A lot of people are still trying to decide whether there is any point bothering to vote in the European elections. The institutions seem distant, even forbidding. The current vogue for conspiracy theories is finding fertile ground: it won’t make any difference, the ‘elite’, united in their greed, will do whatever they want anyway …
At any level of government, deciding not to vote is the very worst attitude. Generations fought for the right to universal, free and secret suffrage: are we saying they were wrong, showing our ingratitude? Throughout the world, there are populations who dream of democracy: are we telling them it’s not worth having? The rule of law carries duties as well as rights: even in countries in which voting is not compulsory, there is a moral obligation to carry out this civic act, to participate in life as a society. And even if you look at it from the point of view of personal interests, not voting is misguided: you will be subject to the actions of policymakers chosen by other people.
The European Parliament is still a young institution, therefore insufficiently known and appreciated. It has only been directly elected by the citizens since 1979. Previously, each national parliament decided who would take their seats in Strasbourg, and the general public were kept largely in the dark. The battle for direct suffrage was fierce; this is something that we tend to forget. Boycotting the elections is like voting to go back in time.
With every new treaty over the last 40 years, the EP has gained new powers. Within the hierarchy of EU institutions, it is now top of the tree, as it represents the European citizens. But if the European citizens give it the cold shoulder, its representativity will decline and, with it, its powers, to the benefit of different, less legitimate players. The citizens will then have effectively widened the ‘gulf’ that is what they so dislike about the EU.
It is certainly to be regretted that for certain European policies, already implemented or still in gestation, the EP has no decision-making powers: the euro, competition, taxation, foreign policy, trade, defence, etc… But things can change, particularly under pressure from the MEPs. It is also a great shame that here and there, the current campaign has been governed by purely national issues and short-term tactical voting; the political parties lack maturity: it is for the citizens to help them to grow, at their insistence. Finally, the proliferation of fake news means that they have to make extra efforts to discern the truth.
There are several lists currently vying to take their seats in the next Parliament. The political offering is vast. Those who believe that all manifestoes are essentially identical are greatly mistaken. Every five years, there are real choices for the voters. The results to be announced on 26 May will affect future legislation.
As with any elections, these ones will change the balance of power within the European Parliament. The share of influence enjoyed by each of the political groups will change, which will no doubt lead to the forging of different alliances and a change in priorities.
Those in favour of an authoritarian regime may express this at the ballot box: it is part of the diplomatic risk that the enemies of democracy and freedom be given the chance of success. Similarly, there is no lack of appropriate candidate for citizens who want to see the end of the EU: thus bolstered, these would-be gravediggers could step up their campaign of sabotage for the next five years, at the taxpayers’ expense; it would be tantamount to the electorate of a nation-state lending support and paying salaries to those seeking its dissolution.
Equally, there is no shortage of political parties in favour of the EU and, to differing degrees, seeking reforms within this framework. What do we need to change? As they compare priorities and manifestoes, thinking ahead to the future they want for themselves and their children, the citizens will draw inspiration. Finally, preferential voting, wherever it is an option, allows voters to choose the candidates who are most worthy of holding European office. It is in the public’s interests to have MEPs of integrity, who are qualified to do the job, who are guided by an ideal and prepared to devote the bulk of their energies to fulfilling their mandate.
The new Parliament will elect the President of the Commission, on the basis of a proposal from the European Council taking the election results into account; this proposal can be rejected. It will then interview the Commissioners designate: incidentally, how many national or regional parliaments do you know of that open up ministers’ appointments to scrutiny and are able to revoke them? It will approve the new Commission (or it won’t). It may also censure it at any point during its lifetime. It will act as co-legislator in many areas. Every year, it will negotiate and vote on the EU budget. It will bring influence to bear through its reports, questions, resolutions, investigations and hearings, which will also allow it to stay connected with civil society. In short, it will be responsible for making the policies supported by the voting public a reality.
These elections will be historic. The future of Europe is in the hands of the citizens, far more than they realise.
Renaud Denuit.