Winning the battle for hearts and minds

By Giovanni Grevi

Date: 17/02/05

NATIONAL politicians, whether supporting the 'Yes' or 'No' vote in constitution referendum campaigns, tend to be overly influenced by domestic political debates. They respond to the perceived concerns of public opinion in a rather slavish way.

To an extent, any strategy to win the campaign has to be a 'national' strategy. There is no one-size-fits-all solution. And it does not have to be a defensive strategy.

But a defensive approach seems to characterise the campaigns for or against constitutional treaties in countries as diverse as the Netherlands, France and the UK.

Constitution supporters argue that the new rules would not upset the social model, would not open the floodgates to uncontrolled immigration. In short, they argue that not much is going to change. This is not exactly a winning slogan for rallying popular support behind the constitution.

Detractors, on the other hand, stress the dangers that citizens would face were the new text to be ratified. Depending on the country in question, the threats are perceived as unfettered liberalisation, floods of migrant workers, or the extinction of national sovereignty.

One assumption seems to be shared by both sides. Most campaigners agree that the constitution cannot win hearts and minds. The name of the game is damage-limitation, although, of course, that means different things to the two camps. It is time to challenge that assumption and take citizens seriously.

It is not easy to sell a complicated set of norms during a fierce political campaign. A simultaneously supranational, transnational and intergovernmental constitution is difficult to digest. But herein lies the rub: the text deserves support not for legal innovation, but because it is a powerful political statement, future-oriented and rich in possibilities. It lays the foundation for a political project, to be defined further through democratic debate at national and European level. In this sense, it opens new perspectives for citizens to play a role in the European project and for Europe to play a role in the world.

One undeniable achievement of the constitution is to create potential for action in foreign affairs. The institutional innovations envisaged by the new text are unprecedented and could improve the ability of the Union to play a decisive role in the world. Citizens would welcome what their nations can do together, through the Union, to improve the state of global governance, including security, the environment and poverty eradication. Such an ambitious perspective could win hearts and minds.

Supporters of the constitutional treaty should use the natural propensity of European citizens to back effective and just global governance to make a proactive case for the constitution.

While not perfect, the new provisions go a long way towards empowering the Union to do more. The new position of European foreign minister, a European diplomatic service, closer co-operation to develop the capabilities needed in the area of crisis management and humanitarian intervention are examples.

Some critics say that these innovations pose a direct threat to national identities and powers. Others play them down as little more than business as usual. The referendum campaign, however, offers a brilliant opportunity to tell citizens that they need not choose between national sovereignty and the tasks of the Union.

They should be persuaded that they can be proud of the contribution of their countries towards the achievement of common goals.

In exceptional circumstances, the veto, or simply abstention, would always be available as an emergency brake. There is no plot to pre-empt national interests but rather a springboard for building consensus.

Ultimately, citizens should be asked to choose between being part of something bigger, worthwhile and effective on the one hand, or spending the coming decades as passive recipients of whatever global developments deliver. When the difference is between deciding and having things decided for you, when it comes to issues of security, justice and development, there is no reason to believe that citizens will not make up their minds and vote 'Yes'.

• Giovanni Grevi is associate director of studies at the European Policy Centre. He writes here in a personal capacity.

The author, who is Associate Director of Studies at the European Policy Centre, suggests that national politicians, whether supporting the 'Yes' or 'No' vote in constitution referendum campaigns, tended to be overly influenced by domestic political debates.