Europe’s democratic renewal needs a feminist slant
by Iratxe García
Pérez on 12th April 2021 @TheProgressives
share ontwittershare onfacebookshare onlinkedin
The Conference on the Future of Europe shouldn’t degenerate into political
theatre. Politicians need to listen and give a voice to citizens.
Iratxe García Pérez
If the Covid-19 outbreak has taught us anything, it’s that preparedness for
crises is crucial to save lives. To be better prepared, we need to have a
discussion about the future of the European Union. And not just among
politicians. This is where the Conference on the Future of Europe comes in,
which had been proposed already before the pandemic because, even back then, it
was necessary to update our common vision and to speed up decision-making in
our union of 27 member states.
Now, the time has come to get out of the ‘Brussels bubble’, listen to people and advance
towards a feminist Europe. We need a new concept of power, a new approach to
representative democracy and a new mindset in the EU institutions. This
transformation should also be reflected in the institutional architecture. We
must ensure that the conference plenary does not just become a political
theatre for EU politicians to debate among themselves. Instead, it needs to be
a forum to give a voice to citizens.
This is why I insisted that all seven political groups in the European
Parliament must be represented on the conference’s Executive Board, to ensure
that the widest spectrum of opinions are heard. And this is also why the
European Parliament, as the body directly elected by European citizens, should
be leading this democratic process.
In order to instil an innovative approach into the conference, I take three
lessons from the Covid-19 crisis.
Deepening democracy and empowering people
First, there is a discrepancy between citizens’ high expectations and what
the EU can actually deliver. The fact that citizens have such high expectations
is good news for those of us who believe that co-operating to solve our
problems will benefit everyone, as opposed to going it alone when problems
arise. However, it also reveals that, as politicians, we may have been focusing
our efforts on the wrong policy areas, or that we have not been able to put in
place the mechanisms to deliver on our priorities—as Europe’s citizens expect
us to. This should be the first task of the conference—identifying what our
citizens’ priorities are, what they think the EU should be delivering on and
where it should allocate its resources.
This means that we should set aside our own agendas and listen. The
Socialists and Democrats have pushed for establishing citizens’ panels with a constant feedback
system to inform the institutional plenary of the conference. The pandemic has
provided us with new tools to connect online. Nothing can replace human
encounters, but new technologies and the fact that we have become used to virtual
interaction should facilitate innovative ways to ensure citizens can
participate in a meaningful way.
Democracy will only be deepened through this conference if we involve those
who are usually excluded from the public debate, because of their age, gender,
ethnicity, immigrant background, socio-economic status, remote location or lack
of knowledge of foreign languages. Our debate cannot be limited to the
cosmopolitan elites or to the capitals. We must also give a prominent role to
young people. This is why the Socialists and Democrats insisted that one third
of the selected participants should be under 25, because they must be the
protagonists in deciding their own future.
A true exercise in democracy demands openness to institutional change. The
EU has been talking about a citizens’ Europe for many years, but this
conference must actually deliver on it. Yet this is not an easy task: the
difficulties in agreeing on the institutional architecture held up the start of
the process for over a year. Now that we are back on track, I am shocked to
find myself to be the only woman representing the European Parliament on the
Executive Board. But there is an underlying reason for this: some of the
dominant players fear losing power. This is why we, the Socialists and Democrats,
want to lead a transition to a new way of doing politics, a feminist approach
to power as shared responsibility and co-ownership.
True power is not about strength but about enabling others to take
responsibility, to fully develop their skills as an asset for society. Power is
not about control or domination—it’s about participation and representation. We
represent voters, and therefore we should put aside the hierarchical approach
and embrace a more direct, horizontal perspective. It’s not about imposing
one’s vision but about inspiring and creating dynamics in which citizens are
empowered.
A feminist approach to power
The second lesson I draw from the pandemic is the need for progressive
policies. We left the political arena to neoliberals and free-marketeers for
far too long. But now suddenly everyone has to admit that the market will not
solve everything. Just take the lack of strategic autonomy to produce vaccines,
the lack of investment in our public health services, the shortfall of
professional staff in the health sector or the precarious conditions for so
many essential workers.
The market does not reward those in sectors that are critical for the
well-being of our society—and occasional applause is not enough. The market
does not contribute to a cohesive and fair society but increases social
division. So it’s time to build our European Pillar of Social Rights. Europe’s
citizens are demanding it—and only our political family has the experience, the
vision and the leadership to advance that fight. And here we need everyone on
board, all our partners and all progressive voices in society.
The third lesson is about the existing divides between west and east, north
and south. There are many unspoken perceptions of superiority and inferiority
that have been exposed once more during this crisis. Some Europeans feel like
second-class citizens because their voices are not heard, because they never
see themselves represented in the top posts of their institutions or because
they feel patronised by the big countries or the ‘old’ European member states.
It’s time to address this gap openly, to be sincere and to overcome it.
This is part of a necessary change of mind-set: there are no more old and new
members. We are all co-owners of the project. This also means going to the
regional level, far from the capitals, going to Europe’s peripheries and to all
neighbourhoods, to hear the diversity of voices.
A feminist approach to power avoids competition and encourages
co-operation. This also applies to governance. Therefore, the Socialists and
Democrats have insisted throughout the process that we closely involve national
parliaments and all levels of administration. City halls and local governments
have a crucial role, because they are closest to citizens and where policies
are actually implemented: health, education, housing, public transport and
policies to support the ecological transition. This is where we first
experience the sense of community and we learn to live together in diversity.
We should not be afraid to be flexible and to have an open-ended
discussion. That includes the finishing date for the conference. Before we can
say when the process should come to a close, we first have to see the dynamic
it creates among citizens. If we succeed in engaging all voices, we should make
the most of it—and probably run the conference until 2023 to draw our
conclusions.
Victor Hugo, a great European, said the future is for the brave, so let’s
dare to change.
This article first appeared in International Politics & Society
No comments:
Post a Comment