THE EUROPEAN CONSTITUTION AS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A FULFILLED EUROPEAN CITIZENSHIP

After the events occurred in Europe in 1989, the content of the concept regarding the European citizenship, the civic participation and of involvement within the community’s life became one of the most investigated and controversial. The technical introduction of the concept generically entitled European Citizenship took place at Maastricht in 1992, on the occasion of the adoption of the EU Treaty. According to this historical document, any citizen of each Member State is considered also a citizen of the European Union. The stated goal of such a concept was to consolidate a new European identity through a more active involvement of citizens in the integration process.

We should remind that in the antique Greece, the concept of citizenship already brought together three elements: membership, participation and identity. The membership (affiliation), defined as the pasive meaning of the citizen status, was doubled in an ctive way by the participation of each one to the common welfare and of the destinity of the polis. At an axiological level, the first two elements led to an identity. The Athenian from the V^th century was proud by his culture and his political constitution. However, he was perceiving his identity only as a member of the so-called “political community”. It is clear that the polis was the prime entity to which he was constrained to relate himself. Beginning with the XVII^th century, the European thinkers of the natural law succeded to disseminate a new theoretical vision on citizenship, which conducted to the rethinking, at all levels, of the individual’s role within the society. Finally, in the modern era, various perspectives on citizenship, from the liberal to the communitarian extreme, were developed and disseminated.

Of course, the Maastricht Treaty stage was rather a legal confirmation of various historic ambitions, hopes and visions developed throughout the centuries. Unfortunately, this opening process towards, on the one hand, a common framework for solving the relation between action, responsibility and political representation for all Europeans, and on the other hand, a common guiding set of reasons, principles and values, happened in a context of an axiological crisis, moral confusion and institutional delegitimization. In that time, following Prof. Pier Paolo Donati, we could say that the entire post-modern approach on citizenship, and on re-thinking the representation of citizenship, reached a cross-road: either

-we should accept the loss of “humanistic” contents of the citizenship, through an abandonment of any idea of emancipation/liberation; or

-we still hope in new forms of symbolic mediation of our experience, aimed to conciliate the consideration given to individual peculiarities with the recognition of a common essential condition.

In such a context, the development of the European post-modern citizenship would depend of the recognition and managing of the differences of perception, representation and assuming of the qualitative dimension conferred by this one. However, as we could see, the main philosophical limit of such a perspective is given by the absence of a harmonization of the proposal for a “social ecology” (a more social Europe) related to the new context provided by the enlarging and correspondent reform of the European Union. As a consequence, the need for an alternative to the currently developed forms of citizenship is represented by conciliation with the present development cycle, as well as by a surpassing of the current insufficiencies or forms of “democratic deficit” within the institutional and decision-making framework.

Beginning with the addition of civil rights stipulated by the Amsterdam Treaty, the European Union appeared to make a lot of efforts in order to fulfill a closer and coherent construction towards its subjects, the European citizens. These efforts were mainly directed to a legalistic and instrumentalist approach, aimed to correct in some way the previous neo-functionalistic and pro-Single Market attitude on the European Community.

In this line, the recent adoption of the Constitutional Treaty would have the merit to provide supplementary guarantees in order to avoid any type of discrimination in both the public and the private life. Of course, a variety of critiques were formulated regarding such a so-called “minimalistic approach” on the expression of fundamental rights of the European citizens. For example, according to Jurgen Habermas, a simple limitation of the sources of discrimination would not be able to regenerate the acting substance of the public space, and neither to provide strong motivations and complexity of the “private” and of the “intimate” spheres of the Europeans’ lives. Nevertheless, we could not claim from the European Constitution to mediate between individuals and society or to refashion by itself the current public space and the acting forms of assuming the European citizenship. In this respect, there is still a strong need to re-think and provide clear and strong educational fundaments in order to guide the future citizens of a fully united Europe.

Such reforming goals still seem part of a too visionary and long-term perspective related to the current EU decision-making and leadership realities. In the same time, at this stage, a sudden and artificial passage to a so-called “deliberative democracy” (cf. J. P. Rosanvallon) seems unrealistic or simply hypocritical, as there is still a profound need for a deep expression and implementation of an increased degree of autonomy, initiative and responsibilities at both community and individual levels. In practice, this means that a real federalist change of EU approach should not consist in a purely bureaucratic and/or re-centralising orientation represented by a “reformed European Commission”.

As a first conclusion, I would say that the adoption of a satisfactory text of the European Constitution has to make a clear step in favour of implementing and guaranteeing the principles of the unity in diversity, of an enlarged meaning of a European solidarity and of subsidiarity. Certainly, in order to fulfill such a step and to inspire the needed active citizenship able to implement such a revolutionary transformation, Europe would need to be involved in a real “collective adventure” (cf. Jacques Delors). This would mean that for a majority of European citizens, their participation to such a collective adventure has to be based on their membership to a new collective identity, founded on a cohesive reality, composed from the connected values of freedom, solidarity and responsibility.

For the first time in European Union’s history, within the works of the Convention on the Future of Europe, the European Commission was entitled to open a channel of consultation with the European NGO networks and platforms, and citizens, including SEE representatives, aimed to give a stronger civil support to the Convention achievements. The advocacy campaign aimed to enlarge and technically formalised extended fundamental rights for EU citizens succeeded to generate and important opinion trend, supporting the introduction of an institutionalised mechanism of permanent and compulsory consultation of EU institutions with the European NGO sector. Until now, such a global objective was not enforced within the voted version of the Constitutional Treaty. As a plus, the main involved NGO platforms and networks, as for example, the Civil Society Contact Group (trough the Act4Europe Campaign), the Eurostep and the European Citizens Network Europe Now! or ECAS are still disillusioned with the existing results and propose to European citizens to ask some radical reforms (cf. the Call of the Civil Society Contact Group to IGC):

- ensure adequate policies that can guarantee full and inclusive observance of the Charter of Fundamental Rights by member states and at EU level;

- ensure that implementation of the principles contained in the Charter and their justiciability, from a positive obligation for Member States instead of being left to their discretion as implied in article II-52(5);

- ensure adequate policies to pursue a more effective human rights policy across the full spectrum of civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights, as an indispensable part of all the EU's external relations;

- ensure accession by the EU not only to the ECHR but also to the European Social Charter and to other international human rights instruments, for full EU accountability under international law.

Such a large participation to the decision-making process of NGOs (through the implementation of the open method of co-ordination), and the contribution of their radical spirit of reforms are supposed to trespass the utilitarian-consumerist relationship between the EU institutions and its citizens, fulfilling a so-called citizenisation of the new European governance – re-centering of the EU policies around the needs of the European citizens (cf. Jo Shaw). However, the involvement of European NGOs may not succeed to accomplish a deep and strong connection between their claims and the need of fulfilling the inspiring substance of the European Idea. A simple transfer of responsibility from Member States to new more autonomous structures of representation would not be able to solve the present conflict between the need for a stronger identity and pressure towards a global openness. Also, a stronger power for the various NGO networks, generally focused on social entitlements, would not succeed to remove the false dilemmas and partisan conflicts between the various ideological legitimateness.

According to last research, it is still a problem of harmonisation between the social subjectivity and citizenship. The modern meaning of citizenship ceased to involve the need of expression of the new social subjectivity. In the new post-modern conditions, the citizens – as social subjects – are supposed to develop new ways of social action, aimed to go beyond the previous ones: protests, civil claim, lamentation or civil disobedience. Through an active citizenship, it is expected that the individual and common social subjects assume more and more new responsibilities of both legal and social type, based on the principle of reciprocity between citizens and institutions.

For our region, due to a heavy historic past, it is obvious that the fostering at large scale of such a new concept of citizenship, and of its practical expression represents an even longer and more difficult process. It is essential that such a change of attitude has to be based on an intercultural education perspective. According to a study of the German Commission of UNESCO from 1977, the education should try to work out a model of moral learning, which is based on a process to a more common, more reflexive and more differentiated form of inter-changeable recognition. The pluralism of morals may be enrichment in the person’s learning process of morals.

Following the analytical approach proposed by the Prof. Maria Todorova in order to re-design the SEE histories, we first need to submit all previous ways of presenting these cultures/histories to a multicultural and relativist examination. Such process is needed itself for criticizing the still persistent racist-purist perceptions, and reflect the real source of conflict affecting the SEE histories: the natural ethnic (and cultural) complexity within the Nation-State.

The rights of various national and confessional minorities within the redraw of SEE educational systems is the greatest challenge to addressing diversity in the educational system. For educators, a focus will be the challenge of accommodating specific education for minorities, on one side and, on the other side, to foster co-operation between various communities/ regions.

According to the results of a collection of studies coordinated by Jan Karel Koppen, Ingrid Lunt and Cristoph Wulf and used within our White Paper on teaching national histories, edited by EUROLINK – House of Europe, the history of the SEE region should much better integrate and explore the European dimension within the teaching perspective, its specific relevance for SEE history, mainly using:

§ the inter-connection between various historical issues, common for various European regions, or affecting the SEE region;

§ study-cases attached to the European influence and mutual inter-action of historical events or phenomena;

§ connections and inter-cultural connections ( see the possibilities offered by the Programme of the Council of Europe "Cultural Itineraries" and an extension of the classes of patrimony);

§ the new accent provided by the multi-perspective when focusing common, cross-border or European historical facts, events, mentalities etc.;

§ a new spirit for integrating the history curricula within the social and civic education educational perspective.

The link from the teaching of history and the education for an active citizenship is quite strong. Under such frame, the recollecting of various materials and local/regional memories through the archives’ research, the pedagogical use of as much sources and the social stress of the scholar archives are more and more used and recommended. The community itself has to be stimulated to reconsider and re-evaluate old abandoned maps, cultural artifacts and various images in order to be better integrated within the cultural patrimony of the entire community.

For the SEE region as a whole, the issue of fulfilling a new “sovereignty of the citizen” through the model of the active European citizenship is more problematic and does not represent a mere matter of educational orientation/methods. On the other hand, there is no need for substitution of the Nation-State by a new EU-type political system, even weaker as capacity to ensure the collective needs of identitarian representation.

Nevertheless, the necessity of an identitarian and political affiliation of SEE citizens, in general terms, continues to influence perceptions, attitudes and actions. Furthermore, according to Pierre Hasner, this necessity is more and more oriented not only to the national level, but also towards a “supreme community, superior to other collective forms of representation”. This paradoxical situation is mainly generated by the maintenance of a sharp conflict between a strong need of a consistent identity (having historical roots and justification) and the awareness of the challenge of globalisation in their lives.

There is still a gap between collective expectations and the concrete experience of civil society, more exactly, of its capacity to provide an efficient alternative to social conflicts and crisis. In front of the SEE civil societies there are still great defies, as for example, the increasing phenomena of social exclusion, and mainly, the return of ethno-centric feelings, as defined by Sir Ralf Dahrendorf. A deeper opportunity to go across over these obstacles, sources and conflict and frustrations would be to encourage the SEE civil societies to more seriously consider the social relations, orienting its citizens to behave as “solidarian citizens”, which finally would mean the decisive passage from a state of obedient citizens to a society of solidarian citizens.