by Daniel Daianu

There is some gloom on the anticipated low turnout of voters for the European elections, which are to be held in early June this year. A self serving argument about this forecast would point the finger at traditional low participation rates in these elections for many years, even decades, now.

And some of the reasons are pretty well known and, clearly, would define the next elections too. Citizens are much more concerned about local politics, which deal with issues that impact on their lives more visibly and strongly. It is true that much EU legislation has roots in the activity of the European Parliament (EP) as well, but, at the end of the day, what matters is how national governments do their job in implementing policies. The European Commission is not seen, arguably, as a EU wide executive that can match the prerogatives of national governments. The EC can put pressure, can start infringement procedures, can try to realize compromises on policy issues (to be submitted to the EU Council), but the national governments are those that spend the money raised from taxpayers. Let us not forget that the EU budget is a minuscule cca 1% of the cumulated EU GDP. In addition the EC is quite far away from most EU citizens and the work of most MEPs is not sufficiently known (or at all) to them. EU wide debates do take place, but much more glamour accompanies statements made by national politicians in various forums including European summits. Geography also plays a role in this respect, since EMPs have less room to interact with their constituencies as national parlamentarians do. And as much as technology can improve communications the fact stays that the human touch can not be substituted easily. It may be that charisma can be capitalized by the TV weapon for those politicians who do possess it, but most of them are ordinary political animals, who do need to shake hands and make promises, or explain why previous pledges were not observed. And I could continue with this type of explanations for low turnouts, which are not of recent vintage. Maybe one additional explanation deserves a remark, for it regards national elections as well. Public disenchantment with politics has been on the rise in many EU countries for years. The “democratic deficit” is a sintagma which has triggered volumes of academic debates and political infighting. And it goes without saying that this feature of modern politics in the EU and outside it can be examined in the way the EP fulfills its mandate.

Though I would not find low turnouts surprising I would still be disappointed. Because I believe that these elections are special in several regards. One is linked with the unusually severe unfolding economic crisis, that would influence, tremendously, which way our capitalist societies will be evolving. Bank bailouts, nationalizations of large financial entities, expanding public sectors, rapidly rising budget deficits which would strain our welfare systems even more, highlight an inflexion point in the dynamics of capitalism in mature economies. This dynamic implies a redefinition of the social contract as well –just consider the frustration of “Main street” vis a vis the need to bail out those who have caused the debacle. MEPs have a role to play in devising new legislation and EU wide policies that should combat the effects of this crisis. I was a co-author of the EP report on the reform of the regulation and supervision of financial markets and I can tell how important progress in such fields is. But keep in mind that MEPs would also have to tackle the issues of climate change, renewable energy sources, the safety of energy procurement, fending off begger your neighbor policies, xenophobia and racism, etc. And all this during a period which is validating the new status of Asian powers, China and India, in particular, in the world economy. The public agenda for MEPs will be increasingly influenced by the tectonic shifts in global power distribution. Let us hope that The Lisbon Treaty will come into force and EMPs will make good use of their enhanced prerogatives. Here a qualification is badly needed: what national governments will decide to do about the Lisbon Treaty matters hugely.

The MEPs who come from the New Member States bring with them policy concerns which reflect development gaps, the controversy over the future of the CAP and regional aid and, neighborhood policies and, not least, the fact they most of them do not belong to the eurozone. We are living through a period of great uncertainty and, as a have tried to underline, above, a change of course in the evolution of capitalism. NMSs, including Romania, would have to find ways in order to revamp their growth model; they need to save more and rely less on external borrowing. They need to undertake reforms which should keep them competitive in a world which is under the pressure of the new global powers. Likewise, they have to pass the test of this crisis in a deep political sense. For this crisis will test the strength of liberal democracy (to use Fareed Zakaria’s concept) in both old and new members of the EU. We shall all see what the future holds for us and, also, what the MEPs will be capable of doing.