Rediscovering Europe in the Netherlands - St Antony's College ...

diagnosis
derives its legitimacy from eu-wide elections; instead, we have a complex
eu administration which is closely interwoven into the politics and administrations
of the various member states. The system is largely based on the
strong but indirect national representation in the Council of Ministers and
the European Council, and the weaker but direct representation by the
nationally elected meps in the European Parliament.
The traditional method of legitimising eu policy, which was based mainly
on the tacit support of the public for successes achieved in the past (governance
for the people) has been under pressure since the 1990s. Here again,
past results have offered no guarantee whatsoever for the future. Social and
political changes, such as the increasing internationalisation, broadening,
deepening and enlargement of the eu and the accompanying politicisation
of European issues, create a growing need among citizens for legitimisation
through processes of representation, accountability and identification
(governance by and of the people). It was often claimed that this need
could be met by strengthening European democracy; to some extent the
rejection of the Treaty was an attempt to achieve this. The paradoxical
effect, however, is that the increased need for legitimisation of eu policy
through national channels is also increasing in parallel, because the direct
European channel offers insufficient opportunities. This is manifest in all
member states and is certainly not a specifically Dutch phenomenon. The
core of the tensions that have arisen, to put it in terms used by Schmidt
(2006), is that a great deal of eu-level policy is still made with no political
input (policy without politics), while the member states are confronted
with politics without the input of European policy (politics without policy):
large swathes of the policy of the member states no longer fall under exclusive
national competence (Schmidt 2006).
69
Another factor that is by no means an exclusively Dutch phenomenon is
that the traditional tendency towards legitimisation based on results was
still dominant in the 1990s and was accompanied by a strong emphasis on
optimising administrative and political co-ordination of eu policy in the
ever more complex, multi-layered eu. This tendency – which was accompanied
by a relatively weakly developed ‘communicative discourse’ on
Europe – can also be observed in other member states with relatively
decentralised and fragmented political systems, such as Italy, Germany and
Belgium. What is specifically Dutch, however, is that the shortcomings
of the traditional processes of legitimisation through results – certainly
compared to other member states that have already held referenda and had
major debates on Europe – were exposed and acknowledged relatively late
in the day, namely after the ‘No’ vote on the referendum. They were also
reflected in the climate of general discontent among Dutch voters with