Article > Now we must apply the lessons of the European elections

EUROPE

Now we must apply the lessons of the European elections

Summer 2009

by Wilfried Martens

As the political groupings in the European Parliament try to gauge the implications of this summer's European elections, former Belgian Prime Minister Wilfried Martens, who is President of the centre-right European People’s Party, puts forward his ideas on tackling the twin problems of falling voter turnouts and rising euroscepticism

Commentary:

by Brendan Donnelly

by Constantine A. Papadopoulos

by Jorgo Chatzimarkakis

by Sabine Leidig

by Mark Eyskens

by Daniel Cohn-Bendit

by Jerzy Baczynski

The tsunami that has swept across our financial markets and is now wreaking havoc in the entire world economy is a catastrophe, and it is the task of politicians, business leaders and policymakers to make it as short-lived as possible. If handled correctly, though, the crisis may yet help the European Union and its institutions to raise themselves in the public’s esteem.

The EU’s legitimacy problem has two different aspects: apathy, leading to a low turnout in the European Parliament elections, and outright euroscepticism. The voter turnout problem partly reflects frustration about the present state of the EU, and also the impression people have that they can exert little influence by voting one way or the other. Euroscepticism, on the other hand, and the looming threat of anti-European populism is directly linked to the idea that the EU is not only incapable of offering a solution to the crisis, but in fact is part of the problem. So although the EU represents our best hope of ensuring Europe is internationally competitive in today’s increasingly difficult environment, it is actually being blamed for globalisation even though that is happening regardless.

MATTERS OF OPINION

European elections: Insufficient information the most cited reason for not planning to vote

Voters who said they would be unlikely to vote in this year’s European Parliament (EP) elections mainly said this was due to a lack of information or a sense that their vote would have no impact on future actions. The results of a Eurobarometer survey earlier in the year showed that the main reason they did not plan to vote, chosen from five suggested responses, was because they did not know enough about the EP’s role. This was the answer given most often in all EU member states, with roughly two-thirds of EU citizens (64%) having this view; in Sweden, Estonia, the UK and Portugal, however, 70% felt that way.

Almost as many (62%) said that if they didn’t vote it would be because they felt their vote would not change anything – although this position had decreased by six percentage points in 12 months. For the third and fourth most popular answers, 59% said it would be because they did not feel sufficiently informed to vote and 55% because the EP deals with issues that do not concern them.

Far fewer people – one in five of those surveyed – agreed with the fifth potential reason for not voting, namely, that they were ‘against Europe, the EU and the European construction’. This view was expressed by the highest proportion of people surveyed in Austria (35%), Greece and Sweden (both 28%), and by the lowest in Luxembourg, Bulgaria and Romania (from 5% to 8%).

Eurobarometer

Many people confuse the two problems of low voter turnout and of anti-Europeanism, and believe that somehow turnout in future European elections can be increased by simply pointing out to people how good and important the EU is. The unpalatable truth is that in most cases this is not an approach that will work.

At first sight, the easiest answer to the problem of low voter turnout is to give more power for the European Parliament. But if this was the solution, then we would not have had steadily declining turnouts since the high point of 63%, at the first elections to the European Parliament in 1979, since when it has constantly grown in influence and powers of joint decision-making thanks to successive treaties ranging from Maastricht to Amsterdam to Nice. The Lisbon treaty further strengthened the parliament’s powers, and although that’s a good thing, it is clearly not the solution to the turnout problem.

The trouble with EP elections is that for voters to be interested, elections must be “about” something, which means they must involve a real choice between options. For that to be the case, real Europe-wide election campaigns by all parties at a European level are needed. This would also involve making the choice of the European Commission’s President dependent on the outcome of the EP elections. In fact, both of these conditions have already been met; in 2004, Portuguese Prime Minister José Manuel Durão Barroso was appointed President of the Commission because he came from the political organisation with the strongest election result, the European People’s Party. And this year’s elections saw a more intensive presence of party organisations at European level than ever before. All this experience needs to be built upon, and I believe the most important way to reawaken voters’ interest in European elections will be to open up the election of the Commission’s President to them, and create a genuinely Europe-wide political debate during the next election campaign.

The euroscepticism problem, however, can only be tackled if the Union itself starts to perform better, and is seen to be doing so by EU citizens. Which is why in the aftermath of the failed referenda four years ago in France and the Netherlands on the Constitutional treaty, the Commission tried to emphasise the idea of a “Europe of Results” that would seek to convince citizens of its worth through concrete and tangible achievements. Looking back at these, it is perhaps the case that one has sometimes focused a little too much on isolated examples like the introduction of international roaming fees for mobile phones, but for all that it has seemed a worthwhile approach. I am convinced that in the light of the economic crisis the time has come for the Union to demonstrate its strengths whenever possible. The aim must be not only to win back the hearts of Europeans who have become sceptical, but also to convince them that the Union is indispensable if we in Europe are to meet the challenges we now face.

Europe’s citizens increasingly understand that the relatively small nation states that make up the EU are no longer able to face these enormous challenges on their own. In Ireland, last autumn’s financial crisis provoked a turnaround in public opinion about the EU, and even in Iceland, although it lies on the periphery of our continent, membership of the EU and the euro have become a priority. European countries have become so interconnected that isolated national measures on issues like the regulation of financial markets, recovery plans for our economies or the fight against climate change would be hopeless.

In short, most of us know that the EU must be united and able to speak with one voice on the world stage. A changing world in which new powers like China and India play an increasingly important role will not wait for Europe to make up its mind. The EU must instead show leadership through its efforts to solve the world’s current problems.

As to the European People’s Party, for us the economy is not an end in itself but should serve the people. We believe in a society based on the individual, on freedom, solidarity and social cohesion. In other words, the social market economy. There can be no social cohesion or political stability without sustainable economic development. The economic crisis was caused by short-sightedness and a lack of control in the global financial system, so now we must redefine the roles of the regulators in financial markets and in the wider economy. And certainly we cannot let the financial sector walk off with the profits and leave the taxpaying public to bear the losses.

That doesn’t mean we are advocating a move to socialism; we want better and smarter regulation, but not regulation for its own sake. Our position also clearly differs from the ideas of these market fundamentalists who believe that markets alone should rule the world. Today’s situation requires additional public spending, but this must not go on for an infinite time period. We cannot live now at the expense of future generations. Therefore, we see five keys to recovery:

New Job creation is our core priority. We in Europe need to continue to reform and invest in education and life-long learning to create opportunities for everyone.

A prolonged global economic slump must be averted, and European governments must continue to improve their co-ordination on fiscal and monetary policies.
The international financial architecture must be rebuilt. European regulations alone are not sufficient for a healthy global financial system - we need to increase overall transparency and surveillance. Banks must re-focus on their vital function of securing people’s savings and providing liquidity for our financial systems.
The economic recession is an opportunity to increase investment in green technologies. We want Europe to be a world leader in this sector, as this will boost economic growth and create more jobs while at the same time making Europe less dependent on fossil fuels.
A resurgence of protectionism needs to be prevented. We have to avoid the mistakes of the 1930s both within the EU itself and also globally. Europe’s internal market is a success story that has indisputably created growth and jobs in decades past, and must be allowed to continue doing so.

A “Europe of Results” can only strengthen the EU’s legitimacy, though, if these policy recommendations and their successes are communicated clearly and effectively to the general public. This means that all of the European institutions and their leaders must raise their media profiles, and that’s easier said than done. Newspaper and television editors still place EU news items low on their agendas, reflecting the paradox that readers and viewers find the EU of little interest, yet at the same time complain they are not adequately informed about it and its functions. It’s a dilemma that will only be solved with much of innovative and creative thinking by Europe’s leaders, but it can nevertheless be done.

You need to be logged in to rate and comment on articles.
Click the log in or register button in the top right corner of this page.

Average rating:

4 COMMENT(S)

Is democracy an essential ingredient of the EU’s popularity?

The political groupings in the European Parliament try to gauge the implications of this summer's European elections. What are your ideas on tackling the twin problems of falling voter turnouts and rising euroscepticism?

Please leave your thoughts and suggestions below.

By Europe's World - Vox Pop on

6/18/2009

19:17

Report inappropriate content

Re:Now we must apply the lessons of the European elections

One item that occludes the European elections more than the absence of a Europe-wide election campaign is the fact that the political parties the voter votes for or against in his home country, eventually come into the European Parliament, where they are merged into Mickey-Mouse like political groupings. The latter are totally unknown, therefore totally uninteresting to the voter, and they often accommodate several national parties of very different inclinations, under one roof.

By Igor Gazdík on

6/27/2009

10:37

Report inappropriate content

Re:Now we must apply the lessons of the European elections

There are very many lessons that have to be learned. I'm no expert (not even an expert voter) but in the last years I have seen some elements which are not addressed:
- some of the premises are false - one think about the electorat as being "elections wise and educated" - is that true, or at least completely true? I think that the vast majority of the electorat had no idea what they are voting for. I have seen the same confusion in France, at least in Lille there were 3 simultaneous demonstrations in the margins of the referendum, for 3 separate reasons, but all 3 thinking that they deal with the referendum!!! And this is only a random, isolated example and has nothing to do with the quality of the French electorat.
- the elections are organised and performed nationally, and people have little or no knowledge of the European political landscape - what they vote for? What is their vote counted for? Which are the implications of their vote?
- the end results are sometimes impredictile, as voting lists could bring some interesting elements (elected though) into the European Parliament - people having nothing to do with the political life
Therefore the scepticism might be the results of a combination of ignorance, viewed lack of impact, fear for the new potential arrangements. In which way the EP can be made more visible, and their results accountable?

I should have started with thanks for the excellent article - thank you for this interesting reading.

By Frozen Pinguin on

6/28/2009

13:19

Report inappropriate content

Re:Now we must apply the lessons of the European elections

Daniel Daianu, professor of economics at SNSPA (Bucharest), former MEP, and former finance minister of Romania

Why these EP elections carry much weight

There is some gloom on the low turnout of voters for the European elections, which were held in early June this year. A self serving argument about this result would point the finger at traditional low participation rates in these elections for many years, even decades, now. And some of the reasons are pretty well known and, clearly, would define the last elections too. Citizens are much more concerned about local politics, which deal with issues that impact, or are perceived to impact, on their lives more visibly and strongly. It is true that much EU legislation has roots in the activity of the European Parliament (EP) as well, but, at the end of the day, what matters is how national governments do their job in implementing policies. The European Commission is not seen, arguably, as a EU wide executive that can match the prerogatives of national governments. The EC can put pressure, can start infringement procedures, can try to realize compromises on policy issues (to be submitted to the EU Council), but the national governments are those that spend the money raised from taxpayers. Let us not forget that the EU budget is a minuscule cca 1% of the cumulated EU GDP. In addition the Commission is quite far away from most EU citizens and the work of most MEPs is not sufficiently known (or at all) to them. EU wide debates do take place, but much more glamour accompanies statements made by national politicians in various forums including European summits. Geography also plays a role in this respect, since EMPs have less room to interact with their constituencies as national parlamentarians do. And as much as technology can improve communications the fact stays that the human touch can not be substituted easily. It may be that charisma can be capitalized by the TV weapon for those politicians who do possess it, but most of them are ordinary political animals, who do need to shake hands and make promises, or explain why previous pledges were not observed. And I could continue with this type of explanations for low turnouts, which are not of recent vintage. Maybe one additional explanation deserves a remark, for it regards national elections as well. Public disenchantment with politics has been on the rise in many EU countries for years. The “democratic deficit” is a sintagma which has triggered volumes of academic debates and political infighting. And it goes without saying that this feature of modern politics in the EU and outside it can be examined in the way the EP fulfills its mandate.
Though I would not find low turnouts surprising I still am disappointed. Because I believe that these elections were special in several regards. One is linked with the unusually severe unfolding economic crisis, that would influence, tremendously, which way our capitalist societies will be evolving. Bank bailouts, nationalizations of large financial entities, expanding public sectors, rapidly rising budget deficits which would strain our welfare systems even more, highlight an inflexion point in the dynamics of capitalism in mature economies. This dynamic implies a redefinition of the social contract as well –just consider the frustration of “Main street” vis a vis the need to bail out those who have caused the debacle. MEPs have a role to play in devising new legislation and EU wide policies that should combat the effects of this crisis. I was a co-author of the EP report on the reform of the regulation and supervision of financial markets and I can tell how important progress in such fields is. But keep in mind that MEPs would also have to tackle the issues of climate change, renewable energy sources, the safety of energy procurement, fending off beggar your neighbor policies, xenophobia and racism, etc. And all this during a period which is validating the new status of Asian powers, China and India, in particular, in the world economy. The public agenda for MEPs will be increasingly influenced by the tectonic shifts in global power distribution. Let us hope that The Lisbon Treaty will come into force and MEPs will make good use of their enhanced prerogatives. Here a qualification is badly needed: what national governments will decide to do about the Lisbon Treaty matters hugely.
The MEPs who come from the New Member States bring with them policy concerns which reflect development gaps, the controversy over the future of the CAP and regional aid and, neighborhood policies and, not least, the fact they most of them do not belong to the eurozone. We are living through a period of great uncertainty and, as a have tried to underline, above, a change of course in the evolution of capitalism. NMSs, including Romania, would have to find ways in order to revamp their growth model; they need to save more and rely less on external borrowing. They need to undertake reforms which should keep them competitive in a world which is under the pressure of the new global powers. Likewise, they have to pass the test of this crisis in a deep political sense. For this crisis will test the strength of liberal democracy (to use Fareed Zakaria’s concept) in both old and new members of the EU. We shall all see what the future holds for us and, also, what the MEPs will be capable of doing.

By Daniel Daianu on

6/28/2009

16:41

Report inappropriate content