Ten years ago, when our continent was divided, its largest part under Soviet rule, the western half had a clear task: preserve democratic values on European soil. Now, the Cold War is part of history, and everything seems more complicated and less heroic. True, the 1990s saw important progress towards European unification.
During this post-communist time, the European communities were transformed into the European Union, with many members sharing a common currency. All this is significant, but I cannot rid myself of the idea that this is a train ride begun in a different time and context, rolling on out of momentum, not out of a new energy or spirit. Perhaps this is why the EU often appears as merely a matter of technique and bureaucracy, a body where what matters is the economic consequences of integration upon narrow groups.
Europe, however, has always been a single political entity, no matter how varied internally. Its history is the history of attempts to find a suitable structure for Europe's unity and diversity. The dynamic, ever-changing European order, enlightened or dark has, until now, always been founded on power: the strong impose an order which suits them.
After the Iron Curtain fell Europe faced an event unique in its long history: a chance to create a truly just order, one mirroring the will of all nations, communities, and individuals, one founded not on violence, but on equality. The longevity of this new European order will depend on whether or not it is internally open. An open Europe can be secured only if everyone is invited to participate.
New candidates, of course, must meet common standards. If they comply, however, nothing must postpone accession. Should it become apparent that a "double-standard" is being used, Europe will begin to divide again. These new divisions would become a reason for new fears, even more serious fears than those caused by the novelty or clumsiness of today's post-communist democracies.
If the EU wants to deserve its name and does not want to condemn itself to the role of an outsider or risk any new catastrophes in Europe, it has to take advantage of the only reasonable possibility that stands in front of her: to become a true union of all European countries.
Openness, moreover, needs to be enshrined in a way that mobilises public allegiance, otherwise the Union will be perceived as merely a complicated administrative enterprise, a task which only a special caste of Euro-specialists understands. So if the Union wants to get closer to citizens it must write the Union's principal law.
A comprehensible constitution with a cogent preamble describing the EU's purpose and core ideas, and which defines its basic institutions, their areas of competence and mutual relations, is essential to stimulating broad public support.
It will not be necessary to come up with too many new things; it would be sufficient to select the Union's most important values from the many hundreds of pages of existing documents and put them together in one coherent whole. All the EU's other documents would, of course, still remain valid as regular law or norms, but these, of course, need not become required reading for European children as the constitution should be.
I have no idea what schoolteachers in member countries offer their pupils about the Union, but I doubt that it is the Treaties of Rome, Paris, Maastricht or Amsterdam.
As regards the Union's institutions, I think the situation will demand a two-chamber system, as is the case with most federations.
Next to today's European Parliament, which reflects in its composition the size of the member countries, there will probably arise a smaller body, one not elected directly but nominated by the parliaments of member countries: national parliaments would elect, say, two deputies to represent their country.
In such a chamber, small and big states would have equal voting power, the constitution defining each body's areas of competence. Such a system could solve many current problems, such as the question of the representation of nations on the Commission. As an executive body, the Commission need not be composed strictly according to a specified pattern, and not all countries, especially after the Union's expansion, need be represented.
The interests and opinions of individual countries should be sufficiently represented in the Council of Europe and any second chamber to the European Parliament. Continuous deepening of the parliamentary and federal natures of the Union, rather than more international treaties, institutions, and bodies established in accord with various agreements, is the way to enhance democratic and open values.
I am convinced that what I have recommended here opens more space for executing the will of individual nations and an enhanced assertion of their identity. The other path only leads to the wild growth of uncontrolled and undemocratic bureaucracies.
A common principle, declaration, charter, basic law, or even a constitution with an adequate preamble could in my opinion significantly help each and every European to realise the deeper meanings behind European unification. Only when those loyalties are made clear will people understand the sacrifices they must make to realise the Union's true purpose.
Vaclav Havel is President of the Czech Republic
