Edoardo Bressanelli - 14/05/2012

     Although today the European Union is on many people’s lips, it is easy to speak of its ‘crisis:’ the economic and financial one, the lack of growth and employment, the lack of democracy. So the austerity measures, with their very strong social impact, are “imposed” by Brussels or Frankfurt, as in the famous letter of the European Central Bank to the Italian government last August. The governments elected by the citizens seem incapable of formulating an alternative political agenda, and the powerless electors are looking on with growing favour to the anti-system forces, like the National Front in France or the Freedom Party in the Netherlands.

     The politicians themselves tend to favour that orientation, at times pointing to Europe, at others to the Euro, or the Commission as being to blame for this or that reform, if it is unpopular. Moreover, the European citizens have valid reasons to be sceptical over Europe. Not even on the occasion of the European Parliament elections, every five years, is much said about Europe. At the last elections in June 2009, for example, the Italian parties attacked one another over the personal and legal events concerning today’s ex-premier, and have debated at length about federalism and the cost of politics. Issues that, of course, have little to do with Europe, and nothing with the powers of the European Parliament.

     So, with an electoral campaign hinging on the domestic issues, the European elections have become of a survey on the executive. Instead of being the place in which the parties present their pan-European proposals (Shall we liberalise services or not? Shall we build infrastructural works? Do we want a common foreign policy?), the European elections are transformed into a boxing ring for the parties where they can measure their electoral strength in view of the appointments that really count and, for a part of the political class, into a rich opportunity for career making as they await a juicier position at home. And yet, in the disinterest of the Italian media, the European Parliament, is discussing a proposal for the reform of the European election law.

     The British Lib-Dem Andrew Duff has, as a matter of fact, suggested that the citizens should vote directly for (some) Euro MPS, choosing them from pan-European lists. A minor revolution, then. ‘Minor,’ because from the transnational lists only 25 MPs would be chosen, to be added to the remaining 751 (selected, in each Member State, from the national parties). ‘Revolution,’ moreover, because Europe would be considered as a single great electoral constituency, whose citizens would have, apart from the usual ‘national’ vote, an additional vote of a ‘European’ nature. The list, and the transnational electoral campaign, would be entrusted to the Europarties, whose existence many citizens would end up discovering at last. Duff’s proposal could have other positive effects on the Community political system.

     Indeed, with the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Council, in appointing the President of the Commission, must take into account the results of the European elections (section 17.7). So we could imagine a transnational electoral list with leading politicians, in search for the votes of the citizens to come put ahead in the race for preferences, winning the challenge within their own Europarty and, thus, become the most obvious candidate to chair the Commission. Moreover, for the European citizens it would be easier to understand why to vote and the participation would probably grow. Not everything that glitters is gold, however: Duff’s proposal has technical and problems flaws. First and foremost, there is not a broad enough supporting base.

     The consensus is lacking in the Council, where unanimity is necessary. More surprisingly. However, Duff’s proposal is not even supported in a uniform manner by the parliamentary groups, as shown by the fact the debate is continuously postponed. Albeit passed by the Constitutional Affairs Commission, Duff’s proposal only get a peep in the plenary agenda, and it then promptly withdrawn. The groups are divided. Last March it was the Popular Party that withdrew its backing but, it is rumoured, one third of the Socialists would vote against. For the national parties, it is risky to give up the monopoly of the representation. For the leaders of these parties, who sit on the Council, the intergovernmental channel provides more certainties than the supranational one.

     And for the Euro MPs, the risk of a division into two classes (division one for the MPs elected in the transnational list, division 2 for the others) is strong. Duff’s proposal, however modest it may be today, could trigger off some rather uncontrollable consequences. It is not necessary to have a crystal ball to find it highly unlikely this proposal will be accepted for the 2014 European elections. The same film will probably be seen over again: national election campaigns, scarce media coverage, candidates with little competence in European politics, an even smaller turnout at the polls. Provided that the crisis does not get any worse, making the destiny of the European even more interconnected than we stubbornly want to admit today. The necessary changes will thus be far more radical. At that point, however, we have to hope that it is not already too late for Europe.

Edoardo Bressanelli
(LUISS, Roma)