Euro Election Reflections
By Howard Rosen CBE
President, COBCOE
www.cobcoe.eu
Is the European Parliament now a failed institution? Once again, the elections for the Parliament this weekend proved to be the antithesis of democracy in action. Mesmerised by the prospect of their government seemingly falling apart before their eyes, the British, when they could be bothered, focused on national politics and many voted against the entire political establishment. But it was a similar pattern elsewhere, with an apparent trend to the right in the context of a record low turnout (less than 44%). Parties at the political edges prospered, and although this makes for entertaining politics, it clearly does not reflect the normal political preferences of the electorate, which are more accurately shown in national elections.
Why does no-one love us?
MEPs are generally a good bunch, and many are highly conscientious and work very hard. There is a growing understanding that most national legislation these days has its origin in “Brussels”. And yet attempts by EU Member States in successive European treaties to stimulate public interest in the Parliament by progressively giving it more power over EU legislation have not only failed, but arguably have created an even stronger counter-reaction in the public’s mind. Why?
For sure, the long-term scandal over MEPs’ expenses has not helped. Nor has the lecturing on climate change by a parliament that makes its own significant and unique contribution to global warming by moving continuously between Brussels and Strasbourg. But there is something fundamentally awry, beyond just disenchantment. Right or wrong, outside the Brussels “beltway”, MEPs are seen as political non-entities or has-beens hitching a ride on the EU gravy train. And it’s not just that MEPs are at times despised. It’s worse: they’re ignored.
It’s not the people – it’s the model
One reason for this is the remoteness of the real decision-makers from the electorate. However well intentioned and dedicated, they operate with little transparency and limited accountability. In particular, the Council of Ministers and the Commission are still perceived as the main drivers of the EU, and neither are elected to such positions, so it is inevitable that voters feel cut off from the decision-makers.
Moreover, this is not helped by the general feeling that the EU is run by a pampered, paternalistic, political elite, which “knows what’s best” for the population, taking decisions often in defiance of public opinion. Whatever technical manifesto argument the British Government had, for example, to avoid a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, the common impression is that it was pushed through Parliament on the command of the government and EU leaders - and not put to the public - since it would have been decisively rejected. Danish and Irish voters, in recent years, were reprimanded by EU leaders, like the school teacher sending back a bad piece of homework with the command that Johnny must try again, in the expectation that he will “get it right” at the second attempt. The French and Dutch were simply disenfranchised.
Deep democratic depression
Empowering the European Parliament further, as its popular mandate disintegrates, is a disturbing combination. Perhaps, as The Economist hinted this weekend, the Parliament is doomed, and it is time to find alternative solutions to plug the “democratic deficit”. What is clear is that after this election, there must be serious questions about the legitimacy of the Parliament. The prognosis for the European democratic process is grim. Until the European institutions take their public seriously, they cannot expect to be taken seriously by the voters. Sadly, with all the hand wringing we can expect in the coming days, this is probably one of the lessons that will not be learned.
© COBCOE 2009
If you have a view, write to Howard at howard.rosen@cobcoe.eu
