“Government
loses its claim to legitimacy when it fails to fulfill its obligations” –
Martin L. Gross. Therefore can we argue that our European leaders are
legitimate?
For decades
after the creation of the European Union, the member states have lived in a
period of integration, excitement and economic prosperity. All this economic
growth and optimism came to an end when the economic crisis arose in 2008.
Since 2008, Europe has been involved in a pessimistic environment. Scepticism appeared
regarding the Euro zone. A political gap has been opened between citizens and
their politicians. Distrust increased between the countries of the north and
south of Europe. Moreover, a growth in euro scepticism and re nationalism of
politics seems to have appeared.
Suchman
(1995, p. 574) considers that "Legitimacy is a generalized
perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper,
or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions." Some may argue that this is what we are
missing nowadays. The democratization process, which takes place in Brussels, has
become more and more distant towards citizens of the European Union. People
don’t feel that they the politicians at Brussels represent them and neither do
they think the decisions taken are appropriate. Therefore, this creates
discomfort and unrest among Europeans.
We can say that
nowadays the legitimacy of the European Union leaders has been questioned. A
sentiment of distance and disappointment fills the streets of every European
city. The economic crisis has a lot to do with the rise of these feelings on
the society. Therefore, we can say that the economic crisis has lead to a
political crisis as well.
We
can also explain this lack of legitimacy to a lack of communication between
institutions and citizens. Politicians and representatives in the E.U. should
have evolved together with this new mentality which belongs to a new
Europeanized generation and which plays a very important role in the public
opinion. However, we can argue that citizens don’t see themselves as an actor
in European politics anymore. This also leads to the fact that the vast
majority of the European population has low level of knowledge about the
European institutions. How can we as Europeans, take action on the political
life, if we don’t know the basics of European politics?
A
very good example that explains the concept of legitimacy is the case of
Ukraine.
In
November 2013, the President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych
withdrew from the negotiations on the trade agreement with the E.U, the so
called, the Association Agreement seeking closer
ties with Russia. The rejection of the agreement, which would bring
modernization, liberalization, rule of law to Ukraine and greater integration
with the West, provoked a numerous mass protests. This was a sign that a big
part of the Ukrainian population wanted prosperity and closer political and
cultural ties with Europe. After weeks of revolts where over 70 people were
killed, the revels took control of the government in Kiev and stabilised the
Ukrainian 2004 constitution. Moreover, Yanukovych needed to go and his removal
from office upset the country’s internal politics. Regarding this we also have
to take into account that this new government established in Kiev is not representative
of all the Ukrainians. Unlike the former Yanukovych government, the new-formed
political leaders have not been elected in a democratic election; there hasn't
been any legitimate democratic process. They took the power by force.
Therefore, some people argue that although for some Ukrainians, the Kiev
government may be legitimate, for other Ukrainians, it may be not.
The
current situation in Ukraine is characterized by the Russian military
intervention in the southern part of Ukraine (Crimea). Russia argues that they
invaded the territory because they wanted to restore the constitutional order
and protect the rights of Ukraine’s Russian-speaking citizens. However, is
Russia the legitimate authority? It can also be argued that the Russian
government is not legitimate for those pro-Europeans.
In
today’s uncertain situation, we need to take into account the
interconnectedness between the concept of legality and legitimacy in order to
reach to an agreement, which would comply with the will of the Ukrainian
population.
“Legitimacy needs law as much as law needs legitimacy — law cannot be respected if seen as illegitimate, while appeals to legitimacy must be based in law to prevent opportunism" We can explain this with the example of the 1999 Kosovo
intervention in which we can clearly see that legitimacy
and legality don’t always go together. Most legal experts
say that the Serbian airstrikes were illegal because the operation was not
authorised by the Security Council. On the contrary, some experts regarded this
military intervention as a legitimate action. According to the international
law, (Article 53 of the UN Charter): “no enforcement action
shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the
authorization of the Security Council”. Therefore in order to stop the ethnic
cleansing in the area, NATO decided to take further action, regarded as
legitimate not as legal and intervene militarily bombing Kosovo.
Another
concept which is closely related with legitimacy is sovereignty. According to
the Oxford English Dictionary, sovereignty is defined as the supreme power or
authority. In international politics, sovereignty is based on two main
principles: the doctrine of non-intervention and the doctrine of legal
equality.
This
concept was born in the Peace of Westphalia (1648), which ended the Thirty
Years War. The idea of non-intervention was later applied in multiple
international law documents for instance, in the Article 2 of the United
Nations Charter: "Nothing contained in the present Charter
shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are
essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the
Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but
this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement
measures under Chapter Vll." Moreover, one of the main principles
of the United Nations is based also on the principle of sovereign equality of
all its members (legal equality), which is also expressed in the Article 2 of
the U.N. Charter. Due to the Peace of Westphalia, the
modern notion of state and the international system were created. The idea of
sovereignty for European states changed with the creation of the European Union
after WWII. This unique institutional hybrid has created a new system in which
member states give up part of their sovereignty in order to achieve the goal of
stability (economically, socially, culturally…), in other words: to avoid war.
This is a revolutionary approach in which states are not fully sovereign inside
their territory. The E.U. does not act as a state and does not work like a
state either. It is a hybrid political structure between a state and an
international organization.
The E.U. started as a trade agreement
but it has evolved and it has become a supranational authority. On the one
hand, the elements that may relate the E.U. with a federation are the supremacy
of the European law over the national law, the common citizenship, the common
currency (Euro), the qualified majority voting and the supranational judicial
review with the existence of institutions such as the European Parliament, the
European Commission, the European Court of Justice, the Council of Europe, the
European Central Bank… On the other hand, the lack of a common government,
common military, common fiscal policies, common debt and a common constitution
make the E.U. closer to an international institution.
The
main question regarding the European Union and the concept of sovereignty is:
Where does the sovereignty reside? As mentioned before, the states are
completely sovereign over their territories in some aspects, for instance in
fiscal policies, unlike in other aspects like in monetary issues the member
states are not sovereign. This can create confusion in the European society
specially regarding foreign affairs. Should every state follow their foreign
affair’ strategy? Or should the European Union act as a unity regarding foreign
affairs? Some experts argue that in today’s globalized world where new big economical
and political powers are arising such as China, Brazil or India, the European
Union states can’t act separately, because they would be extremely
insignificant and cant be compared with the new emerging powers. However, if
the E.U. commit to integration and act united, the E.U. may have better chances
when competing with these emerging powers.
There are two possible hypotheses which explains the future path
of the E.U.: more integration among E.U. members, renouncing to more
sovereignty and giving it to the E.U. or disintegration of the E.U. Due to the
economic and political crisis, states are more reluctant of giving more
sovereignty to the E.U. and are beginning to think about the negative
consequences of being part of the system. A big distrust have arisen between
the northern countries and the southern countries of Europe, some of the
reasons for the creation of the E.U. are no longer considered as important as
they were for instance the rehabilitation of Germany, the soviet threat or the
memory of WWII. There is no longer optimism and a feeling of union between
member states and this can damage the stability of the institution.
Therefore in order to preserve order and stability, we should
carefully think about the European sovereignty and what Europeans want for
their future.
Talking about what the Europeans want for their future, we can
also explain the importance of the concept of national interest. National
interest is a very complex concept, which can be defined as the political will
of the state previously analyzed and formulated by the statesman (leader) who
has interpreted the opinion of its citizens (the population of its state). In
international politics, it’s often used in political discourses in order to
justify their decisions or trying to make those decisions more legitimate,
arguing that they are necessary for the state.
The interests of a nation-state are not fixed not permanent,
they may vary over time. We can take the example of the Middle East. We can
divide the countries in three groups depending on the resources, interests,
alliances or geography. First we can have the group of countries, which share
common interests with the E.U., they have low resources and they have no other
offers of alliances with other big powers. Therefore, the alliance between
these countries and the E.U would not be balanced because they need the European
alliance. Morocco or Tunisia are examples of this first group of countries. The
second group of countries like Algeria or Libya is characterized by having some
interests in common with the E.U., a lot of resources inside their frontiers
and the only possible deal with the Europe would be economic integration,
establishing economical relations. The third group of countries are the ones
who have a lot of interests in
common, a lot of resources on their own and other offers form other big powers.
This balance is not beneficial for the E.U. because its influence will be less.
International politics are moulded according to the national
interest of the countries. For instance, for the last decades, Turkey has tried
to become part of the E.U. because the Turkish government considered the
European union as an opportunity to have economic prosperity and a closer
relation with the West. This has provoked different reactions in the European
arena, where some states rejected the idea of letting Turkey become a member
state and others who supported the Turkish candidacy. Among those against the
entrance of turkey in the European Union we have the former presidency of
Sarkozy in France or the current presidency of Merkel in Germany. The main
arguments for the opposition are based on identity issues. They argue that
Turkey does not have the values of the E.U. they are questioning the adequacy
of Turkey as a candidate.
During the last few years, people have argued that Turkey
doesn’t have the interest of becoming a member any more after watching the euro
nearly collapse and the economic crisis that Europe is suffering. It is
believed that Europe is now not on the national interest of Turkey anymore.
To conclude, all these three concepts are interconnected and are
crucial in order to understand today’s international politics. Legitimacy
depends on legality as well as national interests depend on legitimacy.
SOURCES:
Darden K., (01.03.2014),
“Ukraine’s Crisis of Legitimacy”, Foreign Affairs. Council of Foreign
Relations, retrieved from: <http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/140987/keith-darden/ukraines-crisis-of-legitimacy>. [16.03.2014]
Roberts J.,
n.d.,“Sovereignty”, Towson University, retrieved from: <http://www.towson.edu/polsci/irencyc/sovreign.htm>.
[16.03.2014]
Legault A., (2000),
“NATO Intervention in Kosovo: the Legal Context”, Canadian Military Journal,
retrieved from:
<http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo1/no1/doc/63-66-eng.pdf>. [16.03.2014]
Paula Padrino Vilela
This is a university project for the course of Concepts of IR.