, Lombardy, Sardinia, Sicily, Dalmatia, Istria, Vojvodina, the Banat, Transylvania, the Szeklerland, modern day Southern Slovakia, Silesia and Moravia are only some examples.

Until recently any discussion about secession, independence, a change of state or extended autonomy were considered a taboo issue and in some instances even a crime. In an increasingly globalized, open and multicultural environment this has changed.

However, a society marked by decades of centralist controlled “nation state building” is split on the virtues of a “regionalisation” of power. Accordingly, the upcoming Scottish referendum is viewed as a possible precedence for other regions in Europe and therefore watched with a mixture of hope and fear.

But how should Europe react to the rise in calls for independence or more regional autonomy? It would be undemocratic and counterproductive to simply ignore or even disallow them. This would only acerbate inner and outer conflicts while endangering Europe's security as well as it's ongoing peace and integration process.

Instead, a EU-wide decentralization process should be put on the agenda. Decentralization plans already exist in most European countries anyway. As part of the “No-Campaign” against Scottish independence, the UK government is promising more devolution in Britain.
France is currently working on a controversial “réforme territoriale” that should eventually provide the regions with similar levels of power to the German Bundesländer. In Germany and Austria extensive reforms giving communes and regions more tax autonomy and more clearly defined competencies are being debated. Other extensive decentralization plans exist in Italy, Poland and Spain.

A joint European devolution process based on the successful Swiss model and the principle of subsidiarity, as defined in the Treaty of Lisbon, would help eradicte much of the undemocratic and growth inhibiting centralist structures across Europe in one single step. It would create the conditions for more need based political and economic structures on a local and regional level while also clearly defining the competencies of EU, national, regional and local government eliminating costly duplications. Taking such a comprehensive step across the Continent won't be easy, but it is indispensable to pull Europe out of crisis, politically and economically.

---

Peter Jósika is a Swiss based author, historian and political scientist. He can be reached on facebook.com/peter.josika and twitter.com/PeterJosika. More information at www.europaderregionen.com.

http://www.praguepost.com/viewpoint/41517-from-scotland-to-eastern-ukraine