Very few of our readers will be unaware of the existence of the Eurobarometer. Many will be aware of its rich history: the conception and launch, in 1974, by Jacques-René Rabier, of this tool, the first of its kind in the world, to take regular measure of the opinions of European citizens. Anybody wishing to find out more can visit the Commission’s website (http://bit.ly/2VOPQ6P ) or read the book on Rabier by Michel Theys, columnist and commentator of this agency (http://bit.ly/2VMZfvC ).
Eurobarometer is the only permanent opinion polling instrument at EU level; it generates results for each country, which it aggregates to present the EU average. By dint of repeating the same questions over time, it maps the development of public opinion concerning European integration in its various forms. It also includes special investigations into matters as important as they are varied, affecting everyday life and the future. The results, which are published several times a year, are frequently quoted in the wider press and invariably analysed by members of the Commission, the European Parliament, the permanent representations, the political parties, university research centres, etc. It is, in short, one of the great success stories of this European adventure.
One great taboo, however, has never been broken. The Eurobarometer has never asked the Europeans what they think about the people who lead the institutional system of the EU!
This situation is not normal and is becoming less so, the more the EU politicises and particularly whenever the context of public debate grows more intense, such as in the run-up to the European elections. In every member state, there are polling organisations that frequently publish the results of their surveys on voting intentions, with a focus on the popularity ratings of the principal political figures, both in power and in opposition. This kind of information is of particular interest to the citizens and media, to say nothing of the players directly involved. Why should this not also be true for the Union?
The standard Eurobarometer could at the very least include in its biannual surveys questions on the individuals who hold the Presidencies of the European Council, the European Commission and the European Parliament and, preferably, on the other members of the Commission as well, along with senior European Council officials and the presidents of the major political groups of the EP. These questions would centre on the person’s level of knowledge, the degree of confidence inspired by his or her public actions and whether the respondent would like to see him or her playing a role in the future.
It’s hard to understand why the key EU institutions continue to set themselves against this: do they fear a verdict of unpopularity? But citizens’ opinions can evolve and what’s more, public image is something that is built up over time. The very first results would almost certainly be disappointing, particularly concerning their prominence or lack thereof, but a true political animal would relish a challenge of this kind. Can you for one minute imagine a national leader coming to power and banning opinion polls about him or her from ever being published? There would be an absolute outcry. What would happen if a national opposition figure made a manifesto promise to abolish popularity ratings, for the (ulterior) motive that the results did not suit them at the time? They’d be a laughing stock.
I already know what the argument in favour of the status quo will be. The European institutions work on long timescales, they cannot afford to be sidetracked by the whims of public opinion. To follow that argument through to its logical conclusion, you would have to get rid of Eurobarometer altogether, useful as they consider it. Another argument is that European decision-makers will focus too much on their popularity ratings and end up seeking to please instead of doing their jobs. But no political leader, at any level, is required to take these surveys as their only compass when making decisions. The next argument is that they will start competing with each other to improve their own images, whereas unity in action is vital. As if the current system was one of perfect unity, with no competition between any individuals or institutions, ever! Another argument is that to improve their own popularity ratings, senior figures would start acting the movie star and waste all their time on TV appearances. Really? Explaining your political actions to the general public is a waste of time? Does that mean they should stick at firing off a few ad hoc tweets that won’t help anybody to understand anything? And are we supposed to believe that these things spell unity? None of these objections stands up.
Europe’s detractors love to depict the Commissioners as ‘civil servants’, which is objectively incorrect and manifestly done in bad faith. However, what sets a civil servant, even a senior one, apart from a political decision-maker is that you don’t get opinion polls measuring the popularity of the former, as the latter would freely admit. In the world in which we live, flying under the radar of professional opinion pollsters is a one-way ticket to the political wilderness. It is easy to believe that the Commissioners all see themselves as politicians, and part of that is playing the visibility game right to the end.
At international level, various surveys gauge the popularity of the planet’s principal leadership figures. The 2015 Gallup poll, based on a survey in 68 countries, identified the most popular politicians on the planet: in descending order, Obama, Merkel, Cameron and Hollande. None of the four enjoys anything like the same level of popularity in their own countries. In 2018, having interviewed citizens from 25 different countries, the Pew Research Center (USA) put the confidence ratings as follows: Merkel (52%), Macron (46%), Xi Jinping (34%), Putin (30%), Trump (27%). Additionally, the (contested) French Institute Odoxa, which boasts that it sounded out all Europeans (?), reported the following results concerning the popularity of the leaders of seven countries (France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain and the United States) in spring 2018: 49% expressed sympathy for Merkel, 40% for Macron; 79% expressed antipathy for Trump, 61% for Putin, 42% for May. The heads of the Italian and Spanish governments at the time (Gentiloni and Rajoy) turned out to be relatively unknown to the general public, at a level of 71% and 61% respectively.
These attempts caught the attention of the media and probably that of some citizens as well, but more than anything else, they confirm that Eurobarometer is the only institution capable of producing a serious and credible survey into public opinion across the EU including, if it had a mandate to do so, the popularity of its senior figures and therefore also of those who head up the principal institutions.
We often hear that the EU is a faceless, desperately ‘impersonal’ entity. To tackle this commonly held view, it is not enough to show these ‘faces’ at the odd press conference. And it is not the job of journalists to establish their own hit parade of Commissioners and MEPs. Let us allow the citizens, as well and most of all, to have their say at regular intervals. This would benefit everybody: politicians and institutions would gain in visibility, humanity and legitimacy; the grassroots Europeans would get an increased feeling of citizenship.
Let us hope that the next Commission will have the guts to include this common-sense reform in its agenda. But it would benefit from public debate now. How about a Flash Eurobarometer on the Spitzenkandidaten, now there’s an idea with legs, surely? But would the parliament oppose it…?.
Renaud Denuit.