Why small parties will suffer in enlarged EU

Date: 02/10/03

By Dana Spinant

THE accession of ten countries to the European Union on 1 May 2004 is set to bring the European Parliament closer to a bipartisan system and diminish the influence of small parties.

The present, biggest enlargement in EU history will be completed by the accession of Romania and Bulgaria, bringing the Union's membership to 27 by 2007. This will have a tremendous impact on the EU institutions, which were designed in the 1950s for just six member states.

The 'shock effect' on the European Commission, Council and Parliament means adjustments to the system of decision-making are crucial, if the Union is to function properly. (Hence this month's intergovernmental conference.)

However, a far from negligible effect of enlargement will be a more bipartisan style of politics in the Parliament.

The accession of countries from central and eastern Europe will reinforce the two main parties, the European People's Party (EPP) and the Party of European Socialists (PES). Small political groups will be weakened, as they are likely to receive very few, or even no, MEPs from incoming states.

The political landscape in the new countries is largely dominated by socialists and conservatives/ Christian democrats.

“The political scene in the candidates is less diversified,” one Parliamentary official explains. “The Greens are extremely weak. This is to be expected as a pre-occupation with the environment only comes after a country's economic development reaches a certain level. When they are richer, they will think of voting green.”

Although the EPP and PES will be heavily reinforced by new blood from the east, the balance between the two is unlikely to change.

If enlargement happened today, the EPP would gain 69 seats, with the socialists boosted by 57. The liberals would gain 13 MEPs, the European United Left seven, the Union for Europe of the Nations Group three and the greens just one.

The EPP and Socialists will together gain 4-5% of voting power in the Parliament, the Liberals' will stay as they are, but the Greens will lose 2%. Smaller groups such as the EDD (Europe of Democracies and Diversities) will also lose percentage-wise. The EPP and Socialists would, in total, have 534 from 788 seats if present figures are anything to go by, thereby controlling 70% of votes.

Wilfried Martens, the EPP president, says that a strengthening of the two large groups is likely to enhance the pro-integrationist character of the institution.

“The European Parliament is likely to become more 'European'. It is a political force largely in favour of integration and the two large groups are even more favourable to deepening the integration.”

However, the former Belgian premier predicts more diversity within the large groups.

“Within the two, there will be more different tendencies and different currents of thought than today. In other words, even though the system in the Parliament will largely be a more bipartisan one, the two poles are likely to be less homogenous.”

Also, if some of today's smaller groups disappear, their present members are likely to migrate to the two dominant groups.

In the enlarged Parliament, conditions for constituting a political group will be tougher: at least 16 members from one-fifth of member states will be required. It remains to be seen whether groups such as the EDD (currently comprising 18 members from four countries) will survive.

Its chief, veteran Danish MEP Jens-Peter Bonde, told this paper: “I am confident that we will still have a group after enlargement.”

However, it is beyond doubt that the future composition of Parliament and new rules of procedure will leave small groups seriously disadvantaged.

For instance, speaking time, funding and administrative support is distributed to groups according to their membership. Non-affiliated members have problems obtaining such resources.

The immediate effect of the weakening of smaller parties will be that the EPP and PES will have to reach consensus more often, especially on matters for which a vote of more than half of all MEPs is required (for example, adopting the EU budget).

Many say the return of such a 'grand coalition' will affect diversity in Parliament. The election of the assembly's president, for instance, is likely to go back to the old-style pact under which the PES and the EPP took turns holding the post. The pact was broken in 1999, when the EPP was strong enough to get Nicole Fontaine elected with the support of the Liberals. In return, the EPP voted in the Liberals' chairman Pat Cox as the current president.

“If we go back to the 'grosse Koalition', we will have no genuine elections at all,” an EPP spokesman said. “The Parliament's president will be decided by a couple of powerful men in a smoky room in Rue Wiertz.”

Another major concern is the possible emergence of a far-right axis within the assembly. France's Front National and the British National Party are keen to form a pan-European alliance, possibly with Austria's Freedom Party and Belgium's Vlaams Blok.

Such parties may do well in next June's poll as European elections are often used as a 'protest vote' against the political establishment. “Voters feel they can give their politicians a slap, without risking too much, as it is 'only the European Parliament',” the assembly official said.

However, there are moves afoot to prevent far-right coalitions being funded. A report on the statute and financing of European political parties, backed by MEPs in June, lays down strict criteria for parties to qualify for EU cash. For instance, a party must respect the principles of democracy and rule of law, as well as obtaining at least 3% of the votes in the European elections in at least one-quarter of the member states. Moreover, parties using racist slogans are also likely to be barred from receiving EU cash.