A CONMSTITUTION TO CREATE WHAT?:

Where's the Boeuf? (VINCENT TOURNIER, 5/27/05, NY Times)

WITH its project for a European Constitution, is Europe reliving the history of the United States? The Europeans take the comparison very seriously: they baptized the assembly charged with writing the document the "Convention," in imitation of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. The president of the Convention, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, even proposed "Federalist papers" on the model of those written by the founders of the American democracy.

Americans would no doubt be astonished by the comparison. Even a cursory look at the Constitutions drawn up by both Conventions demonstrates how far off Mr. Giscard is. In a few pages, the American Constitution established a foundation for the growth of democracy. In 450 pages, the European Constitution - which establishes power-sharing among European Union members, provides for a foreign minister and full-time president and states more precisely the functions of the union and the member states - enshrines a plethora of rules and regulations while ignoring the fundamental needs of democracy. [...]

The question that Europeans face today is whether a united Europe is more important than these democratic considerations. Some countries have said yes by approving the Constitution; in others, like France, opposition has been running strong. Certainly, factors having little to do with the Constitution have contributed to public hostility in this country, like the unpopularity of the government and the troubled economy. The European message is also muddled. For some, the union has not kept its promises, notably with the single currency, which was presented as a miracle remedy for economic problems. In addition, the union is founded on a contradiction (protecting itself from globalization while preaching the opening of markets and frontiers); there is also the uncertainty about integrating the new members from Eastern Europe and, eventually, Turkey.

So the French, understandably, regard the Constitution with distrust. Now, the French may have many defects, but they are also an old political people who have seen many constitutions come and go. It's an error to explain their reluctance simply as their traditional scorn, or worse, as a refusal of the idea of Europe. They are expressing a genuine unease that is founded in a Constitution whose flaws are admitted even by its supporters. By voting no, the French will not topple Europe - the union will continue under its current rules - but they may provide the impetus for a Constitution that would be truly democratic and a truly historic document.

It's quite sensible for folks to want to emulate the example of the most successful society in history, but the Europeans are trying to have the form without the substance, the means without the ends.

Posted by Orrin Judd at May 27, 2005 9:24 AM