Parliamentary Assembly

Thank you, Mr President, for your kind words. We shall talk about statistics later, in private, to try and put the record straight and to bring the figures you cited up to date.

As to the problem which concerns you – which concerns us all – I believe it is symptomatic or, better still, symbolic that one of the first subjects broached by us in this magnificant new Assembly hall is the development of democratic institutions. There is no theme that could be more appropriate for the inauguration of your new premises, for a new beginning and a fresh start.

For me it is a rather daunting task to speak in this debate, not only because the subject is of such vital importance, but also because it was dealt with very thoroughly at the Conference on the Development of Democratic Institutions in Europe held in April 1976.

Every facet of the problem was examined at that conference which I did not have the advantage of attending and which was held in the presence of Rapporteurs renowned in the academic world. My colleague and friend, Dr Gerald FitzGerald, was much wiser than I. He preferred to make his splendid statement at the very beginning of your work, before taking part in it.

If I have nevertheless agreed to risk contributing to your discussions and participating in the debate, it is because I became aware, on reading through the report of the conference deliberations, that not all the questions have been answered and that there still exist some differences of opinion.

I hope that the brief comments of a modest practical politician at national and international level, like all of you present here, Ladies and Gentlemen, may help to shed a little light on some aspects of the problem.

In making these comments it is only natural and prudent that I should, on the one hand, keep to more general considerations and on the other, concentrate on the specific experiences of the European Community with which I am better acquainted after nearly eleven years as a member of the European Parliament and more than eight years of participation in the work of the Council of Ministers.

I shall now put my first question which, though it may shock some, is a fundamental one: is it worth defending and propagating existing democratic institutions as we know them? Without attempting to give a complete definition of what I mean by such institutions, I would like to emphasise the two aspects, and the only two, which seem to me to constitute their essential characteristics.

One is participation by citizens in the administration of public affairs, direct participation and more generally through the intermediary of free elections, and the other respect for fundamental rights and liberties.

There are only about thirty democracies left in the world, at least if we are thinking of those that function as parliamentary democracies, and most of them, at least as regards the number of countries, are represented in this Assembly. It is worth remembering these facts, for we note that almost all countries, outside this Assembly and apart from the parliamentary democracies, subscribe, at least on paper, to democratic principles, even to respect for human rights, and go through the motions of representing the people.

Such emulation, however superficial, tells us more about the excellence of our system than any theoretical proof. The very fact that even a pretence of democracy is more or less proudly proclaimed should encourage us. But it would be wrong to see in this a reason for pride. Democracy as we see it is, in fact, a complex system: it would today appear to be a product of luxury, one which necessitates an elementary level of economic development, social development and, let us say frankly, cultural development, if it is to work.

Personally I understand very well that young states facing the very serious and weighty problems of underdevelopment prefer, during the first stages, to use their meagre supply of educated people capable of serving the public in a way which seems to them less costly. The one-party system, in particular, would seem to ensure greater cohesion at the outset and to allow the forces which in a democratic system would be largely absorbed by the pluralist dialectics inherent in parliamentary democracy to be used for productive tasks.

In these developing countries there are certainly misguided leaders who are attracted by the mirage of absolute power rather than by concern for efficiency. But I am convinced, and I have often spoken of this to leaders and friends in Africa, Asia and Latin America, that most of these leaders see the future of their country in terms of freedom and democracy. For them, for the many countries which aspire to more freedom, to democracy, it is vital that there should exist, at least in the countries which can afford it, in other words in our countries, a vigorous example of democracy which can today and particularly tomorrow serve them as a model.

What is essential is that we should show our solidarity with them. There are those that ask themselves: do we wish, indeed is it in our interests, to propagate our system? My reply is: yes, we do want to propagate our democratic system in the world because we are firmly convinced that it is the best possible system, that it is an ideal worth sharing with others. But if we remain passive and indifferent, doubts may arise, doubts which will inevitably strengthen the influence of systems whose ideology we oppose and which are, let me remind you, both totalitarian and tentacular.

But if it is our legitimate ambition to export democracy, we must in the very first place do our share towards creating the necessary conditions for its survival, in other words we must give effective assistance to the development of the countries of the third world.

I hope, Mr President, that the events of recent years in the world in the economic sphere, will have rid us all of any illusion that our countries will for long be able to continue to form an island of riches indifferent to the sea of misery which surrounds it.

As regards our democratic institutions, the preparatory conference held by you last year and the debate held in the Assembly grasped the nettle by the root. You spoke of information, of pressure groups and other extra-parliamentary forces. I cannot claim to touch on all these aspects. I therefore propose, with your permission, to concentrate on the actual working of these institutions.

I was struck by a chapter heading in the information report submitted to your Assembly which reads: “Control of the government by parliament”.

Allow me to say – and here I may be laying myself open to attack – that this formulation seems to me to reveal a state of mind which places parliament possibly above, possibly below the actual exercise of power in the state, but certainly outside and far away from the exercise of such power. To me this is – and here I mean to shock – either too much or too little.

To speak of parliamentary control in a sceptical analysis would be to exaggerate. And in this connection, it is surely true that after the elections which are held in most of our countries every four, five or six years, a majority party is formed, if all goes well; thereupon the party leaders nominate the members of governments. These are then more or less automatically approved by parliament – for this read “given majority approval” – and this same parliament then enacts the budgets and laws proposed to it by the government.

In such cases, some parliaments – and unfortunately there are some! – are reduced to a very minor role, and frequently it is the party leaders who decide to dissolve a government even before parliament has had its say.

If, on the other hand, we go to the heart of the matter, this formulation says too little. The elected representatives of the peoples are, by virtue of this fact, the ones in whom power is legitimately vested. They themselves cannot govern – that is well understood – they cannot, in other words, exercise daily power, because many functions can only be exercised at government level in our countries by a relatively restricted circle able to deal with matters in detail and, I am sure you will agree, able to use the necessary discretion and at the same time take rapid decisions.

The basic aspiration, the definition of the bold outline and vigilance to ensure respect for the basic principles must and will, however, always remain a parliamentary prerogative. Only if we safeguard or finally return to real participation by the parliaments in the exercise of power will our democracies remain viable in the medium term and above all in the long term.

As for me, I believe such participation in power to be essential, not only at parliamentary level but also at other, lower levels. It matters greatly that the many authorities which decide the more or less important aspects of our future should be under the direct or indirect control of the persons affected by them.

Decentralisation may be horizontal, and here the Council of Europe has been such a pioneer that it is superfluous to emphasise the impact of local authorities, whether regional or municipal. A newer phenomenon, on the other hand, is the growing ascendance of numerous groupings representing professional or occupational interests, be they trade unions or the organisations of agricultural, industrial, crafts and other bodies.

Like you I welcome this development which makes it easier for each individual to have his say on subjects which are of immediate concern to him, provided always – and it should still be possible to emphasise this – that these groupings are not merely massive ones which can be manipulated by more or less ambitious persons, but are truly democratic both as regards representativity and the way they work. We must draw the line somewhere. These special groupings must be under the control of public authorities, the only bodies whose activities are dictated by the public interest.

Mr President, the report submitted to your Assembly gives a prominent place to information and particularly to the difficult question of assistance to the press. To my mind these questions go right to the heart of the matter. It is useless to expect our populations to show an interest in our democratic institutions if they do not know about them, that is to say if the necessary, indeed essential, information, is lacking.

As we all know, it is only thanks to the existence of the press, and of a many-sided press at that, that it is possible to make sufficient information available.

My country, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, is more or less ideally situated geographically for receiving a large number of television channels. I think I am right in saying that out of eight channels, only one – Radio Luxembourg – is private, that is to say commercial.

This privileged geographical position gives us access to an exceptionally varied national coverage and adds or appears to add to the mass of information available to us.

However, there are two features of television which, by contrast, spotlight the essential qualities inherent in the press. In the first place, by its very nature, television has to cover the entire country, to show in a more or less monopolistic fashion a comprehensive point of view which cannot take account of the great variety within each country. This is a weakness. Moreover, its technique is that of the “quick shot” which does not lend itself to treatment in depth, to reflection or to serious commentaries on cause and effect.

To me this proves the absolute need to safeguard the existence in all our countries of numerous national daily and local papers, which are independent and attractive and which together provide, in addition to audio-visual media, the data basis essential for the proper functioning of democratic institutions.

The participation, on which I would once again insist, of European men and women in the life of their democratic institutions and above all the active participation of their elected representatives in parliament is particularly necessary for our Europe. Speaking, if I may so put it, to the oldest, or should I say “senior”, European parliamentary assembly, in which the greatest number of countries are represented, I would like to emphasise the contribution made by your Assembly – as by other European assemblies – to the building of Europe.

Mr President, although your Assembly has only what are known as consultative powers, its views, inspired as they are by the interests of Europe as a whole, have always been of the greatest use to governments, and several of the Council’s greatest achievements are due to initiatives taken by you.

What else can I say, having had the honour of being a member of this Assembly for so brief a period?

Tomorrow the discussion between parliamentarians and Ministers will enable us to enter again into a dialogue which will I hope prove stimulating, at least at government level.

However, Mr President, fresh progress needs to be made at the level of European parliamentary government as a whole. A first step in the right direction has just been taken with the decision to hold elections by direct and universal suffrage for our European Community. Although this decision at present affects only nine of the countries represented here, I am sure, Mr President, that you will not object to my devoting part of my speech to this subject.

I cannot hide my extreme astonishment at the stir and the interminable, almost theological discussions, provoked by the concept of the European election in some countries, throughout its development and elaboration and particularly once the decision had been taken.

Honestly, Ladies and Gentlemen, what is so strange about wanting to implement – nearly eighteen years later – an undertaking freely contracted by an international treaty recognised by all the parliaments of the member countries of the Community? And which, moreover, is to be implemented in such a way as to give national authorities more leeway than originally provided for. I can only hope that this debate will serve the cause of Europe, at least by drawing attention to these European elections.

To my mind, there are two main questions.

First we must know whether we want Europe. Personally, my answer is yes, and my conviction is based on a simple fact. In the world of today the balance of power and relationships are such that there is not a single European country, unfortunately indeed not a single European country, which can, by its own efforts, preserve more than the semblance of an entirely separate identity and sovereignty. (Applause)

Of course I admit that it is easier for the representative of a small country to admit this than it is for those who feel able to assure the great or indeed the smaller destinies of Europe.

Nonetheless, Ladies and Gentlemen, facts are such that only a united Europe – please allow me to say this – will be able to ensure the survival of our moral and material resources and to guarantee that diversity which is the source of the unique originality of our countries.

Each country may fairly claim to put forward a policy for Europe, to propose basic changes in society if it considers them necessary. But to insist on a free hand in order to go it entirely alone is, in my humble opinion, to fall a prey to dangerous illusions, and in particular to run the very serious risk of achieving nothing at national level while blocking all action at European level.

The ritualised appeal for national sovereignty or more precisely for sovereignty which is exclusively national, based on reasoning which though very attractive sounds dangerously like a petitio principii, will make not the slightest difference to the realities of the 20th century.

Our nations which make up the Community will only be able to expand fully within a Europe as a Community, and this community will also need sovereignty if it is to live. It is no longer a question of accepting a European Europe, as described to us quite a few years ago, but of knowing whether we want it to be truly democratic. My reply, and I imagine yours to be the same, is in the affirmative. And this necessitates progress in the democratic process at European level.

At present, the Ministers who take decisions jointly are only responsible individually, and only to their national parliament. How can one, how can you, how can I approve this immobility in the absence of coherent guidelines? Is it even fair to reproach any one of the national Ministers when decisions necessitate the co-operation of his eight colleagues, since essential decisions must be taken unanimously.

Frankly, it is more and more obvious that even the European Council, that is to say a Council at head of state and government level, is loath to take decisions, and thus we gradually slide – this is so whether we like it or not – towards a Europe which is no longer guided, but simply administered or managed.

I hope that the new Commission at least will take on the role assigned it by the Treaties of forming and proposing concepts, thus confronting the governments fairly and squarely with their responsibilities. An elected Parliament, in the full assurance of its democratic legitimacy and sensitive to the common interest, will I believe be able to provide a new stimulus. The pressure of the electors will give Europe a chance to get its second wind. So many ambitious plans have been set aside in recent years. Take for instance the question of economic and monetary union or, more recently the fate reserved by the last European committee for Mr Tindemans’s report!

We simply must get out of the rut. European elections are if not the last at least the only chance, however uncertain, of achieving this.

Already political parties are being constituted on a European scale. The political groups formed in your Assembly and in the European Parliament have proved that ideological affinities can and must overcome national barriers. In this respect I am an optimist, and I am waiting to see the originatory constituent join or return – through the intermediary of European political parties – to the political scene from which he has too long been absent. Is it not precisely the individual voter who is represented by each one of us here and for whom we should work? And I hope that those opposed to direct elections will, as good democrats, play their part in future within the system and accept the rules so that the options available to the European voter are made perfectly clear.

What of the powers of the elected Parliament? Its present means and those provided for in the budget will give the Parliament an important place in the European Community. However at present parliaments are excluded, as you know better than anyone, from numerous areas for which they are not responsible at international level and which have for a long time evaded national parliamentary control. As parliamentarians you will agree that such a situation is unhealthy, one which we should long ago have done something about, and one which is of serious concern to us.

It is true, Mr President, that the question of an increase in powers does not arise at present and will not do so before the election. It would therefore be useless to attempt to discuss it and possibly to prejudge it.

Knowing as I do my parliamentary colleagues and also because of my own European parliamentary experience, I am convinced that this problem will be raised at the right moment. At that moment the main obstacle, continually invoked, to a genuine extension of the powers of a European Parliament, namely inadequate legislation or democratic legitimacy, will disappear. It will be possible to have a discussion on a sound basis. It will then be up to every government of the Community to shoulder its responsibilities anew. I share with you, Ladies and

Gentlemen, you who have been nominated by your national parliaments, the conviction that nomination at one remove is by no means a blot on a democratic European mandate and can never be so in an interparliamentary assembly.

Nevertheless, as direct election makes it possible to brush aside peremptorily any such groundless question or discussion, our common concern for our common European cause leads us, you as well as me, to consider it – or so I hope – a great step forward.

As for the powers of Parliament – and how could one speak of the development of our parliaments without speaking of their powers – I feel that a word of caution may not come amiss at the end of this brief statement: from now on, whatever the aim pursued and however impatient those who have waited too long – I count myself among them – it would be dangerous to try and suddenly upset the balance of existing institutions. For a long time to come, the main powers at European level will be in the hands of national governments. This should not change too rapidly. The elected Parliament would fail in its task if it attempted a brusque and ill-timed entry into politics, seeking a confrontation with the executive merely for the sake of confrontation. Only a proper balance – the basis of our parliamentary democracy – which will gradually become established and can adapt continuously, will enable it to justify the hopes placed in it by convinced Europeans. It is precisely this balance we have hitherto lacked.

Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen, you who are members of the Assembly of the Council of Europe, still a consultative one although it has decided to call itself by a different name, you know from long experience that moderation and patient discussions more often lead to results than forced votes. For parliamentarians elected within the European Community who are to share a new experience the lessons culled from the history of the first of the European parliamentary assemblies will always be useful.

Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen, you will forgive me for having spoken at such length on problems which, some may say, concern above all the other European organisation, which I do not wish to call a rival, but rather a complement of your own organisation. If I have done so, it is because the nine member countries of the European Community all belong to the Council of Europe. We are all in the same boat. Certainly some of us may move faster and go farther than others. But I persist in believing that we are all heading in the same direction, and not as rivals. I am sincerely convinced that every move to strengthen, every attempt to democratise, the Community today known as that of the Nine is also in the interests of a wider Europe, that of the Council and thus, to put it simply, of democracy. The Council of Europe in turn, thanks to experience accumulated over nearly thirty years and thanks to the wealth and diversity of opinions prevailing among its large membership, has a particularly useful role to play as guide and counsellor.

It is in this spirit, Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen, that I conceive of co-operation between the European organisations in the interest of a more vital Europe and of the consolidation of the principles of liberty and democracy which are the justification of your work and ours. (Applause)