The deficit of the feeling of membership in Europe is clearly indicated by the strong rate of abstention from the voters at the time of legislative European or the successive referendums. It is here the sign bursting of a lack of generalized confidence in the European future and in the European institutions. The Union appears thus to the public opinion not very credible and not very able to answer its waitings. By refusing the ballot boxes, it consequently accuses the political deficit of Europe.

Is it necessary to recall that they aren’t institutions, that they are national or transnational, which are the guarantors of sovereignty in the democracies, but the citizens themselves.
As long as the citizens of Europe will not have the possibility of exerting directly or indirectly their sovereignty on all the levels, this democracy, that we wish, will never remain but one beautiful idea.

In spite of the elections of the European Parliament by the direct vote for all, one has to admit, in Europe, the very strong presence always of a "democratic deficit" which is explained in particular by the transfer of the powers of the national Assemblies to the European executives, by the fact also why the Council and the European Parliament can't decide that on the basis of proposal selected and submitted by the Commission. At the popular level the situation is still more alarming and one can say objectively that there is a real fracture between the citizen of the street and the European institutions.

To mitigate this disadvantage, some people denounce the defect of electoral cuttings, others propose a system of European political parties in transnational matter. Others finally consider essential a true "European public space" where the stakes of Europe would be discussed differently than in the form of 25 distinct national debates. If undeniable progress were already made in this direction, they run up however against linguistic diversity and the bulk-heading of information.

Any democracy supposes a level of cultural homogeneity and policy which constitutes an essential factor of cohesion, which results in recognizing in the other similar, source of solidarity. Thus, the feeling of membership by the perception of the similarity encourages the individual to adopt, in a determined society, a responsible and altruistic behaviour. Cultural homogeneity and linguistic homogeneity lead the citizens to take an active part in the public democratic debate and to exchange their arguments. In addition, and insofar as they are able to understand their leaders, they can expect a minimum of transparency from them. However, it never should be forgotten that this model of homogenisation can present a major disadvantage: a propensity to neglect the difference.

If, consequently, we must work to make emerge a common European political culture, paramount condition for a true democratic process, it is necessary for us as much to avoid reproducing the actions of assimilation which are carried out in the majority of the European States, under cover of universalism, and to be vigilant in front of temptations of euro centrism. The emergence of a public opinion in Europe could not indeed serve as a pretext for the creation of an exclusive European identity. It must above all respect the regional and national cultures.

What links the citizens of the same political community, it's not only that they share common values, but it's as and especially as they all are different and recognize their differences mutually. The democracy never was and doesn't have to be the law of the majority, it's and must be that of diversity.
To meet this requirement of a European democracy based on the diversity of the people, it appears desirable to equip the local and regional communities with competences increased, so that they can follow a policy adapted always better to the cultures and local traditions and, thus, to develop a dynamic and mobilizing democratic model. All the interest of such a policy lies in the proximity which it supposes between the political authorities and the citizens. From shared values, the latter are supposed to define a collective project of civilization and to work there together, all the more realistic project as this one would initially be anchored in the room, i.e. the local sphere reality.

To make emerge a true and realistic European democracy, it would thus act well to set up a model centred at the same time on the local dialogue, on the level of the communes initially and the areas then, very as much as on the competition of the territories.

It would indeed be a question of making local dialogue a legitimate and privileged method local governance, by privileging the word citizen proximity as well as the regularity of an exchange between those which control and those which are controlled. However this democratic principle can present a danger of local folding up of identity prejudicial at a necessary cohesion to the European level. Reason for which it would be advisable to associate a counterweight to him while placing these various communities in a relation of co-operation-competition... "co-operation" to build Europe at the local level and "competition" to ensure the cohesion of the European Community.

It’s obvious that to develop the democracy of proximity doesn’t have to attack the cohesion of the European political community, and it’s a question well of taking care that these local communities are not folded up on themselves. For that, the European institutions will have "to delegate" certain powers to the local authorities without "transferring them".
Whatever the democratic project to implement, it must make it possible each one not only to develop its own identity since a crossing of the cultures, but also to take part simultaneously in various spheres of citizenship. With this condition will be able to emerge a European democracy escaping the national models.

To install a democracy in Europe supposes a mobilization of the European public opinion. This mobilization relates to everyone.

It’s advisable to encourage the European debate initially so that all can feel concerned by Europe. It’s thus a question of proposing, of subjecting ideas to the public discussion in order to familiarize the opinion with certain ideas and thus of diffusing proposals likely to be adopted later on. To create the debate in all Europe will make it possible to specify ideas and specific proposals while contributing to the formation of a European public opinion conscious of its existence and its potential.

We must ardently work to build interdependent Europe, social Europe, human Europe, in order to counterbalance the primacy economic and financial up to now privileged. This necessary pedagogy to be implemented to explain and integrate the European Union in the consciences must find its relays and its supports to make known progressively and to explain to general public European work with their advance.

By the possibility that it offers, to Europeans of all horizons, to exchange and communicate between them their information, their ideas, like discussing on the significant events relating to the European Union, the ACEP gives the example and the discussion thread while contributing to gradually wake up a European conscience and an identity.