The debate on the future of Finland and the European Union is plagued first and foremost by confusion and a lack of visions and enthusiasm. Considering that the European Union will get its first constitution within a year, the situation is awkward. The constitution is the EU’s historic chance. It is time for the union to be created anew, so that it can become a positive force in the attempts to solve the problems before which nation states stand helpless today.

If this is to happen, politicians and others should take seriously a basic truth. The question of how exactly the power will be shared within the EU is, in the long run, rather unimportant for the success of the EU and of Finland. Who gets and does not get their ”own” commissioner is therefore not particularly important. The important questions around the drafting of the EU constitution concern two things. First, identity, symbols, aims and values. Second, the quality and width of power.

During the course of history, these questions can be decisive for how we see us and others. They can decide who are to become our friends and who may become our competitors or enemies, and therefore they can also decide questions of war and peace.

Decisions on the quality of power will determine the kind of power the EU will have. The basic principle should be that the power of the EU is as democratic as possible. Only if the exercise of power by the EU is democratic can there be reason for us to make the powers wide. If the exercise of power involves a deterioration in the quality of the power, it is not in keeping with our democratic tradition if we give power from EU members to the EU for the sake of effectiveness. As all business executives know, effective exercise of power and democratic exercise of power need not be the same thing.

* * *

What is a constitution? It can be said that constitutions have four essential dimensions of meaning. I shall briefly comment on all of these.

(i) A constitution determines the nature of power and justice. It stands above all other laws and determines how laws are to be passed, the limits of the laws’ sphere of influence, and the aims of the laws. The constitution determines the conditions of the exercise of power by governments and courts, the powers and rights of citizens, and many other things.

(ii) Because of this, constitutions have a great relevance for our collective identity. They determine one part of the answers to such questions as: Who are we? What is typical of us? If the constitution is amended, so are we. Each one of us becomes a new person in a sense. This may sound like sorcery, and it is. Man as a linguistic and social being is shaped partly by how he uses his most common tool, language.

(iii) The more general sense of the noun constitution shows us a third aspect of the concept. When a constitution enters into force, it constitutes a new community. The classic example is the constitution of the United States of America. The U. S. nation was essentially born through a constitutive act, the adoption of the U. S. constitution. No constitution alone can decree a new political community, but the adoption of a constitution can be one of the most important steps towards the formation of the kind of sweeping, imaginary, collective identities which people in the modern world need in order to orient themselves and organize their life together.

(iv) We often talk of ”our” constitution. A constitution can be ”ours” in two different ways. It can be ours in the sense that it concerns us and that the state can decree sanctions for us if we do not follow it. It can also be ours in the more demanding sense that it is an expression of what we want; of the values, aims and forms of cooperation on which we have managed to agree. In a democratic state governed by law we expect the constitution to be ours in both senses. The expectation is an idealizing fiction, but it has a great political and moral significance nevertheless. For example, it says something of our idealistic expectations that citizens in a democracy can sometimes paradoxically do the right thing by breaking the law through civil disobedience.

In summation, constitutions stand above all other laws and determine the conditions or quality of political power. They shape collective identities. Third, they can have an identity-decreeing significance. Fourth, in a democratic state a constitution can be an expression of the will of the citizens.

* * *

The constitution of the European Union is characterized by a basic ambivalence. We call it a constitution, but it is a little unclear whether the term fits. The uncertainty has sweeping political consequences.

Certain EU enthusiasts, among them Teija Tiilikainen and Kimmo Kiljunen, are fond of saying that the EU constitution is not a real constitution and that the EU cannot generally be compared to a nation state or to other classic state formations. From this they draw the conclusion that the development of the EU cannot be assessed with the criteria and measures that are fitting for traditional national or international politics. This premiss is thoughtless and its consequences dramatic.

Criticism must be founded on norms. But there are no norms for what is ”entirely new” or for that which is ”without counterpart”. If we do not want the EU to be above all criticism, we must therefore show exactly why and to what extent the critical norms which concern states and international relations can also concern the EU. In this context it is of decisive importance to assess the extent to which the existing draft constitution can and should be seen in the light of precisely the same norms by which we assess the constitutions of nation states.

I will therefore briefly examine all four aspects of the notion of constitution in order to give us grounds for deciding to what extent the draft constitution of the EU is a constitution in the classic sense.

* * *

(i) The first dimension causes no uncertainty. The EU constitution would stand above, and be decisive for, all laws in the member countries, including their own constitutions. If any law in Finland does not accord with the EU constitution, the law would therefore be null and void.

When it comes to the other three dimensions, the EU constitution is a more uncertain thing. But the uncertainty, as one can easily see, is fundamental only in the fourth case.

(ii) There are two considerations speaking against the thought that the constitution of the European Union should have an identity-shaping significance. First, the national constitutions will continue to exist even after the EU receives its constitution. Second, the European Union respects national identities. Both arguments are founded upon the thought that national identity and EU identity would be mutually exclusive. Of course they are not. We can simultaneously be natives of Kokkola and Finns, or Finns and EU citizens. The EU shapes and changes our identity, but the union does not abolish our national identity.

A different thing is that there can be a certain competition between our different collective identities. The competition may concern questions such as these: Which volleyball team should we be represented by in the Olympic games? Who should represent us in the United Nations or in the World Trade Organization? To which community we should pay taxes or sacrifice ourselves in wars?

Contd...