Angelo Santagostino1
In a few days, 26 and 27 June, the European Council will meet to start the long process ending with the appointment of the president of the European Commission. Just after the European elections a huge debate, implying both politicians and pundits, raised about three focal points. Their solution is essential in order to reach an agreement on the name.
Firstly it is questioned the legitimacy of the indication of the so called Spitzenkandidat (special candidates) by the European Parliament (EP). Second, corollary of the first point, the infringement of the principle of «one person, one vote», because the ratio between voters and votes differs among the EU’s Member States (candidates from small countries need less votes to be elected as MEP than those from big countries). As a consequence the winner isn’t Juncker, whose party (EEP) gained the relative majority of seats in the EP, but Martin Schulz, whose party received the relative majority of votes through the 28 EU Member States, is the winner. Consequently should be the next president of the Commission.
Finally, linked to the economic crisis and the anti-austerity mood circulating in Europe, the pretence of national leaders to put the Commission under tutelage, by establishing guidelines to be accomplished by this institution.
The first two points have no solid foundation. The third is strikingly against the EU treaty. Actually the indication of the special candidates did not come from the EP, as claimed, but from the European parties. Were the General Assemblies of these parties (EEP, S&D and so on) to choose, by majority voting, the names of Jean-Claude Juncker, Martin Schulz and others. The institution EP, as such, has not been involved. It is thus incorrect the argument of a fallacious interpretation of the Treaty by the EP heralded by the critics. The European parties’ behaviour was no different from that of national parties in our democratic systems.
More complex the “one person, one vote” issue. Sacred at national level, this principle is less defensible at the federal one. Even less at supra-national level.
In the USA elections for the House of Representatives, each federate state has different number of seats, from 53 in case of California to 1 for Montana, Delaware and others. The population (or voter) per House seat, changes according to the states. Not as much as in the EU, not even always in the same direction (less populated states can have a population/seat ratio higher than the more populated ones), but sufficient enough not to be in line with the “one person, one vote” principle. The above described situation stems from the fact that federate states tends to preserve state-wide electoral systems, resisting the adoption of federal-wide ones. The EU is a unique form of supranational democracy. Inevitably member states have more resistances to adopt a union-wide electoral system.
Democracies, at federal (USA) or union (EU) level, works in a different way in respect to what happens at federate or member states levels. However rules differentiation is vital in order to maintain the essence of federalism, preventing its transformation into a centralized super-state. Objecting the legitimacy of the EP on the ground of the “one person, one vote” system reveals a shallow knowledge of federalist and supra-nationalist systems implications.
1Jean Monnet chair ad personam, Yildirim Beyazit University, Ankara
Third. One of the most ancient principles of the European treaties is that the Commission “shall be completely independent” while the commissioners “shall neither seek nor take instructions from any Government”. Besides the pretension of imposing guidelines to the Commission would eliminate supra-national dimension of the EU integration process, reducing it to a pure intergovernmental one.
Pacta sunt servanda, according to a Latin saying. Although reluctant the EU Council will have to accept the rules of the game. First by taking into account the results of the European elections and the consequent representation of parties in the EP, when nominating the president of the Commission; second by respecting the independence of this institution.
@Published on HurriyetDailyNews on 23rd June 2014
