RSS

Are European democratic procedures working? The turnout has been steadily dropping since the first elections in 1979. The June election followed this trend as exemplified by this figure: the abstention rate was 57 percent, while in 1979 it was 37 percent.

In parallel, the powers of the European Parliament have been increased in the different treaties and if the Lisbon treaty is ratified, it will stand as a real co-legislator next to the Council. How can we explain this paradox? What are the reasons for this low turnout? What reforms are needed to encourage people to participate?

We should first keep in mind that the turnout differs between countries. There was a huge participation in Belgium and Luxembourg even though this can be partly explained by the lawful obligation to vote. And if you only focus on the EU15, the turnout is stable since 1999, between 47 percent and 49 percent. At the same time, turnout is much lower in many countries in Eastern Europe: 27 percent in 2009. Therefore, when examined closely some common trends can be found in various countries that lessen this figure of 57 percent. Yet, the situation is not satisfactory for there is less participation in European elections than in national elections and various reasons can account for it.

The political campaign across Europe was desperately nationally focused and started only two weeks before the poll. Almost every party made no effort to debate about the European Union, and when the subject was on the table, Brussels was usually used as a scapegoat. This was exemplified by the pink wine issue: France first agreed on it at the Council, but when it was disclosed a few months ago, the Government blamed Brussels. If governments go on accusing the European Union every time there is an outrage at home, then it's already weak legitimacy will decrease even further, which is worrisome.

Likewise, national parties might damage democracy by imposing unknown politicians on party lists or by sending rivals into exile in Strasbourg. They have, therefore, a huge responsibility for the lack of legitimacy and interest in the European Union, because in the end, that is what abstention is largely about. People feel they have no influence. For instance, instead of agreeing on a challenger to European Commission President José Barroso, the European Socialists did nothing but procrastinate. They lost a real opportunity to legitimize the European Union by giving the citizens clear opportunities to influence the political process.

The press is also to blame. They too did not make any effort to cover the campaign and when the campaign was covered, it was not European Union-focused. For instance, in France, France2 held a debate about the European Union, but the politicians invited were the head of parties in France! Only one - Daniel Cohn-Bendit for Europe Ecologie - was an actual candidate at the elections. How can voters get interested when the press does not encourage them? To further my point, it does not take any effort to report on a daily basis the lawmaking in Europe. But failure to do so could largely be due to the idea that European Union debates are boring: they are often disconnected from the most significant issues such as tax, power purchase, unemployment, and these are still at the national level. But, some European issues can appeal to citizens as they have regularly expressed it in surveys: one can easily think of environment and energy.

So what is to be done? First, low turnout is not that serious. Let us just think of the US: democracy is working there with a participation that is also around 50 percent or less. Besides, the lack of legitimacy of the European Union is way more important because it reveals the gap between it and the citizens. Parties and the press should start reporting regularly on what is done within the European Union and focus on what MP's and States manage to achieve when they agree on something. The press has a huge role to play: reporting regularly the debates and the political split within the European Union lawmaking process might get people interested. If the citizens can visualize the political process, they might get into it. Talking about the European Union for two weeks every five years will never increase its legitimacy.

Marek Kubista is a MA European Affairs student at Sciences Po Paris.

Related Materials from the Atlantic Community:

• Editorial Team: What's Behind European Indifference?
• Marc Lewis Thomas: UK's Future in the EU in Question After Vote
• Heinrich Bonnenberg: The Real Challenge of Europe