OUTLOOK FOR 2014 EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ELECTIONS

Eurobarometer surveys reveal that most European citizens (more than 50%) do not think that their vote is going to change anything; they think that the EP does not deal with problems that really concern them, they lack information about the elections and the EP and are not interested in EU affairs. For most potential voters, the EP elections lack the clear purpose of national elections. These elections do not constitute an instrument to sanction the incumbent government (largely the Commission and the Council). EP elections do not submit a specific legislative programme for approval, since the right of initiative lies mostly with the European Commission (and exceptionally with the Council). Furthermore, the political differences across European political parties are not easily understandable, which makes these elections even less attractive for voters. European parties are more of a confederation of national delegations with different ideologies, idiosyncrasies and interests, rather than a typical national party with a clearly defined political programme and strong internal discipline to implement this programme. It is national parties that select the candidates as MEPs and carry out the campaigns. Moreover, the main political groups in the EP tend to vote together on many legislative files to reinforce the EP’s position in negotiations with the Council and the Commission. All this, together with the difficulties that many citizens encounter in following EU affairs (not helped by the complexity of EU decision-making, multifarious policies and poor media coverage), tends to relegate the elections to the European Parliament to second-order elections largely focused on domestic rather than European issues.

To counter this trend, a recent EP initiative urged the main European political alliances to name their candidates for the post of European Commission president well in advance so that they could run an EU-wide campaign focused on EU issues, in the assumption that this would encourage citizens to go and vote. It also calls upon national parties to make clear which European party they belong to and the candidate they will support. The euro crisis has also made citizens all over Europe (both in the ‘rescued’ and the ‘rescuer’ member states) much more aware of the consequences of EU decisions for their daily lives. The impact of ‘Brussels’ on national fiscal and economic policies is being felt directly by EU citizens, and not in a positive way. As a result, the debate about the EU has moved away from bureaucrats’ offices onto the street, and the divisions over EU affairs across national and European parties are becoming more marked.

However, it might be eurosceptic rather than pro-European parties that reap the benefits of these developments in the end. An increase in the number of votes for radical eurosceptic parties would quickly be mirrored in their representation in the EP, given the electoral systems operating in member states. Most of them use proportional methods in the distribution of seats and a single electoral district, which increases the proportionality of the system. Only 11 member states have a legal threshold, which is always below 5%. It is therefore likely that these parties will obtain parliamentary representation should they manage to sweep up the protest vote against the EU and the ruling parties that backed its decisions.

They might even try to form a big anti-European coalition. This could pose an unprecedented risk for the functioning and identity of the EP. Since 1989, the number of EP parties has increased steadily, due to EU enlargements and the 2002 reform of the electoral law, which established a more proportional system. However, the number of political groups has decreased. In the last two legislatures the two main groups (conservatives and socialists) held more than 60% of the seats. A wide representation of parties not belonging to the main pro-European parliamentary groups would make the majority of the component members required in many votes very difficult to reach. This would stall decision-making in the Chamber, and therefore in the EU, including the election of the president of the Commission itself. It could also hamper the EP’s firm stand on promoting the principles of democracy, human rights and EU integration.

The nomination of candidates for the position of president of the European Commission by European political parties might not turn out to be such a brilliant idea after all. Some nominees currently being discussed are unknown in many countries and would therefore not inspire citizens to go out and vote. Others could simply underline dissatisfaction and boost the EU protest vote in some member states. Moreover, the proposal of the Commission president by the EP might lead to a further politicisation of this EU institution, at a time when a strong and independent Commission is needed more than ever. Alternatively, what is needed is a campaign by European and national political parties and by EU institutions to extol the virtues of the European Union and expose the costs of less or no Europe. The main European parties should also reflect on the reasons behind this growing disenchantment with the EU and come up with actual political manifestos for the elections that respond to real concerns. They should explain their positions in the relevant legislative dossiers currently in the pipeline (e.g. banking union) and state which others they intend to push forward (for instance in the area of employment, or immigration). In parallel, the EU should adopt a sound strategy to create jobs and a better communication strategy to justify its (economic) decisions. Citizens need to believe that both their votes and the European Union matter, and the EU undoubtedly has to show that citizens also matter.