Dos conceptos de democracia

Hay dos conceptos de democracia, por lo menos en Europa. Nada más acabar las elecciones europeas, las furias se han desatado por la presidencia de la Comisión, que se suponía que el Parlamento podría elegir. NO, según opina Cameron. Cameron dice que sería una Europa menos democrática si el parlamento eligiera a Junkers, el merkeliano. Además, iría contra el Trataso de Lisboa. Sin embargo, los bobo-demócratas, los que creen que la democracia es una cosa de mayoría y no de criterio, dicen que si las elecciones las han ganado las derechas, y el candidato de las derechas (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/3129d6fc-eff2-11e3-9b4c-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=intl#axzz34BPAleOd) (bueno, de Merkel) es Junkers, pues debe ser lógico que sea elegido Junkers. porque es de derechas.

Sin embargo, Cameron es de derechas, y ha empezado una campaña para convencer a sus socios europeos que Europa debe reformarse, y que un federalista como Junkers (federalista: no el mismo concepto que emplean los PSOEistas españoles) lo jodería todo. 

En oponión de Gideon Rachman (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/c0fae448-ea38-11e3-8dde-00144feabdc0.html#axzz34BPAleOd), hay que frenar a Junkers porque la reforma de Europa sería literalmente mucho más difícil. Por si no lo recuerdan, Junkers fue el que despachó a Thimothy Geithner (Secretqrio del atesoro de EEUU), cuando vino en plena crisis del euro, diciendo que no había que escucharle porque era americano, y por ende, un keynesiano, y nosotros en Europa somos distintos. 

En fin, que sigue ampliándose el abismo entre la democracia verdadera, basada en la historia y la cultura nacionales, y la democracia burrocratica europea, una mierda que nos aleja más y más de nuestras raíces. Cuando digo que nuestra última esperanza es el RU, no lo digo por nada. Como decide Gideon, (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c0fae448-ea38-11e3-8dde 00144feabdc0.html#ixzz34BWELsBQ)

"Behind this dispute lies a clash between two rival visions of democracy in Europe. One school, particularly prominent in Germany, sees enhancing the powers of the European Parliament as the only way to make the EU more democratic. The other school – the one I belong to – believes that increasing the powers of the parliament is actually profoundly damaging to democracy.

Many Germans, with their suspicion of anything that smacks of nationalism, find it hard to acknowledge the connection between democracy and the nation. But it is above all in nations – with their shared ties of language, history and political culture – that democracy can live and breathe. At a European level, you can replicate the forms of democracy – elections, political parties and so on – but what you cannot create is the underlying demos (the people) that is needed to bind democracy together. That is why you end up with the absurd situation in which voters are said to have “chosen” a leader they have never heard of.

A pan-European democracy is a bad idea for the same reason a world democracy is a bad idea – the political unit is too large to make sense to voters. And before I am accused of a mystical attachment to “the nation”, I should add that not all nations are necessarily the right size to secure democratic assent. The case for Scottish independence rests on the idea that Scotland’s political identity is so different from the rest of the UK that the Scottish nation needs to break free from parliament in Westminster. We will see, in September’s referendum, if most Scots agree – but it is a legitimate question to ask.

Supporters of a European federal state often argue that the reason ordinary Europeans do not identify with the parliament is that they are not electing a proper government with real powers. By claiming more powers for the parliament – such as the right to appoint the president of the commission – they hope to attract interest and so conjure a European demos into being.

That argument reminds me strongly of the case that was once made for creating the euro. Back then, it was said that even if EU economies were very different the simple creation of a single currency would force them to converge. Now we are told that, even if there is no common European political identity, transferring powers to the European Parliament will drive the pace of political convergence. In reality, it would be likely to create a political disaster to rival the economic disaster caused by the euro – and for the same reason. Forced and artificial convergence cannot withstand the stress test of reality."

Por cierto, ¿han visto uds en la prensa española algo referente a esto? Si sí, me lo dicen, y me como la lengua.