Sunday, 17 May 2009
France and Germany, the engines of European integration, have reiterated their opposition to Turkey’s EU membership. French President Nicolas Sarkozy said, in an interview with Germany's Bild am Sonntag newspaper, “the EU must stop making vain promises to Turkey and study with it the creation of a big common economic and human space”. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has voiced “privileged partnership, but no full membership” for Turkey as their common position, once again.
The common comment on Sarkozy-Merkel’s advocation of a vaguely defined “privileged partnership” with Turkey is evident: Upcoming elections in Europe. Emphasis on Turkey’s probable membership used as an election tool, on which there will probably be no disagreement in public opinion, is not baseless and has reasonably well-fit reasons. It is the easiest way for some European leaders to resort to opposition to a possible enlargement and public concerns and prejudices, especially during the economic crisis, in order to get support from the public during election periods. Increase in votes of anti-European small parties is the point at issue due to the heavy global economic crisis. From this point of view, it is not logical to expect EU members pioneering European integration, i.e. France and Germany, to increase the constituent body by addressing anti-European assumptions. That's why opposition to Turkey is fertile material both to address anti-Europeans opposing enlargement and deepening of EU integration and to reinforce ‘fortress Europe’ in a sense.
There is no ground to falsify the aforesaid arguments about Turkey’s EU membership which, parallel to election periods, has been put the European agenda over again thanks to interest-based and short-term purposes. Such arguments are also important to display populist approaches of some European leaders. However, there is a missing point in terms of the link between discussions about both European Parliament and also national elections with Turkey: Damage of indexing anti-Turkey discourses to the election agenda on European integration.
It is possible to talk about a handicap for European elections each time. The handicap of European Parliamentary elections is either for European politicians in opposition to think of EP elections similar to the national one and then to use it as a platform for criticizing government, or for European politicians in general to realize both national and European election campaigns in same manner – opposition to Turkey is a major example. It is so clear that German Chancellor Angela Merkel has made anti-Turkey discourses not just to address EP elections but also the upcoming general elections in Germany on September 2009, for we experienced similar statements by Merkel in the 2005 elections. However, she softened her attitude towards Turkey and tried to keep opposition to Turkey away from the main agenda for a long time.
Why could conducting national and European election agenda in a parallel platform be detrimental for European integration? In other words, what is the side effect of similar discourses using different election platforms on European integration? Participation of the election-fatigued European public is affected by such discussions turning around similar expressions that of national ones. One of the major legitimacy problems of European integration is lack of interest and low level of participation in the European elections. The June 2009 European Parliamentary elections are foreseen to be the elections in which the participation rate of the Europeans would be the lowest in the history of EP elections, at 34%. More importantly, awareness of the event, i.e. election date, is very low. Eurobarometer survey on 2009 elections indicates that only 16% of Europeans know that the European elections will be held in 2009. Respondents also consider that national issues and European issues will have more or less the same importance in their voting choices for the European elections. If we consider that the European Parliament is the only institution among other EU institutions whose members are directly elected by the public, lack of awareness and participation in the European elections means a serious problem for legitimacy mainly because the election is the symbol of and requirement for participant democracy. Both the failed European Constitution and Lisbon Treaty at stake are all one part of looking for a more efficient participation by the public and thereby a solid integration process.
Sarkozy, in the same interview with German newspaper, said “we need a well-organized Europe. So, we need the Lisbon Treaty”. Then, how and through which way does Sarkozy foresee outcomes of Lisbon Treaty, on which his expectations a further integration has relied, as beneficial for public participation to EP in discussion? In an environment where the European public abstains from displaying democratic participation, both national and European political discourses are far from attracting public attention. It seems that opposition to Turkey can not attract Europeans for the EP elections once more apart from the local/national elections which the same opposition found or will find a fertile ground. This situation apparently displays that the EP elections have been discussed via the wrong tools.
To sum up, Turkey’s membership prospect has quickly taken place in EP discussions as a major agenda-setting topic, and election campaigns have been shaped by individual interests and concerns of EU member countries rather than those of Europe. In this sense, two EU-members, i.e. France and Germany, engineers of EU integration, have contributed (!) to striking blows to the European integration process by their discourses used as election tools.
May 17, 2009
Fatma Yilmaz-Elmas
fyelmas@usak.org.tr
Cyprus Issue in the Progress Report: EU is Hesitant
