Tony Bennett, Differing diversities - Council of Europe

Reasearch position paper 3went, would provide sufficient “permissive consensus” to enable each subsequentstep to be implemented. 1 Since the 1990s, however, that passive consent haswithered and support for further integration has declined throughout the EuropeanUnion, a factor some attribute to the deflationary policies adopted by those governmentsseeking to qualify for membership of the single currency.The challenge for the Commission is how to transform this remote “Europe ofinstitutional structures” into a popular “People’s Europe”? Despite substantialincreases in its legal authority and regulatory power, the European Union still hasno self-identifying “European public” to lend legitimacy to its institutions. As theSpanish politician Herrero de Miñón points out (1996), a democratic system withouta “demos” is a contradiction in terms, or worse, just “cratos” (power). This iswhat De Witte (1993) calls the problem of “cultural legitimation” and others termthe “absent demos” thesis. The legitimacy of European Union institutions rests ontheir claim to represent the “European interest”, but without a European society orbody politic, such claims could be characterised as merely a modern spin on theold notion of raison d’état. The European Union’s so-called “democratic deficit”is ultimately rooted in a deeper “cultural deficit”. 2 It is against this background thatEuropean Union cultural policy, with its emphasis on promoting awareness ofEurope’s shared cultural heritage, begins to make sense.European Union involvement in culture, 1957-1992: forging a“People’s Europe”The 1957 Treaty of Rome which laid the foundations for the European Union containsonly two minor references to culture, the first relating to “non-discrimination”and the second to exceptions to the free movement of goods where a specialcase can be made for “the protection of national treasures possessing artistic, historicalor archaeological value”. 3 The absence of any specific treaty reference toculture meant that, prior to Maastricht, the European Union had no legal basis fordirect involvement in cultural affairs. Technically, there was no such thing asCommunity cultural policy; just various ad hoc “cultural actions” based onEuropean Parliament resolutions and agreements by ministers of culture. This lackof competence, however, did not prevent Community involvement in cultural matters.Within the Commission, a Directorate-General for audiovisual, information,communication and cultural matters had already been created and the EuropeanParliament had established several specialised committees related to culture(including a Committee on Youth, Culture, Education, Media and Sport). To circumventthe legal problem, Community officials invoked economic arguments toachieve cultural and political objectives (Forrest, 1994: 12). This was not difficultas there are no obvious or impermeable boundaries between economic and cultural__________1. For critical assessments of integration theory see George, 1985; O’Neill, 1996.2. For further analysis on this point see Leicester, 1996; Shore, 2000.3. Treaty of Rome 1957, Articles 7 and 36. France later invoked this clause during the 1992 GATTworld trade negotiations in defence of the French film industry against the threat of Hollywood.109