Bringing the EU closer to people

The low voting turnouts at the European Parliament elections are usually directly linked with the issue of legitimacy of the European Union itself. As a result, low voting turnouts are usually simplistically judged as confirming the lack of EU legitimacy to decide on important policy areas. However, the answer can be much more complex than it seems. Other explanations to these declining voting turnouts can be that either people are indifferent to European politics or there is no direct political link between Brussels and the EU's citizens and, therefore, it is more difficult to persuade people to vote and participate in this political project.

What happened in the first week of the new EP in Strasbourg clearly illustrated the many challenges the EU has in order to connect with its peoples but also the big changes in this regard, especially since 1979.

Among the most important changes experienced by the EP were the statute for political parties and more left-right rather than pro/anti-EU politics. The former shows its significance especially by the increasing autonomy of the political parties at EU level in terms of finance and control over their members in the European Parliament in the day-to-day operations. On the other hand, the latter's meaning is that politics within the EU is becoming more understandable to the citizens that are used to left-right politics, which is more popular in most member states.

As clear examples of the above, it is interesting to analyse how positions within this new legislature have been allocated among the political groups. In fact, the European People's Party got the largest number of committee chairs on the basis of the D'Hondt system, whereby the chairs are allocated according to the number of seats won by each party in the last EP elections.

Moreover, we also witnessed the struggle on the nomination of José Manuel Barroso as president of the Commission who is facing stiff resistance by the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe and the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats on the basis of a more acceptable social European political programme and more pro-activeness. Actually, they managed to put the break on the formal nomination of Mr Barroso until a vote in September.

In my opinion, these two events illustrate clearly the autonomy of the EP's political groups and also the left-right politics even at this very early stage. I believe that these can enlighten us about the expected type of EP - more pro-business and less pro-high regulation for social and environmental policies.

However, not everything is so clear in the eye of the citizen. First of all, even though the committee chairs are chosen on the proportion of seats, there are still question marks about the final allocation of committees on the basis of prestige and other personal factors such as experience and status.

On the other hand, the fact of a backroom deal between the EPP and the PASD to divide the presidency of the EP also raises issues of representation of the people's vote. This is because of lack of clear competition between the political groups for this important EP post.

There is another important issue that can threaten the legitimacy of the whole EU project. This is because the large member states - Germany, Italy, France and the UK - managed to take the largest number of positions within the EP while the small ones were left with relatively minor positions.

This issue is very significant because the EP does not represent the peoples of EU as citizens of member states but as people of the EU on the basis of political groups that go beyond national parties. However, it is quite obvious that national delegations played another major role behind the scenes in this new legislature, whereby the largest got the bigger chunk of power. This can be dangerous because it can reduce the acceptance by the citizens of smaller member states who expect an EP to defend them as EU citizens and not as citizens of member states.

It is absolutely true that the EU is a unique entity in the world. However, citizens expect the same thing. They expect their voices to be recognised and appreciated, irrespective of the institutional setup. If an institution loses the "touch" with its citizens and does not respond to people's concerns, then legitimacy of the same institution or entity comes into question. Like every institution in member states, the EP has certain "grey" areas that can raise issues of transparent competition on the basis of citizens' voting preferences and this can contribute to lack of representation of people's policy preferences and concerns, with the ultimate result of having lower voting turnouts than in national general elections.

In my opinion, the EU does not need more major Treaty changes in the foreseeable future, especially after the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. What it needs is to consolidate its institutions in order to respond better to what people want in a more transparent and accountable manner. And this can be achieved even without Treaty changes. Although there is the Council of the EU that represents the member states' governments and citizens, it is the EP along with the national parliaments that have the legitimacy to represent the people's views. National governments have to be more courageous and trust the people's choices by letting their votes represent the final formation of the EU political spectrum.