European democracy
#TheFutureIsYours Strengthening European democracy
Currently, a candidate for European Commission’s President is nominated by the European Council (representing the member states) and then approved by the European Parliament (representing the EU citizens). While the European Council has to take into account the results of the European Elections, the nomination procedure lacks transparency and is often dominated by the interests of individual EU governments that favour the candidate’s political ‘convenience’ over his/her democratic legitimacy.
To improve it, the lead candidate (Spitzenkandidaten) system was proposed, allowing European political parties to nominate their top candidates across all member states that should become candidates for Commission’s President if their party wins the European Elections. In 2019 however, the European Council disregarded Spitzenkandidaten appointed by European parties, nominating its own candidate instead.
The lead candidate system should be revived and maintained, allowing for more transparency, accountability and visibility when choosing the European Commission’s President. Each Spitzenkandidat should participate in an EU-wide electoral campaign to gain sufficient public outreach across the continent and democratic legitimacy.
This solution will allow citizens to see the ‘face’ of every European party during the European Elections, reduce the perception of the European Commission as a body dominated by ‘unelected bureaucrats’ and bridge the gap between the EU and its citizens.
Report inappropriate content
Is this content inappropriate?
21 comments
Conversation
I think this is a good idea. The President of the European Parliament should simply get the power to propose a candidate based on who he or she expects can wield a majority in the parliament. This candidate should then get
elected by the majority in the parliament; otherwise a new candidate has to be nominated. It should be up to the President of the European Parliament to decide who should be nominated, but in reality the "winner" of the last European election is expected to get nominated. This may be, for instance, the candidate of the largest party group or the candidate of the largest party group within a coalition that possess a majority in the parliament.
I think it is not so much about the Parliament's power... but about the parties designating a candidate before the campaign start. In this way, the electors know exactly to which potential Commission's president they are giving their voice !
Yes, sure! But it's also important that the 'winning' candidate then gets the mandate to form a new Commission. That did not happen last time because the European Council decided to nominate someone else (Ursula von der Leyen). So it might be necessary to change who is nominating the Commission president if we really want to be sure that the Spitzenkandidat system is applied.
Sure, in 2019, the rules of the game were not so clear and the Council did not play along (eventhough it should have respected the fact that candidates were running for each party). But also the parties should have taken it more seriously... like the EPP could have designated someone who matched the post better ?
Yeah, I agree. In principle, I don't have anything against the current system constitutionally. I think it works fine if the European Council continues to propose the candidate, provided that they respect the Spitzenkandidat system. BUT if the European Council insists on nominating other people than one of the Spitzenkandidat system (without any really good reasons), THEN one has to really reconsider who should have to power to nominate the Commission president. In that case, I think it would be good to let the President of the European Parliament instead nominate a candidate that he or she believes can get a majority in the house and which reflects the results of the election to the parliament.
Well yes, if the meber states have this possibility to nominate ANYONE they want to, why wouldn't they ? It is the all point to set clear rules so that the voters are not deceived in the end.
I agree. The peoples of the EU should directly elect the President of the European Commission without the intermediation of the European Parliament.
The vote of confidence (and a simplified motion of censorship) of the EP could remain necessary for the European Commission as a whole
I suggest everyone to endorse the most successful idea of transnational lists with Spitzenkandidaten: Truly European Elections: Transnational EU-wide electoral lists
The Spitzenkandidat method is a bad idea, and should be buried for two reasons.
First, there is no guarantee that the candidate is elected in his home country prior to the election, even if his group were to win in an European level. I think that the proponents of the Spitzenkandidat system have failed to take into account that a lot of countries, like Finland for example, choose the MPs with an open party list, and there is no guarantee that any candidate will make it to the top of the list. To avoid this, the parties would never choose Spitzenkandidat from these countries. This would mean that some countries would never have a president of the commission from their ranks, unless they change their national election laws, which would be a horrible overreach of power.
Second, the winning party of EU elections is still a minority. There is no guarantee that the winning party's candidate is the overall top preference of the parliament, or the people.
Conversation
Dear Jarno Jakonen, good point. But there are three easy ways to fix the problem that you mentioned. The first and most ambitious solution would be to have the same electoral procedure in every member state. The second possibility is to have a number of MEPs (say 1/6) elected from a transnational list across member states. These lists are then led by the candidates that run and campaign for the office of President of the Commission. After the election, they have to negotiate a stable majority/coalition in parliament and council. The third and simplest possibility is to realise that to run for the office for president of the commission you don't need to be elected to parliament in the first place. You'd simply be nominated by a political group . No?
Talk about the cure being worse than the disease...
The "easy fix" of changing election laws in every country would mean replacing the more democratic open lists with less democratic closed lists (to guarantee that the lead candidate is always elected). This would be a step backward.
The transnational lists aren't much better; in all the serious proposals for transnational lists, they have also been closed lists. And in addition, the dual election of national and transnational lists reduces proportionality in smaller countries, transfer power to larger countries in non-transparent way, and are unnecessarily confusing to the voter.
The last point that the nominee doesn't have to be elected to parliament is fine of course. But that's not fixing the problem, that's ignoring the problem and pretending it doesn't exist.
Here is truly an easy fix: Direct election of the president. Let the people decide.
Re: Let the people decide.
I do not think it would be a good idea to elect the president of the commission directly. European legislation is adopted by both the council and the parliament. Therefore, the commission must have the political support of both institutions. Electing the president of the commission directly could result in a situation where he/she has the support of neither. I don't believe that'd be an effective form of government.
That is true. I think the main benefit of direct election would be the process, the involvement of the people and open debate on European issues. The commission should still be accountable to the parliament, and it should be possible to remove the president with 2/3rds supermajority in case the worst happens and a very divisive figure ends up being elected.
However, it's just as likely that the lead candidate process produces a winner who is neither approved by the council, nor the majority of the parliament. In essence, it's a contract between parties that they would not challenge the winner, even if they didn't like him much. But same kind of contract can be made with a directly elected president, or one appointed by the council.
Thanks for the answer to my first post on the other thread btw!
I could imagine a proposal where the lead candidate system works as follows: once the parliamentary elections are over, the lead candidates have to find a stable majority -- say the majority of all MEPs. This would avoid the automacy that you mentioned: indeed, I am against the idea that the party with the largest share of votes would automatically get the president-elect. Instead, the successful candidate should be the one that secures a stable majority/coalition in parliament. Furthermore, I would also propose a back-up mechanism: if parliament fails to nominate a candidate or fails to nominate a candidate that is then approved by the Council, we should go back to the old procedure: the council proposes a candidate which is then elected by parliament. If this candidate is not elected either, the Council should either repeat the procedure or call for new elections.
The model you describe is used in most parliamentary democracies. But it's far from perfect. Usually it ends up being that the leader of the largest party becomes the prime minister and head of government, and his power is based on parliamentary blocs who support their leaders (the PM and the coalition partners) no matter what. The position of the prime minister becomes highly politicized because they have to juggle the interests of the country and the interests of their party at the same time, usually to the detriment of the former.
There are other ways. For example Denmark has a tradition of minority governments: the government then has to garner support from issue-by-issue basis. I think this would be a better model for EU governance as well. The president of the commission doesn't have to be a leader of the parliamentary group, he or she just needs to be able to have broad approval of the parliament and be able to work on the actual legislation and issues with the parliament.
Yes, you are absolutely right, I support the idea to change the european union into a parliamentarian democracy: the system is easy to understand, logical and simple. Furthermore, it is realised in most member states. I agree with you also that this system is far from perfect. … but … if i may say … we are not here to discuss the perfect system, an utopia, which will never happen ... we are here to discuss something that could work effectively in practise. You seem to suggest that commission and parliament should be appointed independently from each other -- a strict separation of powers, a bit like in the US system. Or perhaps a little less strict, if parliament can censure the commission by a 2/3 majority. This seems interesting, but I am sceptical, because I don't see how your proposal would work in practice: who should nominate the commissioning according to your proposal?
You mentioned the example of Denmark. In Denmark, the prime minister is appointed by the King, who serves as a mere figurehead of the nation. The King is above party politics. He is a non-partisan and apolitical figure. The EU has no such institution. The Council is political and partisan. The analogy between appointing the President of the Commission by the EU Council and the appointment of the Prime minister of Denmark by the King of Denmark is a false analogy. Whatever system we will choose, the Commission will always need the support of both parliament and Council, and we have to find a way where this works such that the elections have a meaningful impact on the composition of the EU government. The EU elections must be the opportunity for the people of europe to support or reject the Commissioners for their failures and omissions. to make the truly accountable to teh electorate...
The king in denmark has a purely symbolic role in appointing the prime minister. The system isn't based on there being a monarch to appointment; it's based on a political culture where the majority of the parliament agrees that the PM can take office and stay in power even if he or she doesn't have the majority.
"who should nominate the commissioning according to your proposal?"
Ideally, direct election. Or an election in the parliament, with multiple candidates (not just a few lead candidates chosen by party leaders). But failing either of those, the current method of council nominating and parliament confirming him or her is better than the Spitzenkandidat mess.
For example in the last election EPP nominated Manfred Weber, the party leader, who had zero executive experience. His opposing candidate for EPP nomination, Alexander Stubb was hardly any better, a political hack who ended up being prime minister of Finland for a year only because his predecessor nominated himself (!) to the commission. There we no other candidates. The council made the right call to refuse Weber.
"What about Timmermans"? Sure, the council blocked him because of Visegrad opposition. This is why direct election would be even better. The point is that Spitzenkandidat system is broken regardless.
The Spitzenkandidate for the President of the European Commission is a bad idea. The European Commission is a central service center, of non-elected officials, to serve the European Council.
The EC should be free to decide whom they want to appoint.
That this is not always clear to everyone became visible last week when the EU president (Michel) visited the Turkish President ( Erdogan). Mrs. von der Leyen embarressed herself by joining the meeting uninvited.
I think it would clarify the EU organization if the leader of the EU Commission would be titled as a Vice-President.
Yep, or more simply put:
Parliament does not approve the nominee from the council, the council has to approve parliaments nominee.
Post
Sign in with your account or sign up to add your comment.
Loading comments ...