EDITORIAL" "
The elections of May 22-25 are testing grounds for the integration process
Never before did the eve of a European election gain as much attention as it has this year. In fact, the general interest for the election, held every five years since 1979, has always been rather scarce. European consultations, at best, were accompanied by a benevolent form of disinterest. Affluence has always been low and it gradually waned, one election after the other. This corresponded to the belief that the European Parliament was an interesting, yet irrelevant body. By paradox, citizens’ participations decreased over the past 35 years in so far as the importance of the European Parliament in Community decision-making process has increased. This year, ahead of the elections scheduled for May 22-25 in all EU member Countries, everything seems to be different. There is a tension charged with expectations regarding the event that involves not only European political debates, but also those at national level. Widespread uncertainties and fears (or expectations) regard the outcomes of the elections, largely believed to act as a turning point in traditional European elections, based on large consensus of major political forces. What has happened? First of all, the European Parliament has gained in importance owing to the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty five years ago. The legislator and controller of the Executive has a greater role, along with greater responsibilities. Representatives of national political forces in trans-national parties or within European political groups have to lay their cards on the table. They can no longer say that they have nothing to do with EU decisions. A consequence of the new provisions enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty is also the fact that all transnational parties have their candidate to the post of president of the EU Commission. Voters’ lists thereby acquire a European trait, while the importance of vote for the future political profile of the Executive is given major prominence. 2014 European elections are marked by political force and by growing consensus of movements and national-populist parties. They draw advantage from the difficult economic situation and by social problems linked to the much-needed efforts to address the deep crisis of the past years. Regardless of whether they belong to left or right-wing parties, they ascribe the root cause of the crisis to the very existence of the European Union and its policies, notably monetary policy and the common currency, the euro. They view the crisis as a failure in the unification policy and the evidence of its non-feasibility. Their accusations are loaded with demagogy and disinformation. They want to restore the principle of nation-States. They expect a more effective defense against the consequences of globalization along with the liberalization of community regulations, which in their understanding amounts to greater opportunities of intervention to solve problems afflicting their home countries. This idea is also linked to a xenophobic approach towards immigrants who seek shelter in Europe from the war zones in Asia and Africa. Also the widespread tendency to view neighbours as the causes of the problems born in their home Countries is a form of xenophobia. The recovery of national freedom of action, namely, of national sovereignty, is the motto of populists of all kinds. They don’t want to (or they just cannot) understand that the sovereignty of nation-States is not lost with their adhesion to the European Union, but rather that their membership to the EU is a result of the crisis in nation-States. The European Union provides its members with the opportunity to reaffirm themselves as nation-States, to fulfil their responsibilities towards citizens and continue playing a political role. Their sovereignty, namely the possibility to decide their own destiny, without considering their neighbours, has been lost a long time ago owing to historical, cultural, technological and economic developments. After difficult years, the crisis seems to have been substantially overcome, although its consequences are bound to drag on for a long time. The policies of the heads of governments and of European institutions have had concrete effects. It would be disastrous if the attack of national-populist and anti-Europeanist forces were successful, taking on a decisive position within the European Parliament, which until now has witnessed civilized and rational debate.
