Analyst: National politics to dictate 2009 EU elections 

Sebastian Kurpas is a research fellow at the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS). 

To read a shortened version of this interview, please click here.

Do you think the turnout issue will again be a problem in the 2009 European elections?

Turnout has always gone down since 1979, which is strange and rather surprising in contrast with the powers that the European Parliament has gained over the years. So while European elections have de facto always become more important, at the same time, voters' interest has actually diminished. And that is the problem.

What do you think are the root causes for that?

The Parliament has been very successful as a co-legislator, it has become a real legislative body and in most cases it now legislates on the same level as the Council of Ministers. And the Lisbon Treaty, when it comes into force, will further strengthen that. 

But at the same time it seems that the European Parliament has not succeeded in creating public attention and a public debate. Things are so far not very controversial, and you as a journalist will probably agree - controversy is something interesting, it is something media can relate to and which allows explainations of certain issues.

But the Parliament is still very consensus-driven, as is the whole European integration process. So EU policymaking is always about finding a compromise and building a common solution, it is not about a majority having the power and imposing it on a minority - this is not how Europe can function. And that is not necessarily the mode which will strike public attention.

Are these elections again likely to be taken hostage by national politics?

Yes, absolutely. Because people are lacking the policy issues and policy fights that are taking place at the European level, the national level tends to step in as a substitute. 

In the last European elections in 2004, for example in Germany, we saw the big billboard with the face of Ms Merkel who was not actually running for the election. So the campaign was linked to the personality of national politicians that people actually knew. In opinion polls, MEPs were generally unknown by the majority – only about 10% said they knew them - whereas national politicians were in the range of 90%. So there is also that problem - European politicians are not very well known and not very well recognised.

But isn't that determined mainly by the way the constituencies are cut, geographically speaking? MEPs are elected at the local or regional level, so in fact it turns out to be rather a local election…

The lists are determined by national or regional parties. So, for those who want to have a good place on the list, there is an incentive to be in good terms with the national parties, and that's natural. 

But there are fewer incentives for existing MEPs to do well once they are in the job. You can be a very successful MEP who works very hard at European level but it might not in the end be determinant to having a top position on the list. In the end, it will be more important to be in good terms with the national parties that draw up the list. 

There are no direct mandates and maybe there could be more of a trend to open those mandates to a direct election and not just a list. Such a system would give an incentive to campaign on your achievements and on your plans at the European level.

But that would in effect transform the system into a more federal election where European political parties would play a much bigger role. Surely, this would run into a lot of opposition…

European parties today would not necessarily change with a direct mandate because they are dependent on the national parties. As a single individual, you could not join the European Socialist party or the EPP party or whatever - the only way to become a member is through your national party.

So it would not be the European parties determining the mandate but the candidate himself, with a certain share of votes in a given constituency. So it would enhance the incentive to make a public campaign and say: "This is my goal." 

But of course I don't think that this is realistic in the short term. But one could open a certain percentage of seats to such a contest.

Going back to the lack of controversy, we're now seeing attempts, especially by the Party of European Socialists, to stir controversy and polarise the debate along classic left-right fault lines. Is that strategy likely to increase voter interest?

EU parties are indeed becoming more politicised. Think of the last election in 2004 when the European People's Party [centre-right] said: "We are the strongest group, we have won the election and we will not accept or vote for any Commission President candidate that does not come from our political group." 

This is another example of a long-term trend where the EU is getting more contested and receives more public attention than, let's say 15 or 20 years ago. Some people argue it was the first referendum on the Maastricht Treaty in Denmark - where it failed - and in France, where it was only narrowly approved by 51%, that marked the beginning of this increased politicisation.

These referendums marked the end of the so-called "permissive consensus" on Europe on behalf of the wider public. This is when the EU started to draw more public attention, giving more incentive for political actors to look for this kind of debate and controversial standpoints.

But is increased controversy likely to increase voters turnout in June 2009?

If it is possible to really substantiate the political claims and make it clear that if you vote for this, you get this and if you vote for that, you get that, I can imagine yes.

But again, you need to have real parties at European level in order to do that…

It has happened in the past that certain parties had a national programme which said "if you vote for us, we will push for that at the European level". The problem is that, often, one single national party is not enough to push for something in a given European party grouping and that makes it more difficult for national parties to deliver on their promises to voters. 

If you look at certain manifestos of the past, the real European party manifestos, they have usually been rather general and not very concrete. But we have seen in the last legislature more cases where things became more contested in the broader public. Just think of the Services Directive for example or the Port Package and there are other examples where you have more of a left-right division. 

But it is true that this is not always completely coherent within European parties. The French Socialist party clearly has a different position than the Labour party in the UK for example but both belong to the Party of European Socialists. And you will find similar divergences in the EPP or in the Liberal group.

Roughly speaking, which political families do you see as the most coherent?

I see all parties to a certain extent having this kind of problem because politics are framed to a large degree at the national level, and seen through national sensitivities and a national lens. The EU's enlargement of course contributed to this with an additional challenge as there are now more countries and social and economic realities are even wider. All this makes it more difficult, and that is a phenomenon that most parties are facing.

At the same time, we saw the rise and fall of French parties. We saw a radical socialist group movement forming in the European Parliament and by now it has failed and broken apart. So you have these counter movements. Therefore, I wouldn't say any one party is more or less coherent than the other, it can also depend on daily politics and whether what comes up is sensitive in a national context.

Some political parties have been using blogs, for example the Socialists with their Manifesto 2009 website. Do you think this will give them an advantage?

We've seen in the French referendum campaign [on the EU Constitution] that they were enormously important, especially for younger people, and that they had a huge impact as a tool to shape opinion which other media would then catch up. Rightly or wrongly, they often seemed to have a certain credibility and independence - whether that is true or not - that they are grassroots, etc. So, it is difficult to say how much exactly, but I do think they are important.

I think it's a general trend, especially for young people, but it could move to the mainstream. Blogs are of course very interactive and very different from television, they allow people to start a debate. But I'm not in a position to say which party is particularly good or bad at it.

On the possible outcome of the election: Do you see any major trend towards a shift in majority in the new Parliament? Do you see the EPP-ED remaining the leading party or do you think that it might shift?

It is more difficult to say for the European Parliament because there are so many different factors. You have 27 national public opinions which can turn, and people tend to make choices more on national than European issues. So it is very difficult to predict these, and we will in the future look into the national debates to tell something but for the moment it's too early to say. You really have to look at the 27 national debates to bring them together into something really meaningful in order to have some kind of aggregate picture.