New Europeans

A Test Site For Everyday Life

Value for Money Feb16 2016, Amsterdam

Democracy in Europe Debate, Live from Berlin – Review

Not put off by the ridiculously stormy weather conditions, last Monday we screened a live stream of a roundtable discussion on the future of democracy in Europe, hosted by TalkReal. Taking place in Berlin, the talk was organised in advance of the launch of DiEM, the Democracy in Europe Movement, and featured the movement’s chair, the former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis, along with Polish activist Slawomir Sierakowski, Italian trade union leader Valentina Orazzini, Portuguese MEP and vice-chair of the left-wing grouping in the European parliament Marisa Matias and the host, Lorenzo Marsili.

As the name suggests, the Democracy in Europe Movement is aimed at democratising European politics and hopes to draw upon a broad coalition of progressive movements from across the continent. As its starting point it aims to address the huge democratic deficit that presented itself in Europe last July following the Greek people’s sweeping rejection of austerity and the subsequent decision of the so-called Troika (European Commission, European Central Bank and the IMF) to impose it anyway.

With such a pressing issue on the table it was naturally a really interesting debate, illuminating the ways that European democracy has failed to emerge and the sources of this democratic deficit. The whole thing is well worth a watch (full video included above). Here I will merely venture a few personal thoughts on the discussion.

FROM LISBON TO LEIPZIG ONLY

First of all, it’s hard to avoid the fact that Varoufakis is a real star now. Something which was brought home to me when I went to a talk in Kensington, London, back in November and found the conspicuously well-to-do audience hanging on his every word, former right-wing Conservative party leader and interviewee Michael Howard among them. Indeed, Varoufakis seems able to court at least favourable opinion almost everywhere he goes (except, crucially, in the corridors of the European power), and this debate was no exception.

Mind you, this did not preclude some genuine confrontation during the debate. The other contributors raised some very legitimate concerns about his movement. Sierakowski, for instance, rightly censured Varoufakis for DiEM’s lack of regard for the Eastern European countries, summed up in the opening statement which states “from Lisbon to Leipzig” (thereby stopping short at central Europe… why not Lodz, Ljubljana or even Lvov?).

YOU HAVE TO HAVE DEMOCRATS

Sierakowski also expressed concern about the genuine differences between people of different European countries, some of which are capable of forming whole social movements in support of progressive democracy while others are still stuck at the stage of social protest. “If you want to have democracy you have to have democrats…” Sierakowski said, adding that “democracy can be very bad” and pointing to the democratically-elected authoritarian governments of three Eastern European countries.

This point was developed by Orazzini, who saw democracy as something which tends to have as its aim balancing the interests of the people with those of capital, pointing to the example of the grossly regressive TTIP treaty which will require democratically elected governments to negotiate with multinationals before introducing specific policies.

WHAT IS DEMOCRACY?

Maybe it was a misunderstanding but there seemed to be a real point of tension between what democracy actually was, and whether it was per se a force for good. Using the example of the American South, where a majority of people supported segregation through democratic processes, Varoufakis distinguished between democracy and “majoritarianism”. This might be dismissed as mere semantics but there is a vital point here. Democracy must be precisely defined, in a comprehensible way, before it can be pursued through a grassroots movement.

Drawing on Tony Benn’s “Five Questions for the Powerful”, the definition Varoufakis gave was very compelling. The existence of popular support through democratic processes does not necessarily demonstrate democracy itself. Instead, democracy exists through transparency, accountability and the ability to change who governs.

Besides the question of what democracy is and whether it should be the goal, Matias approached the discussion from another angle, wondering whether there was even any need for a new movement, considering  that there are lots already. She said that it was often the tendency for progressives to move onto a new thing instead of tackling the failures of their pre-existing efforts. What useful things can DiEM really offer?

EVERYDAY DEMOCRACY

This question provides a neat way to sum up. Because what DiEM seems to offer is not a new movement but continent-wide coherency for movements who want a more democratised Europe. Varoufakis said in the debate that the movement is not trying to be a political force but rather is aimed at rebuilding political force on a European-wide level. One of the most interesting propositions was the creation of an app which will allow people to self-organise by signing up and finding other people nearby.

I sincerely hope that this particular thing catches on. After all, it is likely that such new forms of communication are the best chance for a Europe-wide consciousness to develop at the everyday level, something which would be integral to any successful grassroots democratisation of European politics.