Regrettably, it is now our turn to examine the saga of the appointment of Martin Selmayr to the position of Secretary General of the European Commission (see EUROPE 11991). It was tempting to sit this one out, but the Savonarolas and other Fouquier-Tinvilles of our age, who are currently setting the rhythm for the European media, would no doubt have seen it as an admission of weakness or self-serving complacency on the part of Agence Europe. It is nothing of the sort. But it is not the aim of this column to run with the pack – that is to say, the pack of watchdogs of institutional transparency – or to join the ranks of those who never fail to spot the mote in the eye of ‘Brussels’, but almost never see the beam in the eye of the national executives. A few brief comments on this unfortunate incident are all that’s needed.
First of all, we should note that the terms under which this former head of cabinet of President Juncker was appointed to his new position result from a political-institutional DIY that is all the more pathetic for being combined with a measure of technocratic arrogance bordering on the absurd on the part of a group of spokespersons, confirmed past masters in the art of adding fuel to the fire. It is as if these peerless communicators, so certain of their role as sages looking down on the press room from their pulpits on high, forgot once again (after the tension that arose from their management of the dioxin crisis, or that led to the fall of the Santer Commission) that journalists are never so astute or tenacious as when they catch a whiff of obfuscation and attempts to play things down at any cost, even if this makes little sense.
On the face of it, President Juncker and his inner circle were wrong to put Martin Selmayr in charge of the Secretary General of the Commission through some flawed procedure. It follows that it should come as no great surprise if journalists, MEPs hot on their heels, point out that they were not born yesterday. Asking the Commission to explain itself to the European Parliament over this sleight-of-hand appointment procedure is therefore entirely healthy. But reason should nonetheless prevail and there are a number of things that point us towards this conclusion.
Firstly, did anybody question the hows and whys or the validity of the decision of President Macron – or those of all his predecessors – when he appointed the Secretary General of the Elysée Palace? Did anybody express even the slightest doubt as to the legitimacy of his prerogative? The same comment applies to all capitals of the EU where, inevitably, individuals do emerge from obscurity whose chief merit is to have won the confidence of the persons who appointed them. It also applies to the other institutions and bodies of the EU, including the European Parliament, even though it has been called upon to act as censor (see EUROPE 11976). No doubt the same procedures exist everywhere, to ensure that political appointments do not undermine the systems (or at least not too much), but it does not take exceptional insight to work out that many of the procedures are there to be circumvented.
The result is that the attention being received by Martin Selmayr and those who propelled him clumsily to the peak and central hub of the Commission is endlessly astonishing. We also have to look at the reasons for the acrimony the man seems to inspire. “Selmayr, or the methodological occupation of power” was a recent headline in the Belgian daily newspaper Le Soir (31 March/1 April; our translation), echoing the disingenuous accusation levelled by Jean Quatremer in Libération: “It will therefore have taken Selmayr, plus the little clique loyal to him, 14 years to ascend all levels of executive power” (27 February; our translation).
So what? Are professional ambition and talent dirty words in the Berlaymont? Even his greatest detractors and those who challenged his appointment can all agree that Selmayr is a talented lawyer whose work ethic is second to none. Why should he have to do penance for his career success when Macron’s rise was no less meteoric and the Austrian Chancellor newly sworn in is barely 32 years of age?
Then, there are murmurs – with a note of disgust – in well-informed circles that the Secretary General of the Commission allegedly committed the serious faux pas of accompanying President Juncker, on the eve of the most recent European Council session, to a meeting of the heads of state or government belonging to the European People’s Party. This, they argue, compromised the neutrality of the Commission. Ok… In his day, did the emblematic former Commission Secretary General, Emile Noël (and, now I come to think about it, was he appointed ‘correctly’?) cut all ties to his Socialist political family? And was his successor, British diplomat David Williamson, not appointed by Jacques Delors as a pledge of good faith to Margaret Thatcher, which will not necessarily have guaranteed his independence?
In reality, you have to wonder what is really behind the accusations being levelled in this particular context. The fact that Selmayr is a German national goes against him, because there are too many Germans in key positions in the institutional galaxy of the EU at the moment. Even though everybody can agree that he is ‘European’ rather than a protégé of Berlin, his nationality has led to scarcely concealed ill feeling. This comes across in comments, made off the record, that the coveted position had been “promised to a French national” (L’Echo, 1 March; our translation). And this is really what the whole thing boils down to.
Since the remarkable efforts to undermine the institution that earned Commissioner Neil Kinnock an elevation to the peerage upon his return home, the Commission is no longer a French-style administration, but an institution in which courage and creativity most often consist of sheltering from trouble under an umbrella, particularly in the more senior grades and positions, where ‘flags’ now count – as never before – for far more than talent does. The result is a demotivated administration where burnout reigns supreme.
And this is where the real scandal lies, not in the imperfect appointment of a man to a post. It lies in the stranglehold of the member states, in the plethora of Commissioners appointed by one person back home, at which the press does not bat an eyelid. It lies in a College completely devoid of ideological consistency, making the Commission a Princess born to die. And it is not by attacking Selmayr and Selmayr alone that we can rescue our Princess and allow her to grow up into the governmental Queen, anointed by parliamentary majority, that the EU and its citizens so desperately need.
Michel Theys