In reaction to Wilfried Martens' "Only strong leadership will get Europe back on track"

Successful leadership has two requirements. Firstly, there must be a space within which leaders can emerge and operate. Institutions can create such a space. Take Charles de Gaulle. In 1962 he proposed an amendment to the French constitution that changed the Fifth Republic. The direct election of the president nationalised political debate. Now, rival candidates must put forward a programme for France as a whole. The winner has a mandate to implement that programme. Of course presidents are still contested and some presidents have been more successful than others at implementing their programme. But in contrast to the backroom intrigues and horse-trading of the Fourth Republic, the institutional architecture of France is now immeasurably more conducive to leadership than before.

So Prime Minister Martens is right that institutional change can help to generate much needed politicisation and personalisation. However, I am unconvinced that the proposals regarding the President of the European Council and the greater accountability of the Commission to the European Parliament will provide the space necessary for successful leadership to emerge. They do not go far enough.

For example, there should be open competition between candidates for Commission President. Candidates should be required to propose a programme for Europe as a whole. Europe’s citizens should have as direct an opportunity as possible to decide between competing programmes.

Giving the Commission President greater legitimacy would strengthen the European project. Obviously pro-integration candidates might not always be chosen. But this would be democracy at work. And when a leader with a positive vision for Europe did emerge and was chosen, then their opportunity to exercise successful leadership would be much greater than it currently is.

This brings me to the second requirement for successful leadership. Great leaders have a vision. They mobilise people behind a clear and distinct idea or project. Helmut Kohl had a vision of a re-united Germany. Charles de Gaulle had a vision of a strong and stable France. Both leaders were contested at the time and Charles de Gaulle remains a controversial figure. Whatever we may think about particular leaders, people such as Helmut Kohl and Charles de Gaulle were successful because they were able to put a cross a very clear message to the citizenry in general.

Previously, there have been leaders with an equivalent vision for Europe. Monnet and Delors each promoted a simple but powerful message. Each message was controversial and contested, but it also struck a chord and mobilised general support. And Prime Minister Martens is right that the idea of EU membership was the single most important determinant of successful democratisation in central and eastern Europe.

Currently, though, no European leader has a vision of Europe’s future that can successfully mobilise its citizens. A vision cannot be based on motherhood and apple pie ideas like higher growth, more jobs, internal security, sustainable development and so on. A vision must be both clearer and more precise and also more profound and moving.

Leaders cannot just take down a vision from the shelf. A vision is the result of debate between competing ideas. Creating an appropriate institutional space for debate is a requirement for successful visionary leadership. Europe needs to create such a space by adopting reforms that establish competition between candidates for the highest leadership positions and that involve citizens as directly as possible in determining the outcome of such competition. Visionary leadership can never be guaranteed, but it is possible to forge a space in which it may emerge.