First Things RSS Feed - Thomas Haine

A President for Europe

Mon, 27 Aug 2012 00:01:00 -0400

The EU has been suffering a long, drawn-out economic disaster, but its economic woes hide a deeper rot: a lack of democratic accountability. My wife and I lived in Lisbon this past year while I studied international law, and most of the Portuguese people we spoke with no longer have illusions of true self-government. They assume that at the end of the day their national leaders follow the call of higher powers in Brussels, over which the people have no control. Political apathy reigns.

Democratic reform is needed especially now, when economic reality is forcing a moment of reflection and change. Political power should be somehow practically responsive to the control of the people it governs, because such popular accountability generally ensures that the political system works for the common good rather than merely private gain. Democracy does not guarantee political legitimacy (see Karzai’s Afghanistan, or Chavez’s Venezuela), but provides as good a gauge as any of whether a political institution today is basically respectful of the rights and dignity of free men and women. The EU fails this test, and needs reform.

As you might expect, the EU certainly believes it is democratic. Responding on its webpage to the apparently Frequently Asked Question “Is the budget really decided by Eurocrats without any democratic procedures?” the EU responds “This is a widespread idea “ but it’s not true! Decision making in the EU budgetary procedure follows strict democratic procedures , which are similar to those of most national governments .” (Emphasis in the original.)

The EU law-making process can seem straightforward. One EU body (the Commission) proposes laws and budgets, which must then be examined and agreed upon by two other bodies (the Council and the Parliament). Simple! But in reality, these procedures are part of a confusing institutional maze, where nothing is as it seems and none of the EU’s law-making institutions can claim both power and democratic accountability. Let’s take a closer look at these “strict democratic procedures.”

The European Parliament is directly elected by EU citizens from each country. Population roughly determines each country’s number of Members of the European Parliament, though no country can have fewer than six or more than 96 (out of a total of 754). But for all this accountability, the Parliament is weak and passive. It cannot propose bills or budgets, nor can the Parliament pass them without the consent of the Council.

The Council of the European Union, known simply as the Council, works with the Parliament to pass laws and budgets. Parliament and the Council are similar to a bi-cameral legislative body, where neither can pass legislation without the other body’s consent. The Council is not elected but appointed: each member-state sends one representative to each meeting. The rules governing voting in the Council are singularly complicated, where bigger nations are generally (but not always) given more weight, except when the vote must be unanimous (as for taxation- and security-related bills).

The executive branch of the EU is the 27-member Commission. Its most significant power is that of legislative initiation: it alone proposes bills and EU budgets, and may rescind them at any time if the resulting legislation becomes unattractive. The President of the Commission is very powerful. He controls the internal organization of the Commission itself, and can dismiss any other Commissioner without the consent of the rest of the Commission.

European citizens’ votes affect the Commission only obliquely. The Council proposes a President of the Commission, who then must be “elected” by the European Parliament. Then the Council and President of the Commission together appoint the 26 other Commissioners, so there is one from each EU nation. Finally, all 27 Commissioners as a body must be approved by a vote of the Parliament. This system effectively insulates the Commission from true popular accountability. In the EU institutional structure, then, there is an inverse relationship between popular responsiveness and power. True authority resides in the body most removed from the votes of the people: the Commission.

Perhaps it would be better if the whole EU integration project fell apart , as some have predicted it will. Yet predictions of the financial and political break-up of EU institutions are more wishful than realistic. With the possible exception of the UK, the commitment of the rest of the EU to an “ever closer union” is fundamental. At every juncture in this crisis, national leaders and their voters have chosen more, not less integration. Instead of waiting, hopefully, for the collapse of the unification project, those who value self-government can instead make a strong case for achievable democratic reform within EU institutions.

Some have proposed giving Parliament more power by allowing it to propose laws rather than merely affirm or deny a bill offered by the Commission. But this is probably not feasible. It would seriously upset the balance of power among EU institutions and require significant changes not only to Parliament but also to the Commission, which would lose exclusive legislative initiative. Besides, the Parliament will always be too large and diverse to provide true European leadership.

Others have proposed allowing Parliament to directly put forward (rather than merely vote upon) the President of the Commission. But this plan would maintain the troubling gap between the vote of the citizen (electing Parliament) and the leadership of the EU (the President of the Commission). The people would not really gain control.

The best idea would be to directly elect the President of the Commission. This would give the citizens of the EU a clear choice to set the basic policy course of its most powerful institution. A direct election would give no new institutional powers to the President or the Commission to pass laws or enforce them. But this officeholder, who directs the most potent EU institution, would then depend for his job not on elites but on the citizens. Moreover, just as U.S. presidential elections always draw more voters than any other federal election, a higher voter turnout for the President of the Commission’s election could be expected. This would lend the subsequent policies of the Union greater legitimacy than ever before, without giving it any dangerous new powers.

The peoples of Europe, demoralized by the slow creep of an EU government they generally support but do not understand and cannot control, would be energized by the prospect of directly choosing a single leader with real power. With the election of a President of Europe, people’s sense of political responsibility would grow, even in small nations like Portugal. With true political responsibility comes self-respect, and only with self-respect can a free society flourish.

Thomas Haine is a lawyer who recently completed an LLM in international law in Lisbon.

Become a fan of First Things on Facebook , subscribe to First Things via RSS , and follow First Things on Twitter .

Continue Reading »

Tim Tebow’s Vocation

Wed, 07 Dec 2011 00:49:00 -0500

Tim Tebow, the outspoken young quarterback of the Denver Broncos, is the talk of the nation: He has won six out of his last seven games, several in spectacular fashion. Yet, because of his overt faith, many in the media seem to relish his every mistake with more than a tinge of anti-Christian malice. Other players criticize and scoff at him: Two Detroit Lions players recently knelt in mockery of him during a game, one after sacking Tebow for a loss and the other after scoring a touchdown. Comments and behavior like this have outraged men and women of faith across the nation. To many Christians, Tebow is a public hero who strives against intolerance of their beliefs.

I would defend Tebow in the face of secularist attacks and criticisms, but I still have lingering questions about the appropriateness of his actions. Take this example: Only moments after his dramatic come-from-behind win against the New York Jets in November, Tebow sat down with NFL commentators. The interviewer asked, “what comes over you with five minutes to go?” Tebow responded, “Well, first and foremost, I gotta thank my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and thank my team mates . . . ” Should Tebow tone this kind of answer down?

Perhaps Tebow should not talk and act as if every win and success is almost miraculous, as if God’s intervention is the primary cause of it. Such talk might obscure the fullness of the truth by hiding other contributing factors. God is the cause of all things and our natural order. He intervenes in his natural order as he sees fit; we call these “super” natural interventions miracles . Throwing a football is probably not, then, supernatural or miraculous at all, and neither is winning a football game. If we were to thank God exclusively after either, we may be obscuring the fact that God enabled his creation”the natural rather than supernatural order”to accomplish his will for itself. He gave Tebow his teammates, his parents, the cheering fans, his coach, etc., so that he could succeed. Perhaps it would be more appropriate for Tebow to recognize and thank these people and causes first.

But, ultimately, I think this point is mostly a quibble. Tebow does always thank his teammates and his coach publicly, and I don’t think he is even implicitly claiming that his football wins are caused by supernatural intervention. He is merely giving praise where he thinks praise is due. Instead, I think many Christians”myself included”feel uneasy about Tebow’s professions of faith in public because we suspect that in the same situation, we would keep our faith private. Why, we ask, should Tebow be so vocal?

Such questions fail to recognize the nature of personal vocations and of belief in a God who has a unique plan for each of us. We each have a tailor-made vocation, not an ill-fitting suit, handed out to all Christians. We may be a priest, preacher, or a quiet family man, but if we seek truth and follow the will of God for our lives, we should feel neither shame nor judgment when we note a difference between our calling and that of another. Christian lives should be notable for their pluralism.

So, although Tebow’s prime time confessional style may not be “normal” for most Christians, I am convinced that it is authentic for him. He seems to be genuinely in love with Christ. He compares his professions of faith in Jesus to a husband’s expression of love for his wife every day, in public or in private. And like a good spouse, he works as hard as he can in everything out of love.

As early as high school, Tebow was known for playing every minute as if it were the last in the game, striving for extra yardage on every play. He still trains harder than anyone else. In his recent documentary, “Everything in Between,” he asks every day, “Was I the hardest worker in the country?” Despite all this hard work, he is far from dominant in his sport. He shows his flaws on every missed throw and every crushing hit he takes but through it all finds a way, some way, to win fair and square.

On top of his busy football career, Tebow is out in the world preaching at prisons, doing mission work with his family, starting a hospital in the Philippines, and trying hard to lead a virtuous life. In a recent interview, Broncos receiver Eddie Royal summed him up well: “[Tebow] really is genuine and the emotion and the passion that you see him out there playing with, he has the same passion off the field with those type of things, the charity things and the missionary things. He just lives that way. Like I said, there’s nothing fake about Tim Tebow.”

All people of faith can find inspiration in his example. We can wholly support the gallant and authentic vocation that Tebow has discerned for himself even if it is very different from our own. He will be the hardest worker in the NFL for the glory of God. He will be a prayerful man, on and off the field. And he will use every camera that turns his way to loudly proclaim his trust in the God of the Bible, no matter the criticism he faces.

Thomas Haine is a First Lieutenant in the U.S. Army on educational delay and a law student at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis.

Become a fan of First Things on Facebook , subscribe to First Things via RSS , and follow First Things on Twitter .

Continue Reading »