European Parliament elections are often assumed to be ‘second-order national elections’ rather than genuinely European elections. As Ingeborg Tömmel writes, the President of the European Commission has a key role to play, along with the Parliament, in shaping European integration. She argues that with the election of the next Commission President depending on the outcome of the European elections in May, it is vital that citizens make their views heard by going to the polls

Tömmel, Ingeborg

LSE Research Online

European Parliament. Credit: Cédric Puisney (CC-BY-SA 3.0)14/01/2014European Parliament elections are no longer second-ordernational contests – they are essential for determining thefuture direction of the EUblogs.lse.ac.uk /europpblog/2014/01/14/european-parliament-elections-are-no-longer-second-order-national-contests-they-are-essential-for-determining-the-future-direction-of-the-eu/European Parliament elections are often assumed to be ‘second-order national elections’ rather thangenuinely European elections. As Ingeborg Tömmel writes, the President of the EuropeanCommission has a key role to play, along with the Parliament, in shaping European integration. Sheargues that with the election of the next Commission President depending on the outcome of theEuropean elections in May, it is vital that citizens make their views heard by going to the polls.Elections to the European Parliament (EP) are generally considered second-order. The EP does notappear to have far-reaching competences, neither in legislative matters nor in electing, supportingor overthrowing a government. As a consequence, voter turnout in European elections is generallymuch lower than in national elections, with a tendency to decrease over time.Will the upcoming elections to the EuropeanParliament change the tide? The parliament that willtake office in June 2014 will command more powerthan any European legislature before it. Besides itssignificantly expanded competences in legislation, it isentitled to elect the President of the EuropeanCommission. Of course, the Commission President isnot comparable to a head of state or government of aMember State. He or she does not have the power todetermine the political objectives of the EU, let alonethe overall course of European integration.At best, the President can put forward proposals forlegislative acts and major steps in integration.Furthermore, he or she is expected to define andforge the necessary consensus among the MemberStates in order to achieve progress in decision-making. Yet it is the governments of the MemberStates themselves, represented in the Council of the EU and the European Council, which take the major decisionson these proposals, even though in the formal legislative process they share these competences with the EP.Does this mean that the Commission President is just the head of an administrative service whose performancedoes not count in European affairs? Looking at the past, such a conclusion cannot be maintained. On the contrary,the history of European integration shows that the personality of the incumbent, along with his/her knowledge, vision,political experience, strategic and tactical skills – in short, leadership – does matter a great deal.For example, during his presidency Jacques Delors (1985-1995) served as an eminent political leader. He was ableto shape minor and major integration steps alike and even to a certain extent to transform the institutional setting ofthe EU, in spite of the limitations of his office. During these years, national governments largely accepted hisproposals and were willing to give their consent to major advances in integration. This was not least due to Delors’persuasive style.1/3His successors were less successful: Jacques Santer (1995-1999) mainly served as a mediator in face of the ever-present conflicts among the Member States. He rarely launched initiatives of his own and was forced to resign alongwith the entire Commission in a cabinet scandal. Romano Prodi (1999-2004) had a clear vision for the future courseof integration, but lacked the strategic and tactical skills to transform it into acceptable proposals. José ManuelBarroso (2005-2014) has been considered to adapt to the wishes of the Member States, particularly of the mostpowerful ones, instead of leading the way forward.Thus we may conclude that weak Commission Presidents who are unable to define and advocate the politicalobjectives for both minor and major integration leave a vacuum in European affairs. National governments,represented through the two Councils, are largely unable to fill this vacuum by collectively providing leadership tothe EU. Their primary function in the European context is to formulate and defend their national preferences andinterests.Where they attempt to provide political leadership, their decisions are often framed in favour of the most powerfulMember States. By contrast, strong Commission Presidents are able to define the common interest of the Union asa whole, and to forge the necessary compromises required to shape common actions in such a way that they arecompatible with the socioeconomic and political conditions in individual states.At present, the EU faces a deep crisis, which began as a financial and sovereign debt crisis, but soon spilled overinto the political system of the Union. Thus major dissent among the member states – some states even threatenexit – has resulted in non-decisions, weak compromises, or sub-optimal choices. In addition, Euroscepticism hasspread rapidly among the citizens of Europe, in both those states that are most severely hit by the financial crisisand those that are expected to practice solidarity on a European scale.In this situation, a Commission President with a clear vision about the way out from the impasse, with the ability todefine short and long-term objectives for the EU, as well as with the necessary skills to forge compromises amongthe Member States, would be of utmost importance. In short: more than ever, the EU needs a Commission Presidentwho is able to define the common interests of the Union as a whole and, at the same time, to take into account theneeds and interests of each individual state and its respective constituencies.Will the EP be able to elect a Commission President who has these characteristics? The procedure for this election,as laid down in the Lisbon Treaty, does not give the EP the right to freely choose a nominee. It is the EuropeanCouncil which proposes a candidate, who will then be elected (or rejected) by the EP. Yet, proposing a candidatewho does not match the preferences of the Parliament, thus risking a veto, is not a viable option for the EuropeanCouncil. In fact, when choosing a candidate, the heads of state or government must take into account the results ofthe EP elections.What might the preferences of the EP be? Judging from its performance to date, particularly in those situationswhere the EP voiced its strong opposition or vetoed Council decisions, we may assume that the Parliament willprefer a candidate with a specific profile. Most probably, it will opt for a nominee who not only promotes neo-liberalobjectives of economic integration, but will more clearly advocate citizens’ interests: issues such as civil rights,social justice and environmental protection. Therefore, it is highly probable that the new procedure for electing theCommission president will result in the nomination of a person who will pursue a broader set of objectives.Against this background, it goes without saying that this time it is important for EU citizens to go to the polls.European elections are no longer second-order – they are of primary importance. Particularly in times of deep crisisand widespread Euroscepticism, the playing field should not be left to those who aim at dismantling the EuropeanUnion or who perceive it as a superfluous political monstrosity. Instead, it is important for people to vote for partiesthat see the EU as a necessary arena for mediating the multifaceted conflicts among European nations and, at thesame time, for shaping integration in a way that serves all.Please read our comments policy before commenting .2/3Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of EUROPP – European Politics and Policy, norof the London School of Economics.Shortened URL for this post: http://bit.ly/1cVBsyg_________________________________About the authorIngeborg Tömmel – University of OsnabrückIngeborg Tömmel is Professor Emeritus and Jean Monnet Chair in European Politics and Policies atthe University of Osnabrück, Germany. Her most recent publications include an article on theCommission Presidents in the Journal of Common Market Studies and a textbook entitled TheEuropean Union: What it is and how it works to be published with Palgrave Macmillan.3/3

European Parliament elections are no longer second-order national contests – they are essential for determining the future direction of the EU

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online