Real choice for voters must wait until 2009

Date: 10/06/04

ATTEMPTING to compare the election manifestos of the EPP (Christian Democrats), PES (Socialists) and ELDR (Liberals) is a frustrating exercise.

At least the PES (seven pages in length) gives the voters five key commitments: to boost Europe's growth, fight poverty and create more and better jobs; to bring the EU closer to its citizens; to manage migration and pursue social integration; to build a more secure, sustainable, peaceful and just world, and; to promote Europe as an area of democracy and equality. The ELDR (127 pages) offers no less than 17 policy recommendations. The EPP (three pages) stands for a Union of values, a Europe of citizens, a European space of freedom, security and the rule of law, policies based on sustainability. All three parties favour motherhood and apple pie…

But does it matter which parties win and which lose at the forthcoming elections? Can substantial policy, as opposed to presentational, differences be identified through reading these party manifestos? What then is the purpose of voting, other than performing an act of citizenship or, to obey the law, where the voting is obligatory? Voting is, after all, supposed to be about choice.

The political parties in competition in the 10-13 June elections ignored an excellent opportunity to make the vote relevant and to offer a choice through it, by failing to nominate their candidates for the presidency of the European Commission. Current discussions between member state leaders as to suitable candidates for the highest political post in the Union again portray this lack of such choice.

How can the importance of voting for European political parties be explained to voters when Gerhard Schröder (PES) reassures Tony Blair (PES) over dinner at Downing Street that Guy Verhofstadt (Liberal) is an "economic liberal"? Labour-led Britain still publicly supports Anders Fogh Rasmussen (Liberal), the centre-right Portuguese government (EPP) supports António Vitorino (Socialist, the present justice and home affairs commissioner). The reality is that party affiliation is nothing but one out of several elements taken into account when the president of the Commission is chosen. As a consequence, people fail to see the real stakes of these elections, as they do not perceive their result and the victory of one of the parties in competition as determining the choice of the executive power in Brussels.

In addition, people fail to gauge the actual impact of the European Parliament on their daily lives. The starting point is that Parliament is an influential institution. It co-decides with the Council of Ministers on over 80% of EU legislation, which is at the origin of more than half of national laws - but this is not, however, generally recognized.

But elections for the European Parliament could be made more relevant if voters were given a clear choice by the marketing of political parties of genuinely distinct programmes, such as more economic liberalization as opposed to a more social platform, or more versus less action on the environment.

However, it is questionable whether there is any longer a genuine choice between Left and Right policies even at member state level. As the majority of their economic legislation originates in Brussels (only the percentage is in dispute, whether it is 60% or more), how much of a choice do parties in power have? The influence of Brussels/Frankfurt (from the European Central Bank) is even greater in the 12 eurozone countries.

In 1998 a right-wing government led by Helmut Kohl was replaced by a left-wing Gerhard Schröder-led one. In 2002 in France, the governments changed in the opposite direction. What were the substantive changes in policy? Not many, some would argue.

At European level, the three largest political parties develop broadly similar policies and they can hardly pretend that there are real differences between them.

European parties face two options: following the classic Left-Right divide, or organization according to attitudes towards European integration.

Today's two leading European political families are coalitions of the expedient. What does a European Democrat (ie British Conservative) have in common with a German federalist Christian Democrat, apart from the desire to belong to the biggest Parliamentary group? There are similar strains between UK and continental Socialists and between Nordic and mainstream Liberals.

It becomes quickly obvious that the underlying choice at EU level is between the 'Community method' (based on a subtle interaction between the Commission, representing the European interest, the Parliament - peoples' house and the Council representing member states) and 'intergovernmental cooperation' - based on more direct interaction between government.

Perhaps the solution is to have two main parties, the Federalists (integrationists) and the 'Sovereign Staters' (intergovernmentalists). Each would effectively be a coalition but under a broad banner. But as this is the issue which really underpins debates in the Union, voters would then have a clear choice.

In addition, the fare offered by political parties contesting the polls does not differ from that offered during national elections.

The electorate are still called to vote on domestic issues and the popularity of national governments dominates the European election campaigns - even more so as several countries are holding national or regional elections at the same time. Assuming that the voters are concerned about a specific European issue (such as the EU constitution, Turkey's membership, foreign policy or further integration), how do they decide which party to support (apart from sometimes it being obviously the Greens or the Eurosceptics)?

It must reluctantly be accepted that this year's elections will not offer a palpable choice to voters and that a low turnout is inevitable. So we must look ahead to 2009.

• Stanley Crossick, founding chairman of the European Policy Centre in Brussels, writes here in a personal capacity.

Article argues that the political parties involved in the European Parliament Election in June 2004 have failed to make the vote relevant and to offer a choice through it, by failing to nominate their candidates for the presidency of the European Commission. Voters fail to see the real stake of these elections. Article forms part of a European Voice 'European Election Special'.