The forthcoming European elections are mainly to do with political parties, European Parliamentary political groups and bodies representing the public. The European Commission, however, also has a role and specific responsibilities. I am going to look at two aspects that have nothing at all to do with the choices for one or other of the political parties.
1. Future presidency of the European Commission. In my opinion, the European political parties should avoid appointing their candidates for the Commission presidency. It appears that the EP-ED has still not abandoned the idea of including the confirmation of Mr Barroso as a candidate among its election campaign themes. I believe this would be a mistake because such an initiative would in practice compel the other political groupings to campaign against him and therefore against the Commission's current action, its management and functioning. Is it necessary to underline that the criticism directed at the Commission and its president is perfectly legitimate and normal? This is obvious. The demands and behaviour involved in election campaigns are, nonetheless, not unknown. If a party produces a name, the other parties are forced to attack it in order to convince voters to choose their lists of candidates at the EP. This is quite normal; each party comes up with a maximum number of reasons to be chosen. All Commission activity would be criticised, resulting in European activity as a whole being discredited because voters don't bother with the details. It would be from this angle that the Eurosceptics would present their case.
Let's not forget that there is something extraordinary about the next elections. Eurosceptics will be presenting an organised front at a European level for the first time and they have explicitly announced that they intend to obtain a majority at the EP. Any effort to discredit the Community institutions, particularly the Commission, whose very essence makes it a supra-national institution, is in danger of playing into the hands of the Eurosceptics because, as we are well aware, any excess is to their advantage: lies were at the centre of the “no” campaigns in the three well-known referendums that voted against the Lisbon Treaty. It is true that the goals of the opponents of European construction could flounder because support for Europe is growing again but we should beware of their demagogy and lack of scruples.
These considerations are of a general nature that goes beyond the specific case involving Mr Barroso. It is, nevertheless, important that he opposes the idea of a Commission president representing a given political tendency and behaving accordingly. He believes that one of the current Commission successes is to have shown that with 27 figures from different countries and political families, it is possible to obtain consensus for a European interest that prevails over national interest or that of individual commissioners (see his interview last week in EUROPE 9829).
2. Participation of commissioners in election campaign. European commissioners will obviously be able to express themselves like any other citizens but at the same time, they are duty-bound to avoid taking any positions that are likely to be transformed into anti-European propaganda. Every commissioner has the right to express their convictions but without ignoring their responsibilities. In reply to a journalist, Vice-President Jacques Barrot indicated that every commissioner is free to take part in the election events of the parties to which they belong in support of their candidates but without ever forgetting that the Commission is “at the service of Europe as a whole and must remain the place where consensus is forged”. In his opinion, commissioners have two priorities: to encourage citizens to vote and to give positive messages about Europe. He indicated that the Commission itself will discuss this in the next few days, in view of outlining a code of conduct that Commissioners abide by during election campaigns.
How can citizens be mobilised? The future Commission will be noticeably different from the current one: it appears that the number of commissioners, whose mandates are to be confirmed, will be quite limited. Significant innovations have also been announced in the lists of candidates for Parliament: it has been predicted that around half of the MEPs will be new. It is important in the election campaigns that rivalry between the institutions and personal quarrels do not become excessive - this is not the kind of thing that mobilises citizens. The main political manifesto and essential choices should be at the centre of the campaign: support for European integration, solidarity, democracy and a model for society. It may appear banal to say it, but at the very moment the campaign begins its take off, there are many causes for concern. Tomorrow, this column will illustrate a number of considerations regarding this subject.
(F.R./transl.rh)