Contrary to popular belief, the European Union (EU) does not have an official flag, only a symbol or a logo. Politicians pulling the strings of those who were drafting the Lisbon treaty prevented it from becoming a theoretical justified reality, but why doesn’t the EU have a flag?

After the turbulent years in which two founding countries’ citizens struck down the constitutional dream of many Europeans, federalist fears are perhaps a partial answer. On request of the Dutch politicians, the treaty stuck to the old terminology of a ‘logo’, yet if a flag is perceived as a flag, then why all the hassle?

Hassle as symbolism; dread to be seen as all too European when voters would return to vote for the next government, because the European Union is the bringer of evil – costly, bureaucratic and a threat to national identity. No matter that the Lisbon Treaty leaves no doubt about the perseverance of cultures, languages and the likes, no matter that the EU’s budget is only a fraction of the combined national budget of its 27 member states. In Europe, what counts is public perception, and from that a broader lesson about public acceptation, integration and legitimacy needs to be drawn.

Symbolism & Democracy: Where they meet

The terminology of flag and anthem were present in the original form of the Constitution of the European Union. But when, in 2005, voters in the Netherlands and France presented the EU with a blatant refusal to ratify the document, these ‘nation state building’ entities disappeared from the binding parts of its successor. Yet this did not stop sixteen of the twenty seven countries recommitting themselves, in declaration 52 of the Treaty of Lisbon document, to the starred flag as their symbol, the ‘Ode to Joy (Beethoven) as their anthem.

This is a classic act of symbolic politics. Nothing noteworthy is being changed, but the story can be sold in national parliaments. This is hardly an exaggeration, for after the Treaty of Lisbon was ratified, the Dutch Parliament requested a more ‘readable version of the Treaty’. Ponder a second over what this might mean: Symbol or logo would become..? What about High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy? Common sense would probably allow replacing them with ‘flag’ and ‘foreign minister’ respectively.

Herein a crucial link can be found with the EU’s perceived ‘democratic deficit’. This, too, is something associated with the EU time and again. Moreover, it is almost hard not to stumble over these two words: You’ll find them in practically all books about the European Union’s political system. Both of these things – the flag and the deficit – are, well not two sides of the same coin, but close relatives at least. They point to a subjective fact: The absence of public, an audience. This public could be anything, from people identifying themselves as European citizens (like myself) or people with just an air of interest in what happens in Brussels. But when the absence of an audience is your problem, you’re struggling with a metaphysical ghost.

This problem, in turn, mystifies the European institutions. It creates a veil that makes it both hard to see and know what “Brussels is all about” or even more sceptical in the words of J. Clive-Matthews ‘Why no one understands the EU’[1]. Understanding the EU is a daunting task in comparison to member states, with which most citizens are familiar. The process of explanation, however, is much the same. Description of what happens, where and why must take precedence if one wants to come up with a general view of the nature of the European Union (i.e. an intergovernmental organization, a federation or simply an international organization).

This lack of transparency does not, however, have anything to do with the European institutions, or at least not any more. Political deliberations and voting procedures in the Council of the European Union (more generally known as the Council of Ministers) are broadcast on the internet, albeit at the cost that horse trading has simply moved to the hall ways. But alas, symbolism is everything these days and at least our means to attain insights have increased. The Commission has a well trained, highly educated administration that posts more on the internet than the average citizens dares to dream of reading, not to mention the renewed and invigorated use of the social media by Brussels’ officials. And the European Parliament, enriched with ever more areas of co-decision, is supposed to be the body to connect to the European citizen. That this has proved no mean feat has become clear, but we can at least admit that some MEP’s do not avoid the spotlight.

Just as we will not find out why the EU’s functioning seem opaque by looking at the system; we are not going to do away with the ‘democratic deficit’ by an increase in direct electoral procedures, and so long as that deficit remains a vibrant force in the air, the symbolism of EU politics will remain intact. Acquiring new legitimacy cannot be achieved by raising sequences of ink to life in the European Council’s treaty initiatives: That is a lesson that must be learned from history.

This points to a common source, an area in which the European Union has failed to do what it had hoped to do, although not for a lack of trying. What Brussels needs is the eye, ear, nose and feeling of this continent’s inhabitants. You can only lead the horse to water; the senses must be trained to find Brussels, not the other way around.

In the 50’s and 60’s, time was on our side. The prospect of peace and prosperity, and – more politically internal than in the hearts of the people – forecasts of Europe as a politically and economically united body kept hope alive. And to be fair, a lot of notable things have been achieved, not in the least the visa and passport free travelling and the Euro. Sadly, both have shown their downsides in public perception in the past few years. Most of us will remember the deportation of Roma-people from France, which caused an outrage, and no one needs reminding of Greece’s financial bail-out.

Resentment, then, was the Eurocrats’ award, a reassessment of loyalties the consequences. Yet resentment is an emotional factor much better at motivating people to get involved and be heard. That is something all European politician need to realize or have realized by know. Emotion is powerful, and if you learn how to play, power. Politicians all want to say what they think, but they don’t (nearly) always do so – even Thatcher met her political end by enraging party members who thought they’d risk ‘exclusion’ thanks to Britain’s reluctant cooperative stance. As Marx turned Hegel on his head, the EU needs to turn its perception on its head.

Make yourself known

The scandal evolving out of the Roma deportation; MEP’s blocking a deal with the USA over privacy; and more frequent gatherings of the European Council: A touch of glamour and a reminder that interests are at stake. Such things all do well in mobilizing the press and diverting people’s attention to the European political scene. There is nothing inherently wrong with the European Union; there is something wrong with the presentation of what it deals with. If people are to identify themselves even remotely as citizens of the EU, relevance, fascination and importance must be pillars on which this identification is built.

Anonymity is the worst of all current alternatives. In the words of Oscar Wilde, ‘the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about’.  There is no need for all EU citizens to be united in support or opposition – even for some member states that is an ideal, not a reality. There is only the need to make people realize that what gets decided in Brussels affects us all. There are plenty of ways in which this can be done – or at least be tried. The social media are not in the least a new way to bolster practically any image, and many Eurocrats are already in on this game. Euronews and other forms of media underwrite that worrying about ‘being talked about´ is not a fiction.

In that sense, the European Union logo can teach us a lesson or two. The success of a political union does not depend on politicians alone. Yes, they might shove the occasional unwanted legislation down our throats, but they will pay the price in steep poll dives. Our personal identification with the “European arena” is going to be decisive, so if the EU wants to be accepted, it will have to sneak into the reality as perceived by you and me – it will need to be seen as a given fact by recreating itself, going from basic symbolism to important sphere, going from logo to flag.

[1] http://www.jcm.org.uk/blog/2010/03/why-no-one-understands-the-eu/