Signals for the future

The elections to the European Parliament have just been held and what is most drawing people’s attention is the national key that characterized the whole electoral process. To begin with, it never ceases to astonish that the deputies of the same institution – the EP in this case – are chosen on the basis of different electoral systems in each member state. In the electoral campaign the predominating issues were those that dominate the political agenda of each country. And once the elections were held, the results achieved by each of the parties were evaluated in purely national terms: either as a seal of approval or as a rejection of their respective governments and their policies.All this however is not as strange as might appear at first sight: in the absence of any real European public opinion, it is difficult for debates on EU issues to draw the citizens’ attention. At most, such issues are discussed within the prism of the interests of each state by parties which pursue mainly national objectives, even if they are regrouped in large European political families. It is no accident that each country has tackled the current crisis by itself and for itself. It is a curious fact that the “European dimension” of these elections was invoked by a new trans-European party which fielded candidates in almost all countries – Libertas, inspired by opponents of the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland who triumphed in the referendum in 2008 – and which met with a resounding failure.Abstention also increased in these elections: almost 57%, two points more than five years ago. The institutional campaign that urged citizens to vote, and that underlined the fact that a good part of the legislation in our countries originates in Brussels or that the Parliament now plays a greater role in the control of the EU institutions, failed to motivate electors. Although the low participation was generalized throughout Europe, there are variations from country to country, depending on whether the vote is regarded as a right or a duty, or whether it coincided with other elections on the same day. In any case, it’s a fact that citizens don’t perceive the relevance of the European Parliament or regard it with the same intensity they feel for their national representative institutions. Analysts speak of citizens feeling distant from Europe, of lack of information. Perhaps it’s simpler than that: electors are able to identify where national, but not European, decisions are taken. Hence the importance of involving the national representative institutions in the control of European policies.Many of those who participated in the ballot used the elections to the European Parliament to express discontent for their own national government and to give a sign (as happened, in different ways, in the UK and in Spain). That’s why many electors supported “minor” options to the detriment of the major parties. Thus the Greens in France almost achieved the same level of support as the Socialist Party, and similarly the Independence Party (UKIP) in Great Britain surpassed Labour. Not to mention the good results achieved by the ‘Lega’ or ‘Italia dei Valori’ in Italy, or the Liberal Party, the Greens and the Left in Germany. In this context, even the extremist parties have won greater popular support than in other types of elections (the Liberty Party in Holland, the far-right British National Party, and Jobbik in Hungary have succeeded for the first time in having any representation in the EP). Nor has there been any lack of picturesque groups such as the Pirate Party in Sweden. These groups usually introduce other issues into the political debate, beginning by casting doubt on the model of European integration itself (the euro-sceptic parties). Lastly, the decisive victory of the People’s Party and Conservative groups over the Socialists is worth emphasizing: a gap of over 100 MEPs between the EPP and the ESP, and to this EPP majority we should also add other centre-right parties. It seems that at times of grave economic and institutional crisis the electorate is more disposed to trust in centre-right political groups/parties, without this necessarily presupposing the option for a more ideological vote. Though the EP generally functions through wide consensuses, the extremely heterogeneous European centre-right now has to assume responsibility for offering a way out of the institutional and economic crises of the Old Continent.We will need to see in what terms it does so. The Spanish case may perhaps serve as an example of two possible scenarios: while the leader of the PP Rajoy has focused his speeches on the practical questions – inability of the Socialist government to tackle the economic crisis -, the first PP candidate Mayor has pointed his finger at the cultural debate that the PSOE has raised (extension of abortion, social Europe), situating the origin of the crisis primarily in the loss of moral values. At the same time he has called for a reinforcement of policies in favour of the family and reaffirmed the ideals that lie at the foundation of Europe.