David Cameron has voiced opposition to the appointment of Jean-Claude Juncker as the next President of the European Commission. Mareike Kleine writes that while some commentators have supported Cameron’s position, most of the criticism of Juncker’s candidacy reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Commission is and does. She argues that if Juncker is denied the role it will undermine a key attempt at bringing EU politics closer to citizens.
Most EU member states and the majority of the members of the European Parliament are ready to elect Jean-Claude Juncker – the Spitzenkandidat (lead candidate) of the European People’s Party – President of the European Commission. Meanwhile in the UK, Mr Cameron vehemently opposes Mr Juncker’s nomination. He seems to have struck a nerve with his country. Critics come out on the left and the right to speak out against the former prime minister of Luxembourg and president of the Eurogroup.
Some arguments are plausible. Few convince. None really matter. Because the truth of the matter is that the tug-of-war is not about Mr Juncker himself. It is about an experiment to politicise the European elections by making them a contest between different Spitzenkandidaten for the post of Commission President. Not nominating Juncker will kill this experiment once and for all. His nomination, however, would mean giving this experiment a real chance in five years when Europe gets to argue about his record.
The Commission’s leadership: a red herring
Some argue that Juncker is the wrong guy for the job. For Timothy Garton Ash, Juncker personifies the sluggishness of EU politics that to many is the root of Europe’s current misery. What is needed is the leadership of somebody of the caliber of Christine Lagarde (who has already declined with thanks) in order to once again make the term “Europe” part of a larger story of progress.
The Telegraph, in contrast, is afraid that Juncker is going to do too much. As a staunch federalist, the paper suggests, the Commission under his leadership is bound to grab more power from the member states. Besides, his habit of smoking and drinking (though likable in some British politicians) makes him appear even more suspicious.
These criticisms reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Commission is and does. In the past three decades, the Commission has lost much of its power of political and legislative initiative to the European Council, which comprises both the governments and the Commission president as a non-voting member. And as I’ve shown in my own work, the member states often use “their” commissioner and other informal practices in order to influence the Commission from inside. None of this is going to change with the Commission’s politicisation.
The Commission’s leadership therefore fundamentally depends on its President’s ability to work with, not against the member states – a maxim that underwrote Jacques Delors’ successful first term in this position. This means that it is crucial for its President to understand the governments’ way of thinking in order to forge alliances between the European Council and the Commission. In this light, Juncker as a former prime minister of a small member state and longest-serving member of the European Council is an excellent fit for this job.
European democracy: an impossible dream?
Gideon Rachman views the debate more fundamentally as a battle over democratic principles. To him, Juncker’s supporters hold the naïve belief that European elections will increasingly take place in a post-nationalist context and, consequently, express the will of a pan-European people. A European identity, however, does not exist, nor can it be constructed from above. Only national leaders that are well known to the public have a legitimate claim to representing their citizens’ interests.
This argument is seriously flawed as well. The fundamental principle of democracy is not a common identity. It is the meaningful participation of those in the making of authoritative decisions that are affected by these decisions. Growing interdependence means that this principle is increasingly difficult to uphold. The EU allows restoring the congruence between decision-makers and decision-takers by providing a forum where its members decide things that affect all of them in common.
If there’s a fundamental democratic problem in Europe it is that we cannot hold decision-makers at the EU level as directly accountable as at the national level. The chain of accountability at the moment works mostly through national governments. Direct elections to the European Parliament have been an attempt to make this link between EU politics and citizens a bit shorter.
In contrast to national and local governments, however, the EU primarily deals with non-salient issues that even its biggest fans would, as Andrew Moravcsik put it, consider boring. This is a problem for EU politics because nobody wants to spend time and effort on educating oneself on issues that they don’t find interesting (voters are “rationally ignorant”). As a result, turnout to the European elections is low and voting decisions often misinformed.
The case for the Spitzenkandidat
Making European elections a debate about different Spitzenkandidaten and their agendas is an attempt to make EU politics more interesting and voting decisions more informed. Arguably, this year’s race wasn’t very exciting (turnout increased only marginally), and because the Commission’s power to set the agenda is limited, there is good reason to doubt that they ever will be.
However, the proof is in the pudding, and this year’s elections haven’t been a real test yet. Election campaigns are in large parts about the incumbent’s record, not about agendas. This is evidenced by the irony that the tug-of-war about Mr Juncker has probably done more to make him known to the public than months of election campaigning across Europe. It is possible that we get a similarly exciting public debate in five years from now when we get to assess his record. To find out, we have to give Juncker a chance.
Please read our comments policy before commenting.
Note: This article originally appeared at our sister site, British Politics and Policy at LSE, and gives the views of the author, and not the position of EUROPP – European Politics and Policy, nor of the London School of Economics.
Shortened URL for this post: http://bit.ly/TCD3UG
_________________________________
Mareike Kleine – London School of Economics
Dr Mareike Kleine is Lecturer in EU and International Politics in the European Institute at the LSE. Her recently published book, Informal Governance in the European Union, was published by Cornell University Press in 2013.
The treaties are quite clear, it is the heads of state that chose the commission president just as they chose the commissioners. This is nothing but a power grab by the loonies that want the national governments to be subservient to them instead of the other way round. Policy is put forward by the commission & the purpose of the MP’s is to ratify or reject it. The treaty merely states that the heads of state should give consideration to the lay of the land following elections & as no party won an outright majority add to that the biggest collection of MP’s are from a party that didn’t even run any candidates in the UK. If none of the current parties in the UK want to fly the EPP flag in the UK they have to get out & put up candidates themselves. The EPP is as legitimate as Assad in Syria dodging regions he didn’t like to interact with hostile voices any more than Assad, Putin or Mugabe.
What you seem to have missed in your analysis is that the treaties only require a qualified majority in the Council and that if the UK, Sweden, the Netherlands and Hungary are the only countries opposing Juncker, then the national governments can put him forward. What we’re currently seeing is Merkel trying to be open to Cameron’s opinions even when she doesn’t need to be. If Juncker can get a qualified majority of national governments in the Council and a majority in the Parliament based on the MEPs who have been directly elected across Europe then what exactly is undemocratic about that?
I personally think the Spitzenkandidaten process is counter-productive as I think the Commission should be viewed as an apolitical civil service. Giving it a democratic mandate would be to get away from what it’s actually there to do – the same way that electing the head of the Bank of England or ECB would radically change institutions that are broadly effective at doing what they’re supposed to do.
However your argument is going so far beyond that it’s hard to agree with most of what you say. The Assad comparison is frankly ridiculous – and you seem to have made it several times on the other article as well. That’s like saying Cameron is the equivalent of a dictator because he didn’t campaign particularly strongly in Scotland in 2010. An absurd statement – particularly when the reason they didn’t campaign in the UK was largely out of respect for Cameron and Miliband’s views. I’m not sure if you’re just posting that to try and get a reaction, but if you genuinely believe that then I really don’t know what to say…
By the way its the EU commission, I wish you & your friends would stop laying claim to the continent of Europe.
While in principle your point is well made unfortunately none of the candidates presented a dynamic statement of their vision for the EU.
The election appears across Europe to be more about national government rather than the big picture.
Dull and gray people do not capture the imagination. The Council aquiested in the concept of lead candidates now they should deliver. If Juncke is not accceptable to parliament fails to get a majority then he should step aside to allow the next best performing Spitzenkandidat to see if they can get a majority to support them.
Odd as it may seem, this “tug-of-war” may mark a decisive turning point in the two visions of the Union: the separation of the Parliament in two Chambers, The Eurozone (Federalist) and the “Business Union” reuniting the others. Absolutely positive an outcome to speed up legislation and “unity of vision”.
I find all these ideas that the Commission should be unpolitical or that it only deals with unsalient issues totally spurious. Yes, the commission’s often goes unnoticed by the press, and the council in particular has over the last few years gicen the commission a few good kickings. But if you look at the actual workings and the bahiour of members of the commission, and indeed if you look at the (written) aims of the EU (ie. ever closer union), this is simply not sustainable. The commission is a very powerful government and needs to be controlled not just by state governments but by the European parliament, just as every other executive needs to be controlled by its parliament.
There are of course many ways to make an institution accountable short of having a direct link with voters. Most central banks are accountable, but completely unelected.
Indeed the Commission is already accountable to the European Parliament – as the Santer Commission incident proved. It’s also held to account by 28 national governments and an independent body in the shape of the Court of Auditors. This is more scrutiny than most political institutions/bodies come under.
My objection to the Spitzenkandidaten process is that it will actually do the exact opposite of what’s being suggested here. A body which is directly (or indirectly) elected and backed up by a majority in the European Parliament has a greater mandate to act. On the other hand a body that is directly under the authority of national governments has far less scope for independent action. If we want an accountable Commission then the current system is far better than what’s being proposed.