Zweierlei Demokratieverständnis
Vertreten die USA und Europa dieselben Werte?, fragt Lee A. Casey im Online-Journal “New Europe Review” und übt dabei Kritik am Demokratieverständnis der EU, das so ganz anders ist als in Übersee:
First and foremost, it enjoys the sole right to initiate legislation. The importance of this power cannot be overstated. The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (which represents the member states) play an essentially negative role in the EU lawmaking process. They may refuse to approve proposed measures, but it is the Commission that sets the agenda. By contrast, in the United States, the right to initiate legislation is vested, on the federal level, in the U.S. Congress, all of whose members are directly elected by the people. The President, who in practical terms also is popularly elected, is entitled to submit legislative proposals for Congress’ consideration, but cannot himself introduce a bill. Similar arrangements are followed in each of the fifty states, where elected legislatures enjoy the initiative in lawmaking, with more or less participation by elected state governors.
Moreover, the European Commission also serves as the EU’s collegial executive, with the power to “enforce” European law determining, at least in the first instance, whether member states have met their obligations under the applicable treaties. If a state does not then comply, the matter is referred to the European Court of Justice for decision. Again, in the United States, the elected President and state governors exercise the executive role, including the quasi-judicial function (at least by Civil Law standards) of determining in the first instance when laws have been violated, and then bringing cases to the courts for disposition.
This combination of legislative, executive and quasi-judicial authority, along with the very practical power of a well-entrenched bureaucracy in Brussels, begins to look uncomfortably like an older form of European governance – absolutism.
Ein unterschiedliches Rechtsverständnis zeigt sich gegenüber dem Internationalen Strafgerichtshof:
In any case, whatever the root causes of this trans-Atlantic democracy division, there is little doubt that European elites have been far more willing then their American counterparts to vest very substantial power in expert institutions that have no direct accountability to the electorate. Europe is, of course, entitled to its view and to its own institutions. However, as the EU proceeds to promote its model on the international level, conflict with the United States is inevitable. Indeed, this difference of opinion is one important reason why the United States and Europe have clashed over institutional issues in recent years, especially over the International Criminal Court (“ICC”) and, more generally, over the proper role of international law.
From the American perspective – a view broadly shared by both the Bush and Clinton Administrations – the newly established ICC exercises too much unchecked power. Although the court’s supporters are quick to claim that its basic principles (as outlined in the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court) have long been accepted by the international community at large, including the United States, the ICC is revolutionary. It represents the first genuine international institution of government enjoying both the power to authoritatively interpret critical aspects of international law (including the laws governing the use of military force), and to enforce its view through criminal prosecutions of individual citizens. (…)
Of course, vesting such important power in a super-national body caused far less concern in Europe than in the United States. As suggested above, Europe is far more willing to rely upon the good intentions of officials and experts, and one of the most common responses to American claims of unchecked ICC power has been that the court will control itself because it is staffed by highly trained professionals.
Diese Unterschiede sind nicht der Tagespolitik geschuldet, sondern Ausdruck verschiedener Weltbilder:
There is, of course, a temptation in Europe – and in certain American quarters – to consider the fundamental split over the ICC, as well as the 2003 Iraq War and a number of lesser issues, as the result of President George W. Bush’s policies and personality. In fact, the fundamentally different attitudes towards international law and institutions pre-dated Bush’s election in 2000. It was, for example, President Bill Clinton who first rejected the ICC treaty, specifically recommending to his successor that the instrument not be presented to the Senate for advice and consent because of the court’s fundamental flaws. Similarly, in 1999, when the Clinton Administration was determined to use NATO forces against Slobodan Milosevic’s Yugoslavia over Kosovo, well-founded European legal objections were simply dismissed by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. As reported by Mrs. Albright’s State Department spokesman, James Rubin, when British officials noted that their lawyers were objecting to the use of military force against Belgrade, she replied simply “get new lawyers.”
What really is at work here is not different styles, but different ways of seeing the world. Those who believe that a change in leadership in Washington will change things fundamentally in European-American relations are likely to be disappointed. Policymakers on both sides of the Atlantic would do well to accept this as a fact, and to consider ways in which Europe and America can nevertheless work together towards those many objectives that they do clearly continue to share.
Die Entzweiung sieht der Autor historisch begründet – ob Casey das fabelhafte Werk von Gertrude Himmelfarb gelesen hat? :
It is, of course, intriguing to consider where such fundamental differences over the basics of democracy originated. In part, the answer is surely historical. Both American and European democratic ideals arose from the Enlightenment, but from different periods of that epoch. Continental European democracy was born in the French Revolution and developed throughout the following century of revolution and counter-revolution. In 1789, it was Rousseau’s ideas of the feeling heart and faith in the inherent goodness of human nature that predominated. The key to justice and good government was to be found in humane and virtuous individuals – in highly educated experts.
By contrast, although the United States Constitution was drafted in 1787, only two years before Louis XVI summoned the Estates General, that document looked back to an earlier time when the inherent virtue of human nature was not taken for granted – or even taken very seriously. The American Founders deliberately attempted to “people-proof” the new republic’s government, so that it would be – in Alexander Hamilton’s much quoted phrase – “a machine that would go of itself.” As a result, and to this day, Americans celebrate virtue, but remain skeptical of its value as a reliable check on governmental power.
Sicherlich ist Casey anzukreiden, dass er die EU mit Europa gleichsetzt, anstatt Gemeinsamkeiten der einzelnen demokratischen Traditionen Europas herauszuarbeiten. Vieles von dem, was er an der EU kritisiert, ist auch aus Europa zu vernehmen. Seine Ausführungen sind jedoch insofern wertvoll, als sie das amerikanische Verständnis von Demokratie erhellen und deutlich machen, dass ein Regierungswechsel in den USA daran nichts grundlegend ändern wird. Mancher mag das für gut halten, mancher eben nicht.
Ähnliche Beiträge:
- Freiheit und Glück, April 28, 2008 | By Michael Kreutz
- Eurabien? – Von wegen!, November 27, 2006 | By Michael Kreutz
- WHEREAS…, February 3, 2006 | By Michael Kreutz
- Überraschender Gast beim Fastenbrechen, September 2, 2009 | By Martin Riexinger
- Amerikanische Verhältnisse, October 24, 2005 | By Michael Kreutz
- Ein lehrreicher Rückblick…, July 10, 2006 | By Martin Riexinger
- Freiheit, na und?, August 9, 2005 | By Michael Kreutz
- Obamas Wähler, November 9, 2008 | By Martin Riexinger
