European Parliament election, 2014: A watershed moment for democracy?

The European Commission was pro-active in its engagement with the relevant authorities and political parties who were supposed to be associated with the tenth parliamentary elections in Bangladesh (held on January 05, 2014). Unfortunately, at the very end, their effort ended up being less than expected and quite disappointing.
This year is significant for the European Union as well. They will be holding their next elections to the European Parliament in May 2014. It will be watched carefully, particularly in terms of voter turnout.
Analysts are pointing out that different institutional and contextual factors could mark a turning-point for the upcoming elections to the European Parliament (EP). It is being mentioned that the presence of 'top candidates' for President of the European Commission from EU-level political parties could personalise as well as Europeanise the elections and raise the stakes of the EP vote.
There is a belief that this would reverse the familiar pattern of low turnouts. Some are also apprehending that this election might witness the unleashing of a wave of negative campaigning against European integration and might bring more protest voters to the polls.
Some feel that this might enhance the stand of Eurosceptic lawmakers in the next European Parliament.
It may be recalled that the vision behind the decision of EU governments in the early 1970s to introduce direct elections to the EP was to produce a European mandate for the majority in Parliament, inject some sense of public control and scrutiny over EU affairs, encourage the development of truly European political parties, and transform the European Union (then the European Communities) into a legitimate democratic polity. This practice unfortunately does not appear to have succeeded as much as expected.
Consequently, two analysts, Corina Stratulat and Janis A. Emmanouilidis have mentioned that EP elections appear to have assumed the label of 'second-order national electoral contests'. They do not appear to have had any significant influence either in the composition or political complexion of the European Commission or in addressing European concerns and preferences.
From this point of view, many consider that EP elections have failed as an instrument of democracy and also as a tool that can express the will of European citizens on issues dealing with the process of EU integration and decision-making.
They use this as a reason for the steady drop in voter participation in EP elections from 62 per cent in 1979 to a record-low of 43 per cent in 2009.
The next year however will witness a few changes in the EU electoral paradigm. EU observers have stated that from an institutional point of view, "the 2014 EP elections will be the first since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty in 2009, which has not only broadened significantly the legislative and budgetary powers of the European Parliament but has also given the EP the responsibility to elect the President of the Commission on the basis of a candidate proposed by the European Council, after taking into account the outcome of the EP elections (Article 17(7) Treaty on European Union (TEU)".
This will represent a significant upgrade of the Parliament's nominating rights compared to the previous Nice Treaty, which entitled the EP to merely approve the designation of the Commission President.
It is also being expected that candidates for the Presidency of the Commission in the context of the 2014 EP elections will try to forge an 'electoral connection' between people and politics in the Union by playing a leading role in the electoral campaign, in particular by individually presenting their political programmes in all member-states.
This, it is expected, will boost the accountability of the Commission vis-à-vis the Parliament and the electorate, spark pan-European debates, increase the democratic legitimacy of decision-making at EU level, and ultimately persuade citizens to vote in greater numbers - all of which are pre-requisites for closer European integration.
It is being considered that a higher turnout in the upcoming EP elections could make it easier for elected representatives in the next Parliament to take critical decisions about the future direction of the Union.
This could also improve the democratic legitimacy of the European Parliament and the European Union against a backdrop of mounting Euroscepticism and public distrust in the EU institutions.
Better procedural applications would reduce the chances of 'secretive horse-trading' in the European Council by putting in place a more transparent and democratic nomination process.
A clearer link between the EP elections and the selection of the President of the Commission could also enhance the legitimacy and political 'clout' of the successful incumbent, and could strengthen the democratic and political standing of both the European Parliament and the Commission vis-à-vis the (European) Council.
The issue of nomination of the fittest for the post of European Commission President will, however, be merely one element in a complex EU leadership 'puzzle'. It will involve the Presidencies of the European Council, the European Parliament, the position of High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Vice-President of the European Commission and the questions of gender equality, regional and political proportionality.
Turning to the post-election phase, there is no guarantee that the candidate of the European political party that wins most votes in 2014 will automatically become the head of the Commission. To add to this complexity within the matrix one will have to remember that whatever the ideological orientation of the next Commission chief, it does not de?ne the overall political orientation of the Union.
This generates its own difficulty. Hopefully this time round, the dynamics will be such that the selection process does not create debate.
It will involve the appointment of other Presidents (that is, of the European Council, the EP and the Eurogroup), as well as the High Representative/Vice-President of the Commission.
They will have to be chosen in such a way so that they represent different political stripes for the sake of 'ideological balance' in the EU institutional quad (that is, the European Commission, the European Parliament, the European Council, and the Council of Ministers).
There is another challenge according to Corina Stratulat and Janis A. Emmanouilidis. They have noted that 'according to Declaration 11 on Article 17(6) and (7) TEU, the European Council and the European Parliament are jointly responsible for the smooth running of the process leading to the election of the President of the Commission, and must hold 'appropriate consultations' in order to agree on a candidate'.
However, it is not a foregone conclusion that the two EU institutions will interpret the Treaty provisions in the same way and support the same candidate. This might cause inter-institutional turf wars.
Consequently, one hopes that this time round, to avoid confusion, the two EU institutions should, before the start of the 2014 elections, agree on 'the detailed arrangements that will govern their post-electoral consultations over the new Commission President'.
It is being mentioned that the 2014 European elections could become more relevant for voters if the substance of the campaign in the member-states were less about national concerns and more about European issues.
This could relate to: a further intensification of European cooperation in the framework of Economic and Monetary Union; the encroachment of supranational decisions on domestic policies and practices, especially as regards the EU's response to the crisis; and/or the relationship between individual member states and the Union.
Such debates about European 'polity' issues could then tap into people's opinions about whether their country's membership in the EU has proved to be beneficial or whether integration has gone 'too far'/'not far enough'.
This might lead to an impact on party choice at EP elections, because political parties competing for the Parliament have hitherto focused only on the national arena (in which left/right issues dominate) and offered voters limited choice between different visions of Europe. In that context, EP elections could function as a better 'transmission belt' between people's preferences and those of their ensuing Parliament representatives.
Another area that could benefit EU before the EP election would be the decision to produce a common election manifesto that could be debated transnationally and could foster agreement among European parties on joint solutions to shared problems, especially concerning potential measures to abate existing crisis.
This might be difficult to formulate but if this can be done, it will help EU-level parties to discover 'lowest common denominators' and then move forward towards resolution of problems based on that.
There is a lot riding on the upcoming elections to the European Parliament in 2014. EU critics and supporters alike have high hopes that the next round of EP elections will shake off the familiar voters' fatigue and 'awaken' citizens' interest in participating in the European ballot. This, then, will further turn the 2014 European vote into a watershed moment for democracy and promote European integration. One can only hope that this will take place.
 Muhammad Zamir, a former Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the EU, is
specialised in foreign affairs, right to information and
good governance.
mzamir@dhaka.net