Advantages and Disadvantages of an Elected President of the Commission for the European Union - Essay Example

Advantages and Disadvantages of a Directly Elected President of the Commission for the European Union College: TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………...3 2.0 The European Commission……………………………………………………………………4 3.0 Advantages of a Directly Elected President of the European Commission…………………...5 4.0 Disadvantages of a Directly Elected President of the European Commission………………..7 5.0 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………….9 6.0 References……………………………………………………………………………………11 1.0 Introduction The European Union is a confederation of twenty seven member states based on economic and political interests. Most of these member states are in Europe. The history of European Union dates back to the end of the Second World War when six nations signed a treaty to manage their coal and steel industries commonly. This was to stop any of them from producing war weapons and using them against the other as it had happened in the past. The aim was to paralyze any thought of war among the member states by making war material out of reach, an ideal that was hatched by Robert Schuman (Woods 1995). These six states included Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg and France. During the Second World War, Europe lost many lives and it was economically affected to a great extent. The atomic bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Holocaust adversely affected Europe greatly. This aroused a calling for a United States of Europe from leaders such as Winston Churchill. Coal and steel were the raw materials in making weapons of war and these two industries were integrated. This led to the signing of the coal and steel treaties. However, based on the Coal and Steel Treaty success, the six nations have continued to expand their cooperation to other states responding to different emerging challenges in the world. Previously, many European states had been unified through force by empires such as, Roman Empire, Frankish Empire, Ottoman Empire and many others, the European Union confederation emphasized on democracy (Tallberg 2005). The devastating effects of war triggered many leaders to be on the fore front to advocate for a more unified Europe and their determination to curb violent conflicts among European countries in future. On 1st November, 1993, the Maastricht Treaty is signed which created the European Union. This means that European Union is as a result of evolution from one level of cooperation within the member states in the union to the other. The gradual integration since the end of World War II has made the member states gain confidence in each other to an extent of even creating a single currency union that allows for free trade amongst them. Governance in the European is complex and integrated. It is divided into seven institutions including; European Parliament, Council, Commission, Central Bank, Court of Auditors, Council of the EU and the Court of Justice of the EU. Each of the above institution is mandated to undertake certain duties and responsibilities. The paper seeks to explain the advantages and the disadvantages of the having a directly elected president of the European Commission (Tanasescu 2009). 2.0 The European Commission The Commission is charged with the daily running of the European Union. It serves as the executive arm that initiates legislation. It has twenty-seven commissioners one from each member state. The Commission President is one of the twenty-seven commissioners appointed by the European Council. An ex- official serves as the Vice President and is the high representative of the union for foreign affairs and security policy. The rest, twenty-five commissioners are appointed by the Council of the European Union. The Commission was set up to work independently from the governments as a supranational authority. Through the Treaty on European Union, article 17, the commission should formulate medium term strategies, formulate legislation, represent interests of EU in negotiations of trade, develop the budget of the EU and oversee the implementation of legislation and treaties. The president of the European Commission is regarded as the most powerful officeholder in the European Union. The president is charged with so many responsibilities and these calls for a high performance so as to maintain his office. There are, however, advantages and disadvantages evident in having a directly elected president holding the office (Woods 1995). 3.0 Advantages of a Directly Elected President of the European Commission European Union has a population of approximately 500 million people. This is a big population and this means that they have diverse needs and challenges. When this population is given an opportunity to vote, they are able to elect the person that they feel secure with as considering their needs and challenges. People support the candidate whom they are sure will represent them to the fullest based on his qualifications. A European Commission who is directly elected by the people will also get maximum support from the other officials since they will be serving the interests of people together. There is a felt huge gap in the European Commission democracy which can only be filled through allowing the people to elect the president. European Union has been criticized of it lack of democracy and in its activities. A direct election of the president by the entire European Union population would go a long way in enhancing the feeling of democracy within its operation. This in return would strengthen the trust that has slowly been eroded over years, and eventually creation of the United States of Europe would not be a tough task. Apparently, the European Union heads of government nominates the president who is then questioned by the parliament and approved by two thirds majority. There are only a few citizens, who know the commissioner, who represents their country since they are not involved in his appointment (Tallberg 2005). These commissioners claim to represent their citizens yet they are not allowed to enquire on the feelings of the same people who they chose the president on their behalf. The president sits in his office in Brussels and regulates issues on behalf of people he has never dwelt with. As a result, people just view them as mere bureaucrats who just formulate and impose their own decisions on people they claim to represent. Direct election of the commission’s president will enhance democratic participation of the European population. The European community would also get an opportunity to decide together the direction that they want Europe to follow. There is an established deficit in the working of the European Union where citizens have looked at the Union as a machine to drive deals that have been formulated and planned by political elites in their closed chambers. Currently, the EU institutional structures reveal that the decision making and administrative processes do not directly involve the departments’ heads who are the direct representatives of the people. The processes involve the commissioners who are appointed by their states hence represent the interests of their states and not those of the citizens. This has left the accountability of the commission opaque and indirect (Tallberg 2005). The only solution to this is to make the president of the EU to be directly accountable to the people through transparency election by the same citizens. This will also serve to salvage its momentous developments in the twenty first century such as its aspired enlargement to include the eastern European states. This will also help capture the imaginations of the ordinary citizens so as to involve them in the future of the European Union. This would also help stimulate public debate on the crucial issues facing the EU so as to look for a solution and prevent a possible disintegration of the union (Sabathil & Kebler 2008). The legitimacy of any agency or institution to the public is its ability to work in a stable and effective manner. This has been lacking in the EU since it has disintegrated to a compromise between the politically and economically powerful states to elect a nominee. The merited and successful candidates are left out thus making its leadership inadequate. A popular election would mean that the future President of the commission is the ultimate winner out of a transparent process thus; restoring the lost legitimacy to the commission and the Union as a whole. This would also create a prestigious status both inside and outside the Union. The popular election will attract only the most qualified and experienced candidates and also give an opportunity to the minor political groupings to have their candidate run for the seat. This will be an opportunity for all the member states to compete on an equal ground without fearing any form of intimidation from the big states ( Lelieveldt & Princen 2011). The people’s elected president would be directly accountable to the people thus creating a line of direct and unambiguous accountability to the people. This will serve to enhance the sense of European Union as working polity through informing the citizens on the evolving European Union systems and benefits reaped as a result of being a member of the European Union. The electorates will also be presented with an opportunity to express their opinions and attitudes to the issues affecting the European Union so that possible solutions can be searched. 4.0 Disadvantages of a Directly Elected President of the European Commission Direct involvement of the people in the election of the European Commission’s president who is the president of the European Union would also bring along some major shortcomings. The institutional balance would be highly affected both among the EU institutions and also between the Union and the member states. Any step to try to tackle the issue of democracy in the European Union has to adversely affect its balance in one way or the other. Popular elections are bound to create personalized European Union politics. This will encourage development of an imperial approach to the EU presidency. There is a criterion that is followed when one is elected into the commission’s presidency. One of them is the area of Europe that one comes from. Introduction of popular election by the citizens would not influence much when this is considered. This is because, despite the fact that one can popularize himself throughout the member states, citizens from each state will always favor a candidate who comes from their own state. This will pose a great risk to the union since it can easily lead to disintegration of the whole EU (Woods 1995). A people’s president would automatically assume more powers in the commission. This would be disastrous since the president might intervene widely and more often in policies formulation undermining the autonomy of individual commissioners. This is foreseen since even without the elected president, there are some commissioners who feel ignored and marginalized. This would integrate to another level with the presence of a president who feels to be the people’s favorite. Introduction of the direct elections for the post of the EU presidency would shift the balance of the institutions within the EU in favor of the ECP. The president would, however, be obliged to stay within the constitution that binds the member states since he is also under checks and balances from the European Parliament. Despite political influence from the party that paved his way to the ECP, he will have to observe the interests of the union as at large, respecting the views of each member state. Some anti European Union people may also get an opportunity to spread their ideas to the population thus tainting the name of the European Union. A lot of money would be spent to facilitate a campaign of this nature. The budget would definitely be so prohibitive since there are a lot of expenses involved to facilitate such kind of a campaign. This means that there are only a few candidates, who will be favored by such an action; those who can raise such huge amounts of money. This automatically marginalizes potential candidates who are not able to facilitate their campaigns across the member states. Other member states will be forced to form coalition with the larger states and support their candidate risking being eclipsed as potential states within the union. 5.0 Conclusion The key factor of introducing the direct elections of the European Commission Presidency is to enhance the participation of the European public in the union’s decision making. This is coupled with the need for the union to enhance its democratic provisions which have been the centre for its criticism. With the involvement of the public in electing for the commission‘s presidency, the union will also project its sense of transparency. This will fill the gap of lack of coherence from the electorates which has previously resulted from lack of involvement of the civil society in the elections of the president (Sabathil & Kebler 2008). The involvement of the citizens will also serve to assert their interests and also put checks and balances on the elected president. Therefore, it would be advantageous for the union to involve people since it is serving the interests of this people. Elections, as seen above, give people a sense of ownership and belonging. The European civil society will look at the union not as a group of bureaucrats imposing ideas on them, but as a people they have given the mandate to lead them in to achieving their aspirations. The people’s president elect will also be mandated to represent the interests of the entire European Union society without sidelining some states since he will require their support during some other times (Tansescu 2009). As such, he can only serve the union at a capacity of the people’s representative and not as boss to the same civil society. The disadvantages that will come along with these are also easily addressed when the entire population is engaged. The direct election will give the populace a sense of engagement making it possible to fight any possible threat to the unity of the European Union. 6.0 References Abromeit, H 1998, Democracy in Europe: legitimizing politics in a non- state polity, McGraw-Hill, New York. Ash, T 2002, The EU’s Future: The Federalism/ Intergovernmentalism Debate, viewed 26th March, 2012, Archer, C 2008, The European Union, Routledge, London. Bromley, S 2001, Governing the European Union, SAGE Publication, London. Cini, M 1996, The European Commission: Leadership, Organization and Culture in the EU administration, Manchester University Press, Manchester. Closa, C 2010, Institutional Innovation in the EU: The Presidency of the European Council, viewed 26th March, 2012 Decker, F & Sonnicksen, J 2011, An Alternative Approach to European Union Democratization: Re- examining the Direct Election of the Commission President, An International Journal for Comparative Politics, vol. 46, no.2, pp. 168-191. European Communities 2009, Towards direct elections to the European Parliament, viewed 26th March, 2012, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/pdf/cardoc/Direct_elections.pdf Fenton, T 2011, EU referendum: right- wingers gear up for hysteria, viewed 26th March, 2012, http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/10/19/eu-referendum-right-wingers-gear-up-for hysteria/ Guttman, R 2000, Visions of an Emerging Superpower, MacMillan Publishers, London. Hagemeijer, F 2011, Europe’s World- The only Europe- wide Ideas Community, viewed 26th March, 2012, http://www.europesworld.org/NewEnglish/Home_old/PartnerPosts/tabid/671/PostID/25 7/language/en-US/Default.aspx Laver, M 1995, Electing the President of the European Commission, Dublin 2, Ireland, pp. 16 28. Lelieveldt, H & Princen, S 2011, The Politics of the European Union, Cambridge University Press, United States of America, pp. 69-76. Nugent, N 2006, The Government and Politics of the European Union, Duke University Press, New York, pp. 112-132. Sabathil, G, Joos, K & Kebler, K 2008, An Essential Guide to the Institution, the procedures and Policies, Sage Publications, London united Kingdom, pp. 228-234. Schreier, M 2012, What the EU can Learn From the USA Presidential Race, viewed 26th March, 2012, < http://www.thenewfederalist.eu/What-the-EU-can-learn-from-the-US presidential-race,04848> Tanasescu, I 2009, The European Commission and the Interest Groups, Brussels University Press, Brussels, pp. 57-97. Tallberg, J 2005, Leadership and Negotiation in the European Union, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 224-236. Woods, M 1995, Democracy against Capitalism, Cambridge University Press, New York. pp. 213-215. Wilde, R 2011, The European Union- History of the European Union, viewed 26th March, 2012, Read More