The European parliament

Malta's accession to the European Union next year induces us to ask how will we be affected by its institutions. Unfortunately, Malta's say is minimal and any prospects of having any significant decisional influence are down-sized by our limited lobbying powers. As things stand at the moment, we will only have five representatives in the European parliament, surely an insignificant number.

Once Malta becomes a member of the EU, Maltese citizens will be eligible to vote in elections for the European parliament. Truly, this is added empowerment to the citizen. But, in effect, it means little on a national basis. If Malta's share of the cake in the European parliament is limited to five seats then this will be Malta's share of seats in parliament, no matter how many Maltese citizens vote. Therefore, the right for every Maltese citizen to vote does little to Malta's position in the European parliament, unless and until our country manages to win more seats.

The European parliament also has the added disadvantage of allowing different electoral systems in different countries. No uniform electoral procedure has yet come into being and no hard and fast rules are placed on any country to hold an election according to specific criteria. This causes lack of uniformity in elections for the European parliament, a situation which defies the ideal of a Union where all countries act similarly.

In effect, the European parliament has long called for a uniform electoral system. Obviously, a uniform election procedure will help to strengthen the parliament's political authority as well as fortify its democratic legitimacy with respect to the creation of a genuine EU and strengthen the citizens' sense of belonging to a common European society.

But perhaps one here asks what is this European society? Different countries of Europe speak different languages and the EU has long accepted this fact as a preservation of identity of the various nations which comprise it. The Union believes that diversity among nations is not detrimental to the holistic European identity. In theory, this is beneficial but this does not mean it is without problems. The various national languages recognised as European languages and which, therefore, qualify as a tool of expression at an EU level, thereby create a situation where several languages are used in the European parliament. This brings about communication problems as well as the costly need for translators.

This is a problem that has escalated over the last years with the acceptance of new countries joining the EU. This is a two-edged sword situation whereby recognition of the different nations' culture conflicts with the practicality demanded out of a unified Europe. One has to strike a balance and, at the end, be practical in order to find a working solution.

Changes bring a culture shock and Malta's accession to the EU will be no exception. Yet, culture shocks are no stumbling blocks but, on the contrary, are challenges. Malta is not alone in joining the Union. Nine other countries, most of them coming from Eastern Europe, previously ruled by Communist regimes, will also undergo demanding challenges. They, too, will find abnormalities in the way the European parliament is run and would propose changes thereto.

This does not mean that their proposals will be accepted. It all depends on the strength of each individual country, on allies formed between groups of countries and on the way in which countries will or will not be ready for a new enlarged Europe. At the end of the day the lobbying powers of each individual country will shape the decisions of tomorrow's Europe.