The campaign for the elections to the European parliament, being held across the European Union's twenty-seven member-states on 4-7 June 2009, has made one thing clearer than ever. Insofar as people have any intention of voting at all, most will do so on the basis of the performance of national politicians in dealing with national problems within national political systems.
Anand Menon is professor of West European Politics and Director of the European Research Institute at the University of Birmingham. His books include Europe: The State of the Union (Atlantic Books 2008)
Also by Anand Menon on openDemocracy:
"Europe's eastern crisis: the reality-test" (5 March 2009)Who can blame them? After all, a number of
factors (as Hugo Brady eloquently argued on openDemocracy) explain why the specifically European dimension of
these polls fails to capture the public imagination (see Hugo Brady, "Europe's elections: why they
matter" (2 June 2009).
But beyond the "operational" flaws in the way elections to the European parliament work, the indifference of many citizens has deeper roots. Most fundamentally, member-states retain control over all those areas of public policy that polls routinely show to be the primary concern of their electorates: health, welfare spending, education and direct taxation among them. It is little wonder, then, that "real" political debate occurs at national level; or that European elections are regarded as (in political-science the jargon) as "second-order elections" in which electorates feel free to experiment. The European Union, in other words, is structurally condemned to elicit electoral apathy.
The failure of reform
There have been many efforts by analysts of the European Union to find possible remedies for the steady decline in turnout that has afflicted direct elections to the European parliament since their introduction in 1979. The majority view seems to be the need to arrive at reforms whose effect will make people more interested in the elections: recommendations include giving the European parliament more power over more areas of policy, and allowing parliamentarians to elect the European commission, the commission president, or the college of commissioners as a whole.
These and similar proposals are misconceived in two key respects.
First, many of them are hopelessly impractical. It is inconceivable that, in an era of growing euroscepticism, twenty-seven national governments will unanimously agree to grant the European parliament increased authority over more policy-areas - simply in order that European elections are taken more seriously by their publics.
Second, and even more fundamentally, such reform schemes have a tendency to misunderstand the nature of the problem to which solutions need to be sought.
openDemocracy writers track the European Union's politics:
Aurore Wanlin, "The European Union at fifty: a second life" (15 March 2007)
Frank Vibert, "The European Union in 2057" (22 March 2057)
George Schőpflin, "The European Union's troubled birthday" (23 March 2007)
Kalypso Nicolaïdis & Philippe Herzog, "Europe at fifty: towards a new single act" (21 June 2007)
Michael Bruter, "European Union: from backdoor to front" (3 July 2007)
Kalypso Nicolaïdis & Simone Bunse, "The ‘European Union presidency': a practical compromise" (10 October 2007)
Katinka Barysch & Hugo Brady, "Europe's ‘reform treaty': ends and beginnings" (18 October 2007)
Ivan Krastev, "Europe's trance of unreality" (20 June 2008)
Ivan Krastev, "Europe's other legitimacy crisis" (23 July 2008)
Paul Gillespie, "The European Union and Russia after Georgia" (10 September 2008)
Krzysztof Bobinski, "Europe's politics of self - and others" (20 October 2008)
John Palmer, "Ireland, the Lisbon treaty, and Europe's future" (16 December 2008)
Dessy Gavrilova, "Entropa: art of politics, heart of a nation" (16 January 2009)
Krzysztof Bobinski, "Europe between past and future" (9 March 2009)
Hugo Brady, "Europe's elections: why they matter" (2 June 2009)
Gisela Stuart, "Europe lost and found" (3 June 2009)Thus, European parliament aficionados (and they are a close-knit and committed bunch) have a
marked tendency to prioritise the interests of this institution above those of the European Union as a whole.
The misplaced idea of making the European commission more accountable to the
parliament (as the Lisbon treaty will do). Certainly, this would give
parliamentarians something to do. It might conceivably also pique the interest
of voters, by linking their votes (if only indirectly) to practical outcomes in
terms of the personalities at the helm of the EU's executive.
Yet, and hardly incidentally, it would also undermine the commission. This institution - part executive, part regulator - depends for its effectiveness on a reputation for impartiality. No member-state elects its competition authority, and for good reason. The idea that the whole EU system should be reformed simply to make citizens take the parliament more seriously reveals the warped priorities of its proponents.
To be clear: the European parliament is in many ways an admirable institution, populated by a number of hard-working, dedicated and highly able members (MEPs). Indeed, in those areas where it enjoys coequal status with the council of ministers in the legislative process, it is far more effective than virtually any parliament in any domestic setting. Its committees produce enlightening and thoughtful reports; it has frequently shown itself able to amend and even veto legislation proposed by the commission and endorsed by the member-states in the European council.
So it is not the quality of the parliamentarians that is the problem, or even of (some of) its work - but the anomalous position of the institution itself. However high the calibre of individual MEPs, European parliament elections do not work - they fail to provide a parliament with a genuine mandate for action at European level. It is, moreover, hard to imagine a sensible way in which to make them do so.
A surgical solution
All this being said, there remains a need for some kind of democratic legitimation at European level. The council of ministers can now vote on an increasing number of issues by qualified majority (QMV). Governments can thus be outvoted on measures that may yet go on to become law in their own countries. Citizens of these member-states have a right to some form of additional democratic representation to ensure their voices are fully respected in the legislative process.
The European parliament - with its at best weak democratic mandate from elections in which an ever-decreasing proportion of its electorate participates - is unable to play this role effectively.
Yet there is a solution. The European Union's legitimation problem could best be addressed by shutting the European parliament. In its place, the national parliaments of the member-states would perform the functions the parliament currently carries out, and by this means ensure adequate democratic scrutiny of all EU legislation.
In an age of electronic communication, rapid dissemination of legislative proposals from the commission among national parliaments makes distance redundant. It should be easy to devise an electronic voting-system intelligible to parliamentarians in national capitals.
A subsidiary attraction of this scheme is that it would save money - an institution as large as the European parliament, based in three separate locations (with MEPs in Brussels and Strasbourg, and a secretariat in Luxembourg) and boasting generous allowances for its members, is expensive.
But far more important is that it would advance democratic legitimation. For entrusting national parliaments with legislative tasks at the European level would - at a stroke - serve to strengthen the union itself.
The European Union is neither a copy of nor a replacement for its constituent member-states, but rather an extension of their twenty-seven national systems. A new nationally-based system of democratic scrutiny would, by organically linking national and EU politics and legislative outcomes, have three precious benefits:
* reassure those concerned about the development of a separate political system at European level
* end to the pernicious tendency of national political leaders endlessly to complain about legislation "imposed" upon them by "Brussels"
* ensure that in future elections national MPs would be quizzed about their voting records on European as well as national legislation.
A new purpose
I am not deluded enough to believe that this scheme is about to be adopted. There are obvious problems involved in killing off any institution - particularly one with 736 often eloquent members who stand to lose much in the way of power, prestige and lifestyle. Moreover, national political leaders would be reluctant to extinguish a parliament - an act all too easy for their opponents to portray as an assault on democracy.
Yet it is about time that a debate was started on what to do with an institution that, for reasons beyond the control of its members, clearly lacks purpose. The European parliament represents a hangover from the days when serious statesmen aspired to create a United States of Europe with real powers and a real government in which Europeans would have no choice but to be interested. Those days are long gone.
It is only far-reaching reforms of the kind suggested here that will enable effective democratic legitimation of the European Union system as its stands. Without them, Europeans will have no option but to watch in dismay as, every five years, the EU itself is brought into disrepute by elections in which abstentions rise and nationally-inspired protest-votes send representatives to Brussels and Strasbourg with no real democratic mandate. Europe, leaders and citizens alike, surely should aspire to more.
Comments
I'm sorry...I may have missed the point but I've not understood neither the problem or the solution....
The EU parliament is the foundation of one of the biggest and ambitous project of modern history, a union born from citizen willingness to belong to a wider and richer cutlure and community, that is something unique.
The EU parliament has issues and will continue to have for decades; shutting down it will not give rise to antoher better implementation, considering also the grim period we are living..
In the long run we must be positive and have a vision of a community of EU citizens voting for being represented in the EU the common social interests and not the national interests of each single country.
I personally dream of a real EU consittution that will enforce the national ones and of voting a French (or maybe Spanish?) candidate presenting at best my idea of the EU.
Cheers,
Fabrizio
I get the problem .. it's at the moment a large and expensive body which really exists in isolation from those it should represent. All we ever hear about it is when our national governments seek to shift blame for some piece of legislation they may have had a hand in creating from themselves and on to others.
A very large part of this problem is what does this parliament actually do? .. and why does it matter to me? Every x numbers of years I vote for a candidate I have never heard of and who has not even usually bothered to tell me what they stand for or which of my issues they seek to represent. In my whole life I have never been asked to actually vote on any piece of european policy .. and at 43 that is surely wrong. Other countries have had votes on matters like this federal constitution and something called the treaty of Lisbon. All I know about those is that they would somehow or other take rights away from me and put them in the hands of people in Brussles or somewhere.
While our government has the right to deny us as European citizens, the right to have our say on these matters, all it can ever be seen as is another pointless layer of waste and beurocracy that quite honestly I don't see what we gain from at all. If every citizen of Europe was granted exactly the same civil rights across the board.. in every area of race, colour, creed, sexuality or gender presentation then maybe I could see at least a small glimmer of hope.. but no, we don't even have that. Europe gives me rights which my government can chose to modify or completely ignore at will to suit it's own agenda..
Why do I even vote for a member of this defunct and apparently completely pointless parliament? Because it's the only chance I get to have any positive input at all. I hope my vote helps to keep some nasty xenophobic piece of bad work from so called representing me there.. but honewstly.. after I cast my vote there is a good chance I will not even know who is (or are) my regional elected representative(s) because they serve no function at all. I think I voted for the person whose website i looked at a few weeks ago and thought about writing to with a question concerning the actions of the Belgian border police and their treatment of a transgendered French citizen .. but really i couldn't say because we only hear anything when these people want our votes.. the rest of the time it's complete silence..
*sigh*
Paula
You say "The European parliament represents a hangover from thedays when serious statesmen aspired to create a United States of Europe with real powers and a real government in which Europeans would have no choice but to be interested. Those days are long gone". However, this can be seen as the real problem from a proEuropean perspective. There is no need for an European parliament if there is no will for an Europan governance. I do wish for a United States of Europe, so I see the problem as one of creating an European sense of belonging and identity. This is not impossible. I have witnessed how the long, continuous, untinterrupted pressure of nationalist administrations in Catalonia or Euskadi in Spain have managed to consolidate a national sense of identity in those regions. A similar action by governments directed towards establishing an European identity would probably work. My point is that the distancement of many European citizens from the European institutions is no natural phenomena, but the result of the deliberate political making of member countries current political leaders, that have had different priotities or goals than developing an European identity, and thus could be reversed. Euroskeptics should be happy with the current situation and proEuropeans should fight to change it.That said, the idea of having national parliaments act together in substitution of the European parliament has its merit. Still, I think it woud consolidate the European Union as an aggregation of separate entities (i.e. member countries) each defending its own interests againt the others, instead of an European Union as an entity of its own. This is just not my vision.
It is just too easy to blame others. When everyone wants a piece of the EU without making any contribution, the EU would not be able to sustain long. Before we want to scrap the parliament, the councils or any other institutes of the EU, we have to ask why we want to have a EU at the very beginning. According to what I understand, the EU is formed to prevent Europe from repeating history of the two devastating Great Wars which had almost destroyed Europe, which had killed millions of soldiers and civilians. So, the purpose of EU is established under a common vision of leaders land support by the people for the peace, security and mutual prosperity of Europe. I cannot think of reaching these goals without sacrificing some of the narrow interests of different nations. Europe has been enjoying a long period of post-war stability and prosperity, apparently, people have forgotten how their leaders had led them into two Great Wars in the last century.
It is just too easy to blame others. When everyone wants a piece of the EU without making any contribution, the EU would not be able to survive long. Before we want to scrap the parliament, the councils or other institutes of the EU, we have to ask why we want to have a EU?. According to what I understand, the EU is formed to prevent Europe from repeating the painful history of the two devastating Great Wars which had almost destroyed Europe, which had killed millions of soldiers and civilians. So, the purpose of EU is established under a common vision of leaders and in the support of people for specific purposes, which people can probably find them in the EU treaty. We cannot always ask without giving. Europe has been enjoying too long a period of post-war stability and prosperity, apparently, people have also forgotten how their leaders had led them into two Great Wars in the last century, the pain of losing someone they love... History tends to repeat in a cyclic pattern.
Unfortunatelly (for the Europeans) the point (in the article) is well made and I must admit, taken.
I live and work in Brussels (the heart of Europe) and it is unmistakable the feeling of void when talking about the European failure. European states have well accepted the idea of a common market and they will never accept the idea of a common socio-political identity. As matter of fact, each European Country (and the political elite of course) is keen on defending national agendas and interests. It would take another 100 years or more to get the foundation of a european identity - for the time being, minorities based on whatsoever credo, are allowed to benefits from the generous contribution of the European Institutions, lavished with taxpayer's money. Let's save some of it - close it down.
Good article and good comments. Most of us, at least in the UK, see the EU legislature as remote from doing much that is useful in our everyday lives or, worse, some see it as only doing only that which imposes stupid, pointless and bureaucratic rules on us. The latter view being thanks to a powerful anti-EU lobby that has influence on some tabloid newspapers. Ask anyone in the UK about EU legislation and most will remember rules about the straightness of bananas, the imposition of rules about potatoes being sold only by the kilo (and not in lbs) or the detrimental effects of fishing quotas which the British obey but the French routinely ignore (there is some truth in this latter point actually). More recently there has been some concern about the free movement of people and the large immigration to the UK, not just from other EU but from Africa and Asia, coming via the open borders that the Shengen Agreement permits.In the UK there is not a huge positive support for the concept of the EU but there is a vociferous lobby that is against it. Most people's attitude to the EU varies from favorable, though apathetic, to skeptical. I think the favourable support is because of a theoretical idea about greater unity between people rather than seeing anything of advantage resulting from European Law. Very few European Laws are portrayed as positive because, if they are good, there is no advantage to them being heralded by local politicians or news media. Sadly the opposite is always the case: laws that have adverse effects are always shown as the "typical" effect of an EU imposition overriding the sensible approach of the local legislature.The main political parties reflect this view and therefore tend to sustain it. Members of these parties should have a greater visibilty into the genuine benefits of the EU but feel they have to play a game that does not alienate their voters. The Labour party believes in greater unity of the people and sees practical value in the current left-leaning policies from French and German influences while the conservative party has an eye to the views of business and the value of the Erropean market. The Lib-Dems and many other minor parties see the EU as giving them a greater say in the political arena that they are essentially excluded from by the first-past -the-post voting system in the UK. Unfortunately, none of these attitudes are actually very positive in promoting an EU concept.The recent expenses-for-MPs row in the UK has not yet spread to cover MEP's expenses. I think this is likely to be a future problem for the EU where it has for a long time been suspected that this is a scandal awaiting to erupt. When it does (and it will), this could be very damaging to the EU and even discourage its more ardent supporters. I agree with many of the comments above and especially the value of the EU as a focus of unity for European countries: a way of underlining our common humanity. However, it may need to have a more solid foundation and stronger political backing if it is to simply not be subsumed into a pointless beaurocracy. I agree with the thoughtful article by Anand Menon that it needs people to see that it is acting directly on behalf of the european populace and that their MEPs are genuinely representing their views. Until this happens, there is no incentive for the press or local politicians to give any credit and plenty of incentive for them to point out deficiencies.
In my opinion the subsidiary principle says that EU Parliament should be busy with those subjects and problems with which National Parliaments are not busy anymore. If you will introduce your "surgical solution" and cancel the EU Parliament al those subjects will fall back onto National Parliaments and these can be simply overloaded from the start. These in turn will make the new virtual EU Parliament very inefficient body - or may be you should device some number of National Parliamentarians to only EU subjects?
In any case the idea is not so bad but it should be certainly discussed in more detail and the typically devil is sitting there.
In the end in comes down two one question: Do we want a real Union or just a commercial community instead? If its the second we could go directly back to the EC.
That euroscepticism is most common among less educated people is not surprisingly at all. Thanks too national politicians the EU is the source of all evil for them.
What remains is the hope that this will change - somehow. And that the great dream of a united Europe will see that day in time!
florian
Post new comment