Giulia Guazzaloca - 07/06/2012

     Back in 2009, when Belgian Herman van Rompuy was appointed President of the European Council and Britain’s Catherine Ashton High Representative for Foreign Policy and Security, the press at large and many an international analyst wrote them off as low-profile choices, as painless a compromise as possible designed not to upstage or thwart the leaders of the various countries. Given the stodgy complexity of the EU institutional structure as it emerged from the Lisbon Treaty, it was felt that Europe would be hampered by the lack of a leader able legally to represent the European Union vis-à-vis its citizens and its major international partners. Throughout 2010 there was constant talk of a ‘babble’ of new European institutions up against national egoism which was preventing the formation of any solid community governance, especially on matters economic and financial.

     Ashton was blamed for her inexperience, van Rompuy for his lack of charisma, Barroso and his Commission for their inability to embody any real powers of leadership. In light of the multiple and major challenges facing Europe today, those judgements still sound relevant and well-founded. But the central issue is not so much (or not only) the calibre of the people occupying the highest offices of the European edifice, as the whole structure of the Union itself: the basis of its legitimacy, the cost of an enlargement which has let in economically and politically different member countries and thus inevitably added to the community’s inner tensions and difficulty in holding together. Undeniably, Barroso, van Rompuy and Ashton have failed to shine these last few months in terms of initiative and leadership.

     A glance at the main international dailies and their headlines will suffice to show that the bearing structure of European politics has been the Merkel-Sarkozy tandem and now, arguably, Hollande-Monti. Last March van Rompuy was unanimously re-elected President of the European Council for a second term (until 30th November 2014), but though his unflagging coordination is prized by the heads of State and government, very few European citizens yet recognise him as the face and symbol of united Europe. As for Lady Ashton’s diplomacy, it has so far looked weak and woolly: from the war in Libya to the Tymoshenko case, from violence in Syria to the Italy-India crisis over the Marò arrests episode, from nuclear power in Iran to the Afghan situation, one can hardly claim that the High Representative for Foreign Policy and Security has done much to restore Europe’s credibility or influence on the international scene.

     Yet the point is not whether these officers are up to scratch, so much as whether these roles and the structure of European governance are suited to the challenges raised by the global economy and political situation. The process of enlargement has made the European Union quite different from the way its founding fathers created (or envisaged) it. For one thing, yesterday’s fears (communism, Franco-German rivalry, the Southern dictators) have dissolved, thanks in no small part to integration. Then Europe has turned into the greatest economic area in the world but is bugged by huge discrepancies among its members’ economies, where rich virtuous countries are being forced to make great sacrifices to help their struggling partners.

     So if the EU citizens view the EU as a kind of stern step-mother demanding tribute and sacrifices, imposing nit-picking bureaucratic rules, encouraging wide-scale immigration and causing almost pathological insecurity, the blame can hardly all be laid at the door of the Brussels leaders. As French historian Pierre Rosanvallon argued in a recent interview, we need to spur Europe on to new heights of integration beyond the designs of the original community project: a new peak of solidarity, social protection and redistribution of resources. We need to achieve real economic governance of the Union, enabling it by resolute concerted action to get over the present recession and reboot growth.

     We probably need community leaders with greater political clout than our present officers, but primarily we need to reform the institutional mechanisms (a stronger Commission or Council, with greater powers) and press deeper into the issues of integration. It will no doubt be uphill work to get nation-States and their leaders to accept this instead of clinging to outmoded patriotic interests simply to curry favour with their home electorate. It will no doubt meet with resistance and suspicion among the various branches of public opinion. But there is no turning back – of that we are assured by the economic analysts, many politicians and the markets themselves. Europe needs to become a political subject, conducting politics and empowered to do so.

Giulia Guazzaloca
(Bologna University)