Why were the Parliamentary hearings out of control ?

4 février 2010 | Par Antoine Bargas, Marilia IOANNOU

Autres langues de cet article :

How did the Parliamentary hearings manage to be so awfully boring and yet so interesting at the same time ? How does the European Parliament always manage to involve politics in everything it touches ?

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

Espace réactions (3)

The hearings at the European Parliament got out of control. Why ?

Antoinie, Marilia, I have several problems with this article, which I find to be largely sensationalist and lacking in concrete evidence to justify your claims.

One of the first questions you pose is ’how does the EP always manage to involve politics in everything it touches ?’ It should be obvious to you that the EP is a political body - it’s a parliament composed of elected politicians, by its nature, political. It would be quite worrying if the EP didn’t involve politics in its activities.

Second, in a somewhat worried tone, you point to an increased presence of the EP over the past ten years. This isn’t the result of stealth creeping. This is because treaties are giving the EP more power. This is what the member-states approved. It’s supposed to happen !

Re : rejecting the Jeleva :

It’s NOT the first time it’s happened, so there’s not need to speak of it as a such a shocking phenomenon.

If a member state proposes a poor candidate, it’s the EP’s duty to reject him or her. If his or her member state feels personally insulted by this, they should try proposing better candidates.

I must say that I resent your analysis that the EP can do some real harm. You’re implying that to reject a bad candidate for a job is harmful. Actually, it’s helpful. There is a reason we have these checks and balances in place.

You say that ’nowadays’ the Parliament can dismiss candidates running for Commissioners. You should know that candidates don’t ’run’ for Commissioner. They are nominated. And the right of the EP to dismiss nominees is not something just happening ’nowadays’. They’ve had this right for a while, and as I said above, they’ve used it before.

You accuse the EP of rejecting Jeleva based on nationality or political views, yet you fail to justify these accusations.

Finally, you insist that with the withdrawl of the one Commissioner-designate, the Commission is growing weaker. This is nonsense. Barosso II doesn’t exist yet. How can it be growing weaker because a poor candidate was rejected ? On the contrary, the replacement of Jeleva has strengthened the incoming Commission.

Par Antoine | 6 février 2010, 19:31

The hearings at the European Parliament got out of control. Why ?

Dear Siobhan, Thank your for your reaction. Just a few points :
 the question I pose is « How does the European Parliament always manage to involve politics in everything it touches ? », that’s right. But it doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing. Quite the opposite, actually..
 Then, I do not regret in any way the increasing powers of the EP. More powers for the EP means more power for the representatives of the European peoples. Consequently, more democracy in the EU. What I point is that these « hearings », clearly copied from the American system, have deviated from their original goal. They were supposed to be the time to check if candidates (commissioners) would be able to do their jobs in terms of commitment to the EU, independance and knowledge. And this checking process would be a transpartisan one. And now, what do we see ? Many MEPs abstained to criticize some bad candidates because they were from the same political family. And that some EPP MEPs started dirty politics over the Slovak nominee in response to what S&D, Greens and LibDems did to Jeleva. In conclusion, rejecting Jeleva for her poor defense and her incompetent was the right thing to do. But defending her because she’s from a political family wasn’t, mainly because he means missing the all point of the « hearings ». And this is what I meant by « 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 ? »

Moreover, I didn’t write Jeleva was rejected because of her nationality or political views. Rather, I made it clear that she was rejected because of her uncapacity to respond to the attacks of negligence and conflict of interest.

Regarding the right of the EP to reject candidates, I may not understand you. What I meant is that this practice existed already, but it was not in the treaties. Now it is, and same for the « nomination » and the « election » formulas. Now, the president of the European Commission is no more « nominated » but « elected » by the Parliament. And the same logic might apply to commissioners.

Regarding the weakening of the Commission, I find it pretty clear that what the EP rejected was not only the choice of Bulgaria to appoint Mrs Jeleva : it was also the unability of Barroso to anticipate these critics and to strongly recommend another name from the Bulgarian governement. In 2004, the rejection of two commissioners by the EP weakened the Commission Barroso I. Same processes may produce same results....

Best, Antoine_

Par Anna | 7 février 2010, 22:00

The hearings at the European Parliament got out of control. Why ?

You both raise very interesting points.

I’d like to add some ideas to the debate.

1- Although the politicization of the Commission’s approval may be good for European democracy, the fact is that, according to the Treaties, the Commission is supposed to be apolitical, representing the European general interest, and that Commissioners are supposed to be evaluated on the basis of their expertise (not that it is a good thing for the EU). Jeleva was incompetent, but as Antoine is pointing out, other candidates were just the same. There might be other reasons apart from competence that the EP is taking into account. This just leads to the argument that an apolitical Commission as described by the Treaties is a fallacy nowadays. I agree with Siobhán that having pretended the contrary is nonesense, as the EP is a political body by nature.

2- The Treaties have been certainly giving more and more power to the EP over the years. But it is also true that at each stage the EP has over-interpreted and thus extended its own powers (not that it is negative, on the contrary). It is not member states’ initiative to make the EP stronger. Instead, the EP has been in a constant fight for recognition for some years already, and it has gained some implicit powers on which consequences it is important to reflect.

3- What the EP has had for several years is the right to accept or reject the Commission as a whole, not concrete commissioners-designate.

4- The Barroso Commission might be stronger in expertise terms than before the hearings, but it is a weak Commission in political terms, in front of an EP which is reaffirming its role. From a broader perspective, this whole episode might be an example of the decreasing power of the Commission as an institution, if compared to the Council and the EP, a long tendency that goes beyond these concrete hearings.

In any case, it is a very interesting debate concerning the role that each institution should have and the politicization of the EU.

For a clear explanation on how hearings work, check the EPs official site.

page perso : How hearings work : EPs official site

Réagir à ce commentaire