(This is an archived extract from the book Patterns of Power: Edition 2)
There is a perception that the EU suffers from a 'democratic deficit'. There are arguments for changing the method of selecting European politicians:
· Many MEPs stand for election on the basis of their national political affiliations rather than EU policies.[1] This renders their election almost meaningless, since national political parties have to attend to quite different concerns. In the 2014 elections for the European Parliament, the British candidates offered themselves under the banners of 30 "parties" which were focusing on Britain's relationship with Europe instead of the business of running the EU.[2]
· It would be more meaningful if candidates offered themselves for election in terms of the European political groupings.[3]
· The EU political groupings should offer election manifestos which outline specific measures they wish to adopt.
· The commissioners and their president are government appointees, so the people have no direct say in their appointment. The formula of one commissioner per country is a politically expedient way of making member countries less suspicious of the Commission, but it is incompatible with selecting the best team to oversee the commission’s functions. Reform is desirable.
· It has been suggested that there should be a contested election for the President of the EU Commission,[4] with the winning candidate having to gain majority support within the EU Parliament.
The election of European politicians on the basis of European policy programmes would make them more accountable to the public, allowing Europe-wide issues to be seen as such. The interests of individual countries are adequately protected by their political representation on the European Council and the Council of the European Union, where the representatives have been elected on the basis of national interests. In the words of The Economist:[5]
“In truth, the deficit is to be found more at national than at European level. The EU is a creature unlike any other: neither a superstate, nor a federal union, nor an inter-governmental organisation. But it is closer to the third, in that nation-states remain the main actors.”
National politicians have a duty to explain the EU’s role to their populations and to clearly describe their part in it.
© PatternsofPower.org, 2014
[1] A 2012 document by Luigi Sementilli, entitled A “Democratic Deficit” in the EU? The reality behind the myth,
[2] On 8 May 2014, the BBC published a European elections: Party-by-party guide, which summarised the aims of the 30 lists of candidates offering themselves for election later that month; it was available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27218759. 7 of the listed “parties” were explicitly anti-EU.
[3] On 13 February 204, the BBC published a Guide to the European Parliament, which listed the 8 recognised political groupings. The 5 largest, in descending order of size, are as follows:
The European People's Party (EPP), which the BBC described as “Christian Democrats”, had a website at http://www.epp.eu/. The EPP’s 2012 “Party Platform” document, which was at http://www.epp.eu/sites/default/files/content/EN%20with%20cover.pdf, declared its values at para. 6: “These values are: the dignity of human life in every stage of its existence, freedom and responsibility, equality and justice, truth, solidarity and subsidiarity. The Christian image of Man is their point of departure. Achieving the Common Good is their final objective.” It also announced that “The EPP remains committed to the vision of political integration of the European Union.” (para. 304)
The Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in Europe, which the BBC described as “centre-left”, had a website at http://www.socialistsanddemocrats.eu/. It described its Alternative Vision for Europe. The First 100 Days in a document at http://socialistsanddemocrats.eu/sites/default/files/sd_100_days_updated_april_2014_EN_0.pdf, which called for Europe to be “progressive and socially balanced” and called for “An end to austerity”.
The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) website was at http://www.aldeparty.eu/en and it summarised its beliefs, in the “fundamental Liberal principles of liberty, democracy, the rule of law, human rights, tolerance and solidarity”, at http://www.aldeparty.eu/en/about/the-alde-party.
The Greens/European Free Alliance website was at http://www.greens-efa.eu/; it stated that:
“Greens want a comprehensive transformation for Europe. More concretely we want to deliver millions of green jobs, ambitious climate protection, health and social justice.”
The European Conservatives and Reformists Group (ECR) website was at http://ecrgroup.eu/. Its document entitled Taking the EU in a new direction: 20 achievements of the ECR Group 2009-2014, which was at http://ecrgroup.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/ECR-Group-Achievements-brochure.pdf, included this statement of its purpose:
“We became the only mainstream organisation in the European Parliament committed to making the EU focus solely on areas where the EU can add value, such as opening markets and supporting cross-border cooperation.”
[4] Simon Hix wrote a report entitled A dose of democracy needed to revive the EU, which was published by IPPR on 6 September 2011 and was available in May 2014 at http://www.ippr.org/articles/56/7945/a-dose-of-democracy-needed-to-revive-the-eu. In this report he argued for “a contested election for the presidency of the EU commission”, with candidates put forward by the EU political groupings and a contest for support in the EU Parliament.
[5] An Economist survey on the EU, published on 15 March 2007 and entitled Four Ds for Europe, made the quoted comment; it was available in May 2014 at http://www.economist.com/node/8808208.