EUROPE
A President of Europe is not Utopian, it’s practical politics
Summer 2007
Europe may still be reeling from the effect of its constitutional debacle, but Jo Leinen, Chairman of the European Parliament’s Constitutional Affairs Committee, says that what the EU really needs now is a two-chamber European Parliament and a “real European government”
The European Union’s institutions have always seemed distant. EU citizens don’t know “European” politicians personally, and they certainly don’t feel any ownership of EU-level decisions. There can hardly be said to be a European “public sphere”, so it’s not surprising that our citizens are hard put to understand which decisions are taken within the EU, and why.
And now that up to 60% of legislation with either a national or regional impact is decided by the EU, this is increasingly posing a problem for the legitimacy of EU decisions. There is widespread support for the idea of overcoming these shortcomings through the election of an EU president. He or she, it is argued, could be a face for Europe, and if legitimised by being directly elected by Europe’s citizens that would help the people of Europe to identify much more closely with the EU. It seems a very appealing idea, but there are a number of questions to be answered: Which EU institution would the president preside over? Who would elect the president, and how? What should be the relationship between the presidents of the European Commission and the European Council? Should we be aiming for a European democracy that is parliamentary or presidential?
In today’s EU structure we have a number of different actors who in one way or another can act as its “president”. There are the 27 heads of state or government of the member states, one of whom will hold the six-month revolving presidency of the EU, and then there is the President of the European Commission. The unanimity of decisions in the European Council means that each of the heads of government can block decisions on the political direction of the EU, and they also have the power to single-handedly refrain from signing or approving treaty changes, thus conserving the status quo. Although EU member governments have no means of making progress without the support of the others, they nevertheless have power to dictate the agenda by not approving certain proposals. This is comparable to the right of the President of the United States not to sign laws even though they have been approved by the Congress.
More presidential still is the role of the chairperson of the European Council. On the one hand, he or she is the boss of his or her ministers, therefore boss of the chairpersons of the different Council of Ministers formations, and thus playing a crucial role in shaping EU legislation. On the other hand, this person sets the agenda and chairs the meetings of the powerful European Council, and so in addition to legislative powers also has a role in the execution of EU decisions.
The 28th president of the EU is the President of the European Commission. This institution not only initiates all EU legislation but also plays a crucial role in its implementation; it therefore performs many of the functions of a government.
Today's institutional design of 26 pseudo-EU presidents, two competing almost EU presidents and no real EU president poses several problems. It is unclear who, if anyone, speaks for the European Union as a whole. The European Commission, the European Council, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament all have diverging interests and opinions, and usually speak in their own name rather than in that of the entire Union. Since all member states have their own interests and can only speak on behalf of their own electorate, the Council of Ministers and the European Council both have 27 voices. EU citizens therefore receive different messages, so it’s not surprising that they find it hard to understand what the Union actually stands for.
That reform of the EU institutions is necessary is increasingly self-evident. The EU needs a real European government, headed by an elected government leader. There are, however, various proposals as to how this could be done. Some advocate the direct election of a European Council president, others favour the strengthening of the European Commission’s president. There were long debates on this during the “Debate on the Future of Europe” held by the Constitutional Convention, but no clear consensus emerged. The result was that the EU’s ill-fated constitutional treaty allowed for both, ambiguously pointing towards a more presidential or a more parliamentary system.
Although the European Council holds a lot of power, the European Union’s present structures do not allow the President of the European Council to be a strong leader. Decisions by unanimity lead to weak compromises, and often prevent the Union from taking bold steps forward. The logic of the Council doesn’t allow its president to take a leadership role − he or she has to be a moderator rather than a leader. His or her role is to find compromises that all member states can agree on. There are few opportunities to impose an agenda on the others. The political leader of whichever country holds the presidency remains little more than a representative of his or her member state. Allowing the European Council’s president a strong leadership role would put one EU country above the others, contradicting the principle of equality of member states.
To strengthen the European Council and improve its functioning, some have proposed introducing direct elections of its President. It is argued that this would give a face to the Union, would give citizens a chance to participate directly in EU politics, thus strengthening the leadership of the EU and leading to a more democratic and legitimate EU. Yet, this proposal has so far received more criticism than support.
Defining the political direction of the European Union is a shared task of the European Parliament on the one side, and of the Council of Ministers and the European Council on the other. In many cases, the views of these actors will differ largely. Since both the European Parliament and the European Council’s president enjoy direct legitimacy from European voters to represent their interests, this structure could paralyse the Union and lead to a permanent “co-habitation” of the type that has dogged the French system whenever the President of the Republic in the Elysée Palace and his Prime Minister in the Matignon are from different political parties. There would also be the risk of on-going conflicts of “competence” between the Commission President and the President of the European Council, as both have the role of governing the Union and ensuring the implementation of EU decisions. Direct election of its president would also strengthen the inter-governmental character of the European Council while weakening the supra-national “communautaire” bodies that are the European Parliament and the European Commission. Considering that the European Council meets behind closed doors and works on the basis of unanimity, which in turn leads to horse-trading and weak compromises, it is not a solution that would strengthen either the EU’s transparency or its democracy.
Directly electing the European Council’s president would further develop the Union as a presidential system. But the diversity of Europe’s political and cultural traditions makes it rather unlikely that a strong president would be accepted by the majority of European Union citizens. Instead, a strong parliamentary system in which the European Parliament and the European Commission play leading roles as legislator and government respectively would be a much more suitable way of respecting Europe's diversity.
A European parliamentary system is not as Utopian as some might think. It would require the development of a two-chamber parliament, consisting of today's European Parliament and the Council of Ministers, as well as the transformation of the European Commission into a true government. Developing the Council into a second chamber is a step that would require some time, and also political will among the member governments. Improving the standing of the European Commission as the Union's government could be done by strengthening its President and making the work of the European Commission more accountable to the European Parliament.
Currently, EU member states have to agree on a President of the European Commission in a procedure that is undemocratic, not at all transparent, and has led to some rather weak compromise candidates being selected. There are two possible ways of strengthening the Commission president and improving his or her democratic legitimacy. One is direct elections by the citizens: Looking to the future, this would seem an appealing way forward, but as long as there is no European public sphere, no strong European political parties, no European media and little awareness for European politics, the likelihood is that citizens across Europe would probably vote for a candidate from their own country rather than from the political party they usually support. This would lead to unfair competition between candidates from large and small member states.
The alternative would be for the European Parliament to put forward candidates for the elections, directly elect the Commission President and to have the right to dismiss not just the whole Commission but also individual Commissioners. In such a system, the parties would have a greater role in the selection procedure and could ensure a fair balance concerning large and small states by respecting an informal rotation system.
In the latter system, the results of the European elections would be much better respected than in the current structure, where the member states have to agree on the European Commission president. This means the European parties could play a bigger role in EU politics, and could offer a new link between citizens and European decision-making.
The first steps in this direction were taken in the European constitutional treaty. The European Parliament would vote on the President of the European Commission, based on the results of the European elections. Although it would not yet have the power to nominate a candidate of its own accord, it could nevertheless refuse candidates the European Council puts forward. If this new regulation were to go hand-in-hand with the European parties putting forward top candidates for the elections, and with the make-up of the Commission following the voters’ preferences, this would be a big advance towards democratising the European Union. Citizens in Europe would have much more influence on the Union's leadership.
If and when the European Constitution enters into force, the work of the European Council will also be reformed. It will be chaired by a president, and that means that the rotating presidencies system of the European Council will be abandoned. This will allow for more coherence of the European Councils work, as the priorities do not change every six months. Other than the case discussed above, the president of the European Council will not be elected by the citizens but from within the European Council. The risk of two competing institutions, which both have the direct legitimacy of the citizens but different agendas and priorities, is less given in this case.
The European Union of today has too many presidents rather than too few. The main problem is that these presidents are all somewhat weak in terms of competence. Directly electing a President of the European Council would strengthen the inter-governmental structure of the Union and would be a step in the direction of a less democratic and intransparent Union. It would weaken the position of the European Parliament and the European Commission, and the risk is that the EU would suffer from a permanent French-style co-habitation. The preferable option is to reform the Union’s institutions into a two-chamber parliament and a real European government. Linking the President of the European Commission closer to the European Parliament by having him or her nominated and elected by the parliament would be a basis for such a European parliamentary system. In the European Constitution there are already some important first steps in this direction, even though the idea of real European democracy will clearly need more time and more debate.