Jeleva’s hearing was the starting point. All European commentators admitted that the Bulgarian candidate was neither brilliant nor wholly incompetent. She was undoubtedly unable to explain herself clearly when questioning concerned the suspicions of malpractice or negligence relating to her previous activities (particularly concerning a former company, Global Consult); she certainly did not impress the European Members of Parliament with her case knowledge...yet other candidates who presented their case by focusing on their future agenda and even using the same stonewalling were not so aggressively interrogated.

Apart from personal questions, the “Jeleva Affair” has a lot to teach. It reveals the equal convergence of four rising phenomena: increasing media involvement, a more powerful and political Parliament and lastly, a Commission that is increasingly cornered by Council and Parliament.

European political life in the limelight

In the past, the European Parliament did not attract strong media attention. It would have to perform back flips to be noticed: maybe an unexpected dismissal of a directive or budget, the exuberance of this and that Europhobic MP, or even publications of its operating expenditures. However, during the past ten years, a few major political moments have left their imprint for the duration of office. The Commissioners’ investiture vote was one of them. Filmed and widely broadcast in the media, the hearings represent a moment of glory for the MEPs: who will be the first one to pose the tricky question to the appointed Commissioner? Which Commissioner will crack under pressure or be rejected? We go through the Commissioners’ CVs, we test their knowledge on the most acute matters. For the first time, whether it is about damp squibs or real scandals, the European Parliament is making some noise. This year, the anticommunist or antinuclear past of some candidates have elicited strong reactions, giving the impression of a “witch hunt”.

Stefan Fuele: the burden of the past

The appointed Czech candidate, Stefan Fuele had to face certain allegations linked to his past over speculations that he was associated with the Soviet regime in Czechoslovakia; a debate that did not last long...

The Parliament’s declarations

The European Parliament is seizing every political opportunity to establish its authority and its power over the Commission and indirectly over the Council. By condemning the Bulgarian candidate for Commissioner, it is as if the Parliament has chosen to condemn the Member State itself. Since the Parliament’s growing independence is now recognised by everyone, nobody can ever refer to it as going through a “teenage crisis”; which is a characteristic suitable for an institution longing for recognition. Nowadays, the Parliament can dismiss candidates running for Commissioner. The Parliament can do some harm. Some real harm.

Parliament: amidst politics and debates

The big contradiction: the European hearings were put in place in order to judge the Commissioners based on their integrity and competence, not on their nationality or political views. And yet, some are now in the thick of the debate due to their political views, not their performance.

Rumania Jeleva, the incompetent

Rumania Jeleva did not convince the MEPs and was forced to withdraw her candidacy

Indeed, the European Parliament expects the Commissioners to be more and more political. Even positions that could be considered as rather technical (economic and monetary matters, trade, budget, taxes and customs), the Commissioners-designate were asked about their political views... This is because usually, in the Commission, it is the technical jobs that are the most political: for example implementing aid more or less free from macro-economic policies, giving a certain policy a restricted budget, implementing instruments more or less restrictive in order to reach economic, social or ecological objectives, authorising (or not) state aid or centralising industrial companies. The justification that the Commission’s actions follow the treaty’s terms is no longer sufficient. Nowadays, a Commissioner is a “politician”, as confirmed by Michel Barner after his hearing at the European Parliament: a Commissioner is judged on his political choices, not his actions.

But, if the Parliament expects more political interest on the Commissioners’ part, it is itself less inclined to get involved in the political scene. The MEPs are used to tradeoffs as concerns amendments amongst parliamentary groups. The Commission presidencies and the parliamentary delegations negotiate equally in groups. The EP is a heavy and complicated machine that is based on permanent compromises. And yet, by introducing politicization, the system of the Commissioner-designate hearings, violently disrupts its usual function: the logic of compromise between groups is crushed by the defensive reactions of each group and “its” Commissioners (conservatives, liberals or socialists). Conclusion: the group leaders, that once were negotiators and respected colleagues, are now mistrustful, whilst launching attacks on one other. Every candidate from the “other camp” is by principle suspicious and thus aggressively attacked. The paradox: The Parliament carries out the painful acquisition of a politicization which he has strongly advocated for quite some time now. How can an escalating politicization and a parliamentary dignity be reconciled? The most despicable attacks launched towards some of the Commissioners-designate show that the Parliament is still trying to find its way.

A powerless Commission

The Commission is increasingly finding itself stuck between an omnipotent Council dominated by the Big Three (Germany, France and United Kingdom) and a Parliament which is becoming more and more demanding. Current affairs depict this argument: despite the personal merits of the Commission’s President who has managed to divide the portfolios fairly and without provoking too much jealousy, he should acknowledge that candidate selection slipped through his fingers. His Vice-President, Catherine Asthon, was imposed on him by the Council (especially the United Kingdom), whilst the Member States proposed the Commissioners-designate. The President helped as much as a spectator could, quite powerlessly, at the “execution” of Romania Jeleva. The system for choosing Commissioners where Member States propose and the Parliament accepts (or rejects) is no longer viable. If the Commission is to be more responsible and independent before the Parliament, it needs to be given some breathing room. For example, the President of the Commission could choose his Commissioners from a long list of candidates proposed by Member States.

The hearings have left the institutions KO. With the withdrawal of one Commissioner-designate, the Commission is growing weaker. The Council (with Bulgaria in the front line) has had to draw back, as the Parliament got itself involved in vain and useless debates. Will the attacks between the big parliamentary groups be solved by the elections for the next President of Parliament? Will the EP find a balance between growing politicization and respect for the spirit of consensus? There are numerous questions which need to be answered in the following years…

Photos: European Commission/European Parliament