Diversity rules at the polling booth

Date: 12/09/1996

ELECTIONS to the European Parliament provide a rare example of an area where the Union cannot be accused of rushing into harmonisation for harmonisation's sake.

Despite a 40-year-old plea for a uniform procedure and four pan-European elections since 1979, diversity remains the name of the game. With voters in Austria and Finland going to the polls next month to elect MEPs for the first time, the number of different systems used in the 15 member states will rise to 16.

On the surface there is little impetus to change the status quo. Even the European Parliament itself did not include the introduction of a uniform electoral system among its initial Intergovernmental Conference demands last year, (although it did list it as a goal in a subsequent submission).

Similarly, a cursory glance at the content of the current IGC negotiations would suggest that interest in the issue is distinctly low key. The report from the Italian former head of the negotiating group, Silvio Fagiolo, to the Florence summit in June noted: “The idea of amending the provisions on drawing up a uniform electoral procedure has not received any significant support, either as regards the setting up of a deadline for adopting a decision or as regards relaxation of the procedure.”

But behind this apparent indifference, the picture is somewhat different.

The German government, for one, is understood to be ready to table proposals at the IGC to break the impasse. The current centre-right French government is also clearly more sympathetic towards the idea than its Socialist predecessor.

Even in the UK, which dislikes any idea of proportional representation (although it uses such a system to elect its three Northern Irish MEPs), there is a possibility that a future Labour administration, prodded by the Liberal Democrats, might view a uniform system more favourably.

Dutch Liberal MEP Gijs de Vries, a keen supporter of a uniform system, has set the end of 1997 as a target date for agreeing common rules for the 1999 elections. He is especially critical of EU governments who specifically call for the development of pan-European political parties and yet retain fragmented electoral laws which prevent their creation.

“It is crystal clear that the attitude of the Council of Ministers to the electoral system is based on hypocrisy,” he says, warning that further governmental prevarication could spark off a legal action before the European Court of Justice.

To those who consider the argument over the respective merits of one uniform system or differing national ones to be on a par with a mediaeval theological debate, this diversity is of little consequence.

But there are practical repercussions which are felt beyond national boundaries.

The outcome of elections in the UK, where 84 of the 87 members are elected on the first-past-the-post system, has a disproportionate impact on the political make-up of the Parliament itself. And with MEPs gaining a greater input into EU policy and increasingly sharing legislative power with Union governments through the co-decision procedure, it may well have an impact on the corpus of European law. It also means that voters in different member states are treated differently.

This point is powerfully made by the German European Affairs Minister Werner Hoyer, a keen advocate of a Europe-wide system. In the 1994 European elections, the British Labour Party polled just 2.6 million votes more than its Conservative opponents, but won 44 more seats than the Tories. By coincidence, that is precisely the gap between the 217-member Socialist group and the second strongest political force in the Parliament, the European People's Party, which includes British Conservatives.

In contrast, for a German party to establish a similar 44-seat lead over its nearest domestic challenger, it would need to win at least 12.5 million votes more than its rival.

“Such blatant disproportionate representation of electors' intentions can no longer be defended on the grounds that the voting traditions of member states have to be respected,” wrote Hoyer recently.

The anomalies are greatest in the UK. If some form of proportional representation (PR) had been applied in the 1994 elections, British Liberal Democrats would have 14 members in the European Parliament instead of the current two, boosting the strength of the Liberal group.

“These are cases where the electoral arrangements for the UK are having an adverse effect on other EU countries and Germans are understandably bitter that their Social Democrats, who polled more votes than the British Labour Party, have a smaller representation in the Parliament,” says British Liberal MEP Graham Watson.

If it were not for the peculiarities of the British system, the Germans and not the British would be the largest single national delegation in the Socialist group, boosting their chances of chairing parliamentary committees and leading overseas delegations.

More significantly, it would probably have meant that the leader of the Socialist group (widely considered one of the most influential posts in the Parliament) would have been a German and not the current incumbent, British MEP Pauline Green; and the presidency of the Parliament (seen generally as an honorific position) would have gone to a British member and not to Germany's Klaus Hänsch.

But it is not as if there has been any shortage of effort over the past three decades to try to devise a system which would overcome national sensibilities.

Under the Treaty of Rome, responsibility for drawing up “proposals for elections by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all member states” lies with the European Parliament.

It is a unique situation in that it is the only instance in the Union where the legislative initiative rests with MEPs and not with the European Commission.

But although the Parliament has grasped the nettle, it has not succeeded in persuading EU governments to accept any of its blueprints.

The first was submitted by MEPs in 1961 and was followed by others in 1963, 1969, 1982, 1985 and 1993. They all ran up against the brick wall of unanimity in the Council of Ministers, where the UK has proved to be the main - but not the sole - obstacle.

As a result, a mosaic of rules is wheeled into place every five years and divergence rather than convergence has become the norm as the Union has grown from nine to 15 members and the number of MEPs has climbed from 410 to 626.

The one general area of agreement, however, is that 700 should be an upper limit for parliamentary membership irrespective of the number of EU countries.

The differences involved are significant and range from age limits for voters and candidates to acceptance or rejection of dual parliamentary mandates. In some states, voting is compulsory, in others optional. Equally, there are different rules on opinion polling, electoral deposits and the actual days on which voting takes place.

Few would underestimate the difficulties involved in agreeing a system for over 200 million voters. But with a new emphasis on flexibility and certain basic principles, the British-based Federal Trust has tabled a proposal which may break the log-jam. It is being specifically championed by Hoyer and several political groups in the Parliament, and has been favourably received by a number of EU governments.

Under the formula, at least half of a country's MEPs would be elected in regional constituencies, at least 20&percent; would be selected nationally with seats awarded in proportion to total votes cast, and 5&percent; would be elected on an EU-wide basis.

“We have tried to design a situation where subsidiarity can apply to the greatest possible extent. We are getting increasing support and the idea is being given a fair wind,” explains Federal Trust director Andrew Duff.

The scheme would allow the UK to keep its cherished single member constituencies for most of its MEPs (thus retaining the direct link between elected and elector) and would require France and Spain to introduce some regional specifications. It would involve virtually no changes in the 12 other member states.

De Vries believes that the challenge is clear-cut. “I like to quote Deng Xiaoping and say that it does not matter whether the cat is white or black as long as it catches mice. In this case, the mice represent the right of citizens to vote in European elections for European parties and to have a choice between national or European candidates,” he says.