The elections to renew the European Parliament will take place in eight months’ time. The main political families, the heads of the member states and institutions of the EU, seasoned observers: all of them are aware of the importance of this election. Will the turnout rate be even lower than usual? Will the nationalists, populist and Europhobic political groups come out stronger than they did in 2014? If the answer to these two questions is yes after the votes have been counted, this will mean that a growing proportion of citizens have sent out a clear message of disapproval.
What exactly they disapprove of will have many dimensions : the European Union as a project and as a construct, the EU as it functions at the moment, the policies it imposes, the net results of the 2014-2019 legislative period, the actions of the national government in place (as these elections also serve as a protest vote to undermine the leaders of the country, the very people who wanted the European elections to continue to be a juxtaposition of national lists with nothing in common with each other, thereby reaping what they sowed). Political commentators, sociologists and public opinion pollsters will have plenty to analyse in June 2019.
This disapproval would weaken the Parliament and its representative legitimacy, even though the Lisbon Treaty gave it more powers than all previous treaties. In particular, it would deal a blow, possibly a fatal one, to the very concept of the world’s only transnational democracy and to the painstaking development of a European agora. The process of the Union’s dislocation, to which the European Council contributes from the top due to its lack of ethics, will be completed when the citizen base melts away.
In the hierarchy of EU institutions, the European Parliament holds first place. However, the citizen sees “Europe” more through the acts and declarations of the European Council, which are far more likely to be reported in the media, and those of the Commission. The media existence of the Parliament emerges only in glimpses at a few strong moments in its life, the most recent examples being the votes on triggering article 7 TEU against Hungary and copyright in the digital age (see EUROPE 12094). This is clearly unfair, as many MEPs put in serious, properly documented and well-argued work, guided by the public interest. In co-decision, the Parliament is undeniably a quality partner.
The general public has no idea that this is the case.
To ensure that the European elections do not end up being the fiasco referred to above, the citizens must vote in full knowledge of the facts and the EU must present a more attractive public image through the content of its policies and the public behaviour of its leaders. This engages the responsibility of the European Council and Commission at least as much as, if not even more than, that of the MEPs and political parties. But it engages the responsibility of the press as well.
If you ask the media about their role in a society, most of them claim that they make a contribution to the health of democracy. But if they recognise that they have a responsibility of this kind with regard to democracy at local, regional and national levels, if they are to be consistent, then this responsibility also applies to the supranational and transnational levels. And by the way, a major national newspaper cannot decide to report only on events internal to its own country, on pain of becoming professionally discredited.
What are the basic needs of a standard voter, deciding on how to cast his or her vote on the new European Parliament? Basic information about what the Parliament does. Being kept abreast of its main decisions, particularly those that affect the voter’s daily life or the future. Knowing what has become of the MEPs on the list he or she voted for in 2014: did they actually bother to turn up? How diligent were they? What did they work on? How did they vote? What results do they have to show for it? Knowing who is standing, who the new candidates will be, the process by which they will be selected. Being aware of the political priorities of the various political families in contention.
As regards how to keep the general public informed, it is naive to imagine that the masses are all rushing to the institutions’ websites, even though these are reported to be comprehensive and “user-friendly”. The mass media are still a vital source, not just for gross information, but also for explanations. This journalistic work cannot reasonably be expected to work if it is carried out hastily, in the few days leading up to the election; it needs to be for the long haul, starting this autumn. To take one example, up to now, before the elections, many newspapers didn’t seem to find out until the last minute that there were members of the European Parliament, that the results of their work should be evaluated and presented to their readers. Would it not be useful to do this sort of thing on a regular basis, throughout the course of the legislative period or, at the very least, during the current period? After all, the faces of Europe include its directly elected representatives.
To complete – and further complicate – the landscape, the serious manoeuvres have started in the European political parties to define the key programmes and messages, decide on possible alliances, draw up the lists and appoint Spitzenkandidaten. Outside of specialist circles, not many people know what stage they are at. The information reaches them in fits and starts, often only if national stars are concerned. The landscape does not emerge. What goes on behind the scenes never makes it to the front of the house. How many EU citizens are aware that their vote will ultimately have an effect on the future Presidency of the Commission and its political priorities? How many of them have understood the notion of Spitzenkandidat? How many of them know the process to become one? How many of them are aware that Manfred Weber wants to become the EPP’s (see EUROPE 12089), Maroš Šefčovič hopes to be that of the PES, or how things stand with the Liberals, the Greens, etc.?
But it is now that the responsible press has a duty to investigate and clarify matters for the greatest number. Even though situations are very different, we are a very long way from the media coverage of the primaries in the United States, which at least have the merit of giving the citizens access to and understanding of the entire process right from the get-go.
In spring 2014, in the country that is home to the principal institutions of the EU, and when the European elections were arranged to coincide with national and regional elections, a major daily newspaper asked the principal audiovisual media how they planned to cover the triple campaign. The director of a major television channel replied by saying that they would not cover the European elections, because “nobody is interested in them”. Yes, he alone, sitting behind his desk, decided what interested the people - and if it was the result of discussions between the editorial team, that makes it even worse. In fact, it was a political decision, and a completely illegitimate one, to misinform the citizens over a major democratic decision. Is that what journalism is all about?
Renaud Denuit