As the President Barroso nears the end of its term, the perception in some national capitals is that the Commission is now a more "politically weakened institution".
A closer look at the institutional triangle would be enough to reach this conclusion: the European Parliament today is a more powerful institution than the “talking shop” it used to be in the early 50s. The Parliament’s role has been upgraded to that of a co-legislator with the Council in a wide range of policy areas, for the sake of EU citizens' interests and for the sake of Europe's democracy. The Council of the European Union has also changed to include 12 new Member States whose interests need to be accommodated.
In today’s Europe, however, my perception of the European Commission would be slightly different. When I look back in time, since President Hallstein and during its 51 years of existence, l can only recall of a period when the European Commission was (and was allowed to be) bolder, if you like vis-à-vis the Member States. It was during 1985-95 term of Jacques Delors. Back then, however, there were 15 Member States around the table. To use the cartoonist language, there were 17 Commissioners who would probably order coffee and, perhaps, some tea? The French-German axis was fine-tuned, which doesn’t happen for a while; and most importantly: it was in every Member State’s interest to build a common market. These were indeed inspiring days for the life of the European Commission, but they were just about one-fifth of the Commission’s lifetime.
When I look at today’s European Commission, I don’t see a weaker institution, but rather one that is changing. And one that needs to change because we are no longer living in the 90s. Since then, the world has completely changed, Eastern Europe has been “back to Europe” again and the Commission is now a more diverse group of 27 Commissioners, which inevitably faces a risk of fragmentation.
During his tenure, President Barroso has managed to forge consensus between the 27 Member States, big and small, while also reinforcing his own role inside the College. This might have changed collegiality and might have paved the way for a new form of 'presidentialisation', as some have put it. However, I do not see this as a negative development for the institutional life of the Commission. Quite the opposite: tomorrow’s European Commission will need greater doses of consensus to be able to deliver on different fronts and to be inclusive of different actors in society.
President Barroso did set the tone for a more open and flexible Commission. A European Commission that wants to reach out to citizens. A lot more needs to be done, of course. But if we want to re-invent Europe every day, as President Obama has recently said, we cannot be bound by our past, otherwise we will never move forward.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The role of a President of Commission is sometimes to facilitate the consensus indeed, but in no way forging consensus between the Member States all the time. You can not run the Commission if your only aim is to be consensual. This is exactly what I reproach to Barroso: he never takes initiatives against the Member States. He kills every breakthrough ideas as soon as one member states does not like it. So in a sense he plays the game of the partisan of intergovernmentalism. Remember that at the origin, the role of the Commission was to counter balance the tendency of the states to defend their own interests to the detriment of the general interest. Where is the general interest in the action of Barroso? really? no financial regulation before the crisis because France, Germany and UK against. No car plan because Germany against, no election on a single day etc...
ReplyDeleteYou are absolutely right: the role of the Commission is to defend the ‘common interest’. Without the European Commission as the motor of integration, the internal market and the common currency would probably not have seen the light of day. In this sense the Commission’s hand was crucial. However, the Commission’s role was equally crucial to ensuring that nothing was done against the interest of a Member State along the way. The interests of each and every Member State have always permeated the evolution of the European Commission and the integration project. When for example the Member States exert pressure to obtain key portfolios for their own Commissioner? President Hallstein might have been an exception; since then, however, President Jean Rey, which followed him in 1967, did pay attention to some requests flying from the national capitals…
ReplyDeleteWhere is the general interest in the action of Barroso? The general interest might not be as evident as it once was, for the reasons I have already mentioned. But clearly, there is an agenda, a green agenda that is mobilizing the Member States’ executives, civil society organisations, and citizens alike: a green agenda that the Barroso Commission put forward and will be a heading on the future generations’ agenda for years to come. I can also think of a general interest in a policy area with less visibility: the area of legitimacy of the European project. In 2006, there was a President’s initiative to better involve national parliaments in the EU’s policy-making process. What happened was that the Commission would forward all the legislative proposals to national parliaments to “feel” their opinion. From the point of view of breathing more democratic life into the European project, this was a positive move. Unfortunately, as we have already witnessed, several attempts at empowering the European Parliament, have not resulted in more legitimacy to the EP...
The argument about Delors having less commissionners to handle has its limits. Of course there were less people to have to agree around the table. But no matter what, Delors had a vision for Europe and he worked to impose it in the MS. What is the vision of Barroso? a greener europe? maybe yes but is this going to solve the biggest issue the EU is facing: the disinterest of its citizens? and I cannot receive anymore the argument: Building financial regulation in Europe when Barroso himself and some of his commissionners, worked hard to remove any regulation on financial market or resisted to put some.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that the disinterest of European citizens is not something new. It was already 'hunting' the EU during Delors' tenure. It is the result of a combination of factors, including an overall trend of citizens' 'disaffection' from politics in each Member State as well. This is not only a challenge for the Commission itself, but for the Council,and especially for the European Parliament, the institution that is directly link with EU citizens! As for Barroso's mandate some initiatives in this direction were implemented: citizens' consultations; the transparency initiative; a new dialogue with national parliaments, to mention just a few... The real challenge of this generation is to find innovate ways to promote youth participation in politics, and this should be a shared effort at of all levels of EU governance.
ReplyDelete