Members of the European parliament (EP) have come up with an unusual approach to raising turnout at next year’s European elections.
They intend to further confuse the ever dwindling number of citizens who can drag themselves to their local polling station.
It was said in 2009 and it being repeated more urgently; that these are 'make or break' elections for the European Parliament next year.
With austerity and what is seen as a weak leadership in the European Union during the economic crisis, there is, although rarely expressed in public, concern, bordering on panic over an expected rise in political extremists getting elected for a five year term in Brussels and Strasbourg.
So far, the only ‘big idea’ has been to offer the possibility of putting one of the pan-European parties logo on the ballot and encourage them to put forward a candidate for commission president two months before next year’s elections.
This does, however, present a few problems, not least that only a handful of Europe’s half billion citizens know even the name of a single pan-European party, leaving voters facing, not only politicians they haven’t heard of, but they are representing political organisations they haven’t heard of.
In Brussels, this is considered to be a fantastic idea that could boost turnout.
The other big idea is for the pan-European parties to nominate a candidate for commission president, but there are few who believe that all the groups will do this.
At the last elections, for example, the second largest group, the Socialists and Democrats (S&D) couldn’t even muster a candidate, giving Barroso a clear run, with results that are seen by many as disastrous.
Politicians from some groups, including Andrew Duff MEP (ALDE, UK) were discussing the prospects of next year’s elections at a meeting organised by the European Policy Centre, but the verdicts were not encouraging.
“The next elections are really becoming a challenge, my colleagues say it's a crisis,” said Green co-president Rebecca Harms MEP.
Harms gave her diagnosis, “The problem is citizens are thinking more about Europe but discovering the more they think about Europe the less they know about it.”
There was also the issue of trust, “They don’t trust us on social security, look at youth unemployment and I would say they are right because the EU offer a youth guarantee that doesn’t mean anything.” She continued, “Right now, it's the problem of Europe. One of our tasks in preparation for the elections is that we take care of the people who are feeling lost with those strange institutions.
This was a rare moment of self-examination
Andrew Duff said the next election would be different, “Partly because of context of enormous and protracted financial crisis that has caused tension, imperilled the currency and more importantly, raised questions over the long term sustainability of the European Union.”
He predicted increased polarisation between the federalists and non-federalists but added that there was plenty of ‘space’ between them and, “I think we will see all these on the same side of the barricades against the nationalists.”
He did caution, for the commission chief, “Do not be under any illusion that finding credible and respectable candidates will be very difficult.”
The Duff report, although non-binding, is encouraging the beginnings of a formal role for the parties but, it will not be in place for the 2014 elections.
Speaking for the European People’s Party (EPP), who have controlled the institutions after a clear victory in the previous European elections, Rafal Trzaskowski MEP noted, “Sometimes in Poland, when a packed meeting is told an MEP will speak, it empties.”
He continued, “5 years ago, the European parliament was sometimes disregarded but considered benign, now people say the EP is responsible for austerity and too much regulation.” He added, “People see the EU as more a source of problems than solutions.”
Calls for a mass debate over Europe
While Duff was suggesting the parties present their differing visions of European integration, Harms was hoping that their online campaign would spread debate, Trzaskowski pointed out the difficulties of finding agreement on half a dozen bullet points that would form their election literature and campaign focus.
All agreed that the use of debates and including MEPs from other countries in campaigning would be beneficial and demonstrate the idea that Europe is not two parties screaming at each other, but a range of viewpoints that look for common ground and compromise for the greater good.
This is the strong point of European politics and often at a higher standard than some national level electioneering.
The pan-European parties are a problem.
Since 2004 they have received huge amounts of funds from the European taxpayer. Trzaskowski says that they have helped co-ordinate group policies in the parliament, but the fact that nobody in the electorate knows anything about them makes it imperative that the parties explain the benefit to the citizens of the monies allocated to them by the European parliament.
Duff said that the European parties were performing poorly, but were “Good at holding party congresses, printing balloons with slogans and all that,” but he did say that there were too many limits on their roles.
People, and insiders, still need convincing that the parties are benefitting the citizen, rather than the political class.
Electing a president
Having parties present candidates for the commission presidency could add something to the election. However, it is very hard, if not impossible to find candidates. The national political leaders are not keen, and if they, the most ruthless and ambitious of people, are not fighting to become president, then what does that say about the office? Few qualified people are even interested, leaving the field clear for the second raters, the has-beens and the shuffled upstairs.
Until that changes, and the political leaders of the continent can be persuaded to high office, we shall be limited by the limits of those that stand.
Ashton. Van Rompuy. Barroso.
The fear of public loathing at the ballot box
“I see a bad moon rising, I see troubles on the way,” sang John Fogerty in 1969, about the portents of Nixon’s recent election. Many in European politics would find the song apt in the current fear and uncertainty.
European politicians are privately terrified of the coming vote with predictions of 25% of votes being cast for fiercely Eurosceptic and/or extremist parties, resulting in a parliament that is likely to be increasingly disrupted.
If you want to terrify a deputy, simply ask “How many saluting Nazis do you think will be in the next parliament?” They tend to look shifty, swallow a few times, and make a vague remark and inch away.
The deputies also complain that elections are about national issues. This could be put down to the failure of parties, European and their national members to do any campaigning at all.
Why do the parties take the public’s money but do no real work in bringing European politics to the citizens’ doorstep?
Elections have always been about the future but they’ve also been a verdict on the past. The EU has failed and failed badly. They should be punished for it and they strongly suspect they are.
The financial crisis could have shown the strength of Europe, instead it showed its weakness. The European parties were worse than useless. You could argue that the financial crisis was an internal EPP problem . During the crisis, the EPP had control of all the institutions and the governments of the most affected member states.
The only people who practiced solidarity
In Brussels, we had cries of Solidarity! More Europe!
In the real world, which begins as you leave Brussels, it is the citizens, especially of Greece, Spain and Portugal, who have shown real solidarity and a belief in European values.
They weren’t the cause of the financial crisis, but thanks to Brussels, they are paying the price.
Next year, they get their chance to speak. No wonder our politicians are so frightened.
They should be.
 |
| READ THE ORIGINAL POST AT www.neurope.eu |