A few weeks ahead of a European election of particular significance, the outlines of a true political Europe are slowly being drawn, against a backdrop of almost universal indifference. The next Parliamentary term - as the five-year mandate of the European Parliament and, by association, that of the European Commission, which is appointed on the basis of a vote of approval by that same Parliament, is known - is, however, at least as important as the first election by universal suffrage in 1979.

Each major political party has appointed a leader, who will also be that party's natural candidate for the Presidency of the Commission (the Greens and Liberals both opted for a duo) and all of them, with the exception of the EPP candidate, are standing for the European elections. This first stage will give the voters the opportunity to make a connection between a programme and a personality and to guide their choices on the basis of these elements and their expectations and beliefs. These European elections will nonetheless remain marked by appointments of national figures with no real European commitment, parachuted onto the lists by political parties' headquarters. We should also expect better ballot results from extremist and populist political movements. Experience shows - and a recent study on the individual influence of members of the European Parliament confirms - that almost none of these recycled politicians and none of these extremist or populist elected individuals have the slightest influence on European politics. Statistics on the level of involvement of the outgoing MEPs are available and are worth bringing to the attention of the citizens. And so, in May, the voters will hold all the cards to steer Europe's future direction.

This is particularly true given that for the first time ever, the appointment of the President of the European Commission will take account of the election result, with the future President to be elected by the European Parliament. These rules, which are listed in article 17 of the Treaty on the European Union, will move Europe into a more parliamentary kind of system and will give the President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy of Belgium, who is very familiar with this kind of system, the role of "mine-clearer", as his fellow Belgians call it. Immediately after the elections, it will be his responsibility to assess the results and to identify, along with member states (appointing the candidate's to the Presidency of the Commission needs qualified majority within the European Council) and the heads of the political groups of the new European Parliament (where the future President must have the backing of 376 votes), the person who could become the next Commission President. Of course, as it is unlikely that any single political group will be able to bag 376 seats on its own, there is nothing automatic about it. But the next President will need a genuine parliamentary majority - a minor revolution in itself! This also means that protest votes for populist or extremist lists will have absolutely no influence on this choice.

Pursuant to article 17.6, the President of the Commission will lay down the broad outlines within which the Commission will carry out its duties (in other words, the "contract of government" which the Parliament is certain to demand from the candidate before he or she is even elected), and decide on the internal organisation of the Commission in order to ensure the consistency, effectiveness and collegiality of its actions. Although it appears highly technical, the second part of this is absolutely fundamental. The effectiveness and collegiality of the Commission have suffered a great deal over the last few years as a result of the increase in the number of Commissioners, cabinets and directorates general. As Philippe de Schoutheete explained recently in an article published by Egmont, it is absolutely vital that the future President can restructure the Commission, in order to make it more effective. Today, certain directorates general responsible for ensuring that Community law is applied correctly are lacking staff, whilst others, without any real responsibilities under the Treaty, are only there to make a Commission's portfolio more important. Solutions exist and are often implemented in our member states: organising groups of Commissioners under the authority of a vice-president, appointing Commissioners with cross-cutting positions, such as relations with the European Parliament or with the national parliaments.

Although the Treaty states that the Council, by common agreement with the elected President of the Commission, shall adopt the list of other individuals he or she proposes to appoint as members of the Commission, in view of the fact that they are then put forward as a College to a vote of approval of the European Parliament, the heads of state and government would be well advised to leave the President of the Commission a great deal of latitude in making that choice. Here, I once again share the view of Philippe de Schoutheete, who believes that they should leave the President "the first choice of each Commissioner" in order to consolidate the President's authority and, which appears to me just as important, to ensure the correct application of article 17.6. This would also serve as a timely reminder to everybody - journalists and ministers included - that Commissioners do not represent their country within the Commission. That is the role of the ministers at the Council. As the Treaty sums it up admirably, the members of the Commission "shall be chosen on the ground of their general competence and European commitment from persons whose independence is beyond doubt". [Olivier Jehin, Reporter and Editor of the twice-weekly Europe Diplomacy & Defence]