This year will prove to be very significant for the European Union (EU) in general and the European Commission (EC) in particular. Several events, including the changing scenario in Ukraine, the evolving aspects related to recession, the impact of hardening sanctions on Russia and the resulting energy crunch will all have to be dealt with seriously and on the basis of consensus reached through discussion. This will need a more pro-active role of the European Commission.
What will add to the complexity will be the expected changeover in the European Commission in the autumn of this year. It is generally agreed that this will be one of the key factors that will determine the direction of the European Union in the coming years. The question of who will get what responsibility within the changed paradigm and how far the European Parliament (EP) elections can influence the appointment of the Commission President is expected to considerably influence the future dynamics. It is also anticipated that subsequently there will be an impact of the new European Parliament on the reconstituted European Commission. This is expected to re-determine the focus on the relationship between the European Parliament and the Commission and will in all likelihood re-set the terms of the policy priorities within the European Union.
It would be important at this point to re-visit the way the Commission is structured. Many analysts have pointed out that the current structure of the Commission has two fundamental flaws which need to be addressed during the next political cycle (2014-2019): A long standing issue, aggravated by the recent enlargements of the EU, is the number of Commissioners. Fabian Zuleeg, Chief Executive of the European Policy Centre (EPC) in Brussels, has noted that the present scenario is "increasingly leading to a strong 'silo' mentality, with each member of the college virtually autonomous in their own portfolio's competences, with inter-service consultations and infrequent top-down direction from the Commission President being insufficient to break the overall pattern". It is felt that this situation is eventually leading to 'a lack of coherence and focus' and in the worst cases giving 'rise to uncertainty over the overall direction' and also even creating sometimes 'outright contradictions'.
The second flaw that continues to draw the attention of others is not new. It is again coming up for discussion because it is becoming increasingly difficult to handle what is being termed as 'the conflict between the political function of the Commission (taking a role in the overall political direction of the EU) and its role as an independent monitoring/assessment agency, regulator and arbitrator in the application of EU laws. As an example, observers are referring to areas such as competition policy or in the assessment of member states' budgetary policies. It is now being observed that as the European Commission becomes increasingly a 'political Commission', further reinforced by the link to EP elections made in the Lisbon Treaty, it would be increasingly difficult for the Commission to maintain credibility as an independent actor in the future.
Zuleeg has correctly noted that addressing the first flaw has been discussed for a number of years and EU Treaties have provided for a reduction in the number of Commissioners to enable the Union to cope with successive enlargements. However, it has proved to be "impossible to get the political agreement for countries to give up the principle of one Commissioner, at least, per country. Equally, having 'junior' and 'senior' Commissioners in line with similar arrangements in many national governments does not seem to be acceptable to many member states, with some of the smaller states worried that they would perpetually end up with junior posts". This inherent weakness will probably increase if not addressed before the expected changeover in Autumn.
Civil society in Berlin, Paris and Brussels has suggested a way out to overcome these difficulties. They felt the existing structure can be modified through the creation of clusters of Commissioners around Vice-Presidents. Such a format, it may be noted, has been discussed for a number of years and received serious consideration during the appointment of the current Commission.
In this regard, analysts consider "the establishment of a system of Vice-Presidents of the Commission with responsibilities over major thematic clusters and with competences to coordinate the work of the Commission in the corresponding areas" as a potential option. They also think that as a second option there could be redistribution of Commission portfolios into thematic clusters. This solution is considered more challenging, given the overlaps between different policy areas.
It is being mentioned that the structure of the Commission should try to take cognizance of the overarching challenges of the EU, such as low growth, social divergence and the continuing need to reform and govern the evolving Euro zone.
These factors are now leading leadership in different EU countries to hint that existing portfolios could be grouped thematically, with five new Vice-Presidents covering the following issues: Solidarity and Cohesion, Growth, Single Market, Citizenship and Mobility and Environment and Natural Resources. Such a situation would then result in the total number of Commissioners reaching the figure of around 33.
It needs to be understood here that these issues have already come under scrutiny in the current European Parliament. MEPs have suggested that there are alternative ways of grouping Commissioners under broad themes. Some, during deliberations in different Committees, have, for example, pointed out that energy and regional policy could be under Growth and that Health and Consumer Policy could belong together. It has been debated as to whether Vice-Presidents should have their own portfolio rather than simply an overarching role.
Reflecting on their special functional responsibilities in the proposed structure, the Vice-President with the Economic and Financial Affairs portfolio will not have to coordinate his activities with Commissioners. Instead, the High Representative who leads a thematic cluster will also retain his High Representative role. This format will mean that the five new Vice-Presidents will not have their own portfolios. This will ensure that there is no particular focus on a specific policy agenda. This will permit the creation of a more streamlined structure.
It is, however, clear that the new European Commission will have to undertake a serious study as to how portfolios can not only be reviewed, redistributed and merged to bring the number of Commissioners down to 28 but also how there could be streamlining of responsibilities under each thematic area. MEPs are already mentioning that consumer policy could be merged into one of the Single Market portfolios. This would indeed be challenging. Quite understandably questions have arisen as to whether it is really feasible to split up the Energy portfolio or sub-divide the Business Environment portfolio. There is difference in opinion as to whether it would at all be possible to create a structure under thematic clusters which can be more focused and effective than the current one.
Nevertheless, one thing is quite clear. The new structure of the European Commission would require that Vice-Presidents have a role which goes beyond merely coordinating the activities in each thematic cluster. They will have to have an explicit role in deciding, in conjunction with the Commission President, the strategic direction of policy within their cluster and how they will work with their portfolio Commissioners. This should also be reflected in the administration, where it would be useful to have a joint strategy unit for each cluster rather than each portfolio.
The above process would help to resolve issues but there would still be the nagging feeling among some small countries who think that absence of a Vice Presidential portfolio is discriminatory. Some of them, as we are aware, still think that such absence is not fully compensated by having individual portfolios which are more substantive. One way to create the necessary confidence among all the State actors would be to have an effective coordination between the President and the Vice-Presidents with a common purpose and vision.
In any case, the new European Commission will require a more functional and challenge-oriented structure than the current one. Greater effectiveness would turn the Commission into a political instrument, with clear-cut political priorities, and the ability to better deliver and implement them.
Muhammad Zamir, a former Ambassadorand Permanent Representative to the EU,
is specialised in foreign affairs, right
to information, good governance.
mzamir@dhaka.net
© 2026 - All Rights with The Financial Express
