[The Convention opens and I am its member:
For those whom God wants to punish He fulfils all wishes.
Johannes Voggenhuber, February 2002]
openDemocracy: You began the Convention in 2002 by writing a rather poetic diary. Why did you stop after June of that year?
Johannes Voggenhuber: (Laughs.) Ive been thinking about that. I began with a diary because I wanted to document what was really going on in the working groups. The so-called process of achieving consensus in the convention is not actually being determined by a majority in the plenary. It is being decreed by the praesidium. Valéry Giscard dEstaing has continuously ignored democratically achieved consensus in the plenary and pushed his own points up the agenda.
openDemocracy: How do you see the Conventions record of achievements and failures so far?
Johannes Voggenhuber: In the beginning there were some significant steps forward, especially if you look at the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
These could only occur as a result of Convention members having developed a strong communal democratic awareness despite Giscard, who, for example, had to grudgingly accept a commitment to full employment in the proposal for the European constitution.
This was not the only problem however. This essentially productive process has also been hampered by the re-nationalisation of European politics. Increasingly, heads of government have abused the Convention to push through their national interests. Just look at the haggling about the role of the future president of the European Union.
openDemocracy: What is your view of the prospects for EU foreign policy, as it stands?
Johannes Voggenhuber: That is a classic case of too much national solipsism, and simply too many strategy papers from individual heads of state. Take defence policy for example. This is a core national interest per definitionem. However, the European Union must evolve a clear consensus on foreign policy, which is rooted in communal European values and is democratically legitimised. In the Iraq war we looked on helplessly while an increasing dichotomy emerged between pro- and anti-war governments.
openedemocracy: Did you have expectations of the Belgian-hosted defence summit?
Johannes Voggenhuber: I am very sceptical of it, to be honest with you. The national parliaments did not have any say in the summit. The German, French and Belgian governments connive at putting their favoured policy forward, while Messrs Blair, Aznar and Berlusconi each further their own interests. What is European about that? What is happening is that heads of governments negotiate behind closed doors about questions of war and peace.
openDemocracy: What is going on with the institutional power struggle?
Johannes Voggenhuber: MEPs and national parliamentarians, who recognise the importance of democratic elements such as the full participation of the European Parliament in budgetary as well as non-budgetary decisions, dominate the plenary of the convention. The plenary is checked by the praesidium, which essentially represents the nation states and the commission. The praesidium has repeatedly tried to take detail questions out of the hands of the members of the convention and to have them solved by EU bureaucrats. The nation-states sense that the convention is eclipsing their sovereign rights.
openDemocracy: How is the role of the future EU president shaping up?
Johannes Voggenhuber: The premiers of the larger EU countries are throwing in their weight for a permanent presidency who will not come from the ranks of ruling heads of state, but from outside: it could be a resigned head of state, for example.
You could compare this to reintroducing the medieval Holy Roman Electoral College. It is nothing to do with modern democratic thinking. If this way of designating the head of the European Union were confirmed you would forfeit any kind of democratic legitimisation. You just have to imagine a situation like this: the EU spearheaded by an individual whose power rests solely on the raison détat of nation-states and does not reflect the will of voters at all.
As for the president of the European Commission, the current system of election for him is merely acclamatory. The European Parliament is reduced to confirming a governmental candidate from the member states. This is not a democratic election in the true sense of the word.
openDemocracy: How do you perceive the relationship between the plenary and the praesidium?
Johannes Voggenhuber: The most active and radical proponents of democratic reform in the European institutions can be found in the European Parliament. These parliamentarians are the most outspoken members of the convention when it comes to greater democratic legitimacy and transparency in the European Union. The praesidium, led by Giscard, brushes away these demands time and again with an autocratic, autistic leadership style.
openDemocracy: You have talked about more organisation of pressure groups within the plenary. What do you mean by that, and is it realistic?
Johannes Voggenhuber: I was not talking about a spontaneous organisation but about the formation of groups in the convention which put pressure on the praesidium to push through demands which have been arrived at through democratic consensus.
openDemocracy: How is the Austrian national debate progressing?
Johannes Voggenhuber: The debate circles around the question of how a small country as Austria may ensure the advancement of its national interests in a growing European Union as well as, in my view for no good reason, about Austrias representation in the commission. There is no extended debate about the convention in Austria. There might be a bit more of a debate in the larger countries as Germany, but there is not really a substantial difference.
openDemocracy: What do you expect to come after the convention? Will people reject a botched Constitution in the 2004 referenda?
Johannes Voggenhuber: Political sentiments are unpredictable. However, the question of democratic changes in the European Union as well as how to make its complex decision mechanisms easier is a neuralgic point for the future of Europe. All we can do is to motivate voters to raise their voices to have a greater say in the operation of the European Union, for a second Nice if you like. This becomes an even more pressing matter in a time in which many governments subscribe to a neo-liberal credo. Those governments are not in the slightest concerned about the social needs of their citizens.
The question of the future of the commission is also an intriguing one. The commission was conceived as a supranational, not an intergovernmental institution competing with national governments, even though it is well known that the French have repeatedly used the commission as a platform to further their national interests.
openDemocracy: How do you motivate citizens to take a greater interest in their democratic rights?
Johannes Voggenhuber: Well, it is a little bit like a football game, you see. You need certain rules for the game to run smoothly. Football fans, however, cannot conceive these rules. The European constitution that is being developed by the convention contains the rules for the European game, and the citizens are the football fans.
