The European elections. Apathy contest

The cure for Europe's democratic deficit lies at home, not in Brussels

WILLIE WHITELAW, a British Tory grandee, once accused Harold Wilson, a Labour prime minister, of going around stirring up apathy. Not much stirring has been needed for this week's elections to the European Parliament. Average turnout, which has gone down steadily since 1979, looks like falling again. In the ten new countries that joined the European Union last month, even more voters may stay at home than in the older members. The big winner of the world's second-biggest democratic vote (after India's election) is likely to be the apathetic party.

This is provoking much gloom about the EU's democratic deficit and the toothlessness and irrelevance of its parliament. Some of this is misconceived. An average turnout under 50% is low; but, even when adjusted for countries like Belgium and Luxembourg in which voting is compulsory, it comfortably exceeds the 39% score for the United States Congress in 2002. The parliament is by no means irrelevant. Indeed, because it has equal say with national governments over most EU laws, it has more independent power than many national parliaments, some of which are genuinely toothless. And many MEPs work harder than some national ones.

The true source of Europe's democratic deficit is more fundamental. It is that democracy does not work on a Europe-wide basis - because Europe remains a collection of nation-states, not a United States. In almost all the 25 countries voting this week, the European elections have been fought on national, not European, issues. Many governing parties are heading for a drubbing that will reflect disenchantment with national governments, not with Brussels. Not that this implies contentment with the EU. On the contrary, opinion polls suggest that it is plumbing new depths of unpopularity - and one of the few countries in which Europe has been a real issue is Britain, thanks to a surge by the UK Independence Party, which wants to withdraw from the EU altogether.

Political parties in Europe know that they are national creatures. Although they form up in groups for the sake of greater influence within the European Parliament, they work and even sometimes vote on national lines. On most European matters, German Christian Democrats and British Conservatives are diametrically opposed, yet they are in the same European People's Party. Only the Greens even pretended to stand on a common manifesto this time round. The European Parliament will thus continue to lack the legitimacy that automatically attaches to national legislatures, no matter how few people elect these, or how poorly domestic lawmakers perform.

It is plain that the right cure for a democratic deficit of this kind is not the usual one of giving the European Parliament ever more powers - which the constitutional treaty due to be agreed at next week's EU summit is likely to do yet again. Instead, the deficit needs to be tackled at national level, by giving national parliaments more say. There are two ways to do this. The first, which ought to be a main aim of the summit, is to strengthen the constitution's “subsidiarity” rules, which provide for powers to be exercised at the lowest sensible level of government. National parliaments' ability to use subsidiarity as a reason to object to legislative proposals made by the European Commission should be greatly enhanced.

The second is to give national parliaments themselves a more direct role in the EU's work. Before 1979, this was achieved by nominating members of national legislatures to the European Parliament. But the heavy workload involved in such double-hatting would make it impossible to go back to that - quite apart from the awkwardness of trying to cure a democratic deficit by abolishing elections. Nor is the idea of yet another legislative body, a “Senate” to represent national parliaments, the right answer, for it would largely duplicate the national representation of governments through the Council of Ministers. Instead stronger links should be forged between national and European legislatures that scrutinise draft EU laws. A little-known co-ordinating body called COSAC already exists, but as a mere talking-shop that meets just twice a year. It could be given a bigger role in EU lawmaking.

Stop the circus

Reform is also needed in the European Parliament itself. The most urgent need is to end the nonsense of the whole show commuting every month between Brussels and Strasbourg. Not only does this cost as much as €200m ($245m) a year; it also ensures that the parliament gets less attention from Europe's leaders, press and public. Next week's summit could put the parliament permanently in Brussels - if only France would agree. The parliament would also work better if it had fewer members, perhaps 500 instead of 732. Electorates would identify more with their MEPs if they voted by districts or constituencies, instead of according to national lists. And a top priority of the new parliament must be to scrap its much-abused system of travel expenses and perks, under which MEPs have claimed more generous travel costs and daily allowances than they should. But all that said, the real cure for Europe's democratic deficit is to be found at home, not in Brussels.

Editorial feature says that the cure for Europe's democratic deficit lies at home, not in Brussels. While there are reforms needed in the powers and practices of the European Parliament, the real need is to involve national parliaments more in EU business.

• Primary Source