Road to Sibiu #EURoad2Sibiu

Building on the Spitzenkandidaten Model Bolstering Europe’s Democratic Dimension

February 2017 What started out as an experiment in 2014, has the potential to be reproduced and What is now widely referred innovation. Critics have questioned its impact on the strengthened, with clear to as the ‘Spitzenkandidaten’ institutional balance of the EU, expressing concerns democratic benefits for process was over a politicisation of the European Commission, the Union. born in unique circumstances. After six years and challenging the extent to which the process of financial and economic crisis that transformed the truly addresses contemporary challenges in the EU’s European landscape and left many Europeans deeply democratic dimension. concerned about their future and that of their children, faith in the European project and in its ability to foster In the run-up to the May 2019 elections, the debate a long-term return to growth and upwards convergence over the Spitzenkandidaten innovation has been among all Member States was severely dented. The reignited, garnering support across the European percentage of citizens with a positive view of the institutions and the Member States. Most recently the EU was on a downward slope, falling from 48% in Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar and Croatian Prime September 2006 to 35% in September 2014. Minister Andrej Plenković endorsed the innovation in separate speeches delivered to the European Parliament The need for reinvention was clear. Faced with on 17 January and 6 February 2018 respectively. unprecedented criticism, European leaders recognised that extracting the EU from the crisis would not be What started out as an experiment in 2014, has the enough to win back the hearts and minds of European potential to be reproduced and strengthened, with clear citizens, and that a renewed effort was needed to democratic benefits for the Union, confirming it asthe strengthen the democratic legitimacy of the European right choice for a Europe which is not afraid of House. And among the different options to achieve this, discussing its fundamentals. the ‘Spitzenkandidaten’ idea stood out both as having reached sufficient institutional and political maturity, ‘If you want to strengthen European and as holding the promise of instilling a stronger democratic ferment at the heart of the EU system. democracy, then you cannot reverse the small democratic progress seen Introducing a visibility contest for the top with the creation of lead candidates – executive job in the European Union, with lead “Spitzenkandidaten.” I would like the candidates competing for the post through campaigns experience to be repeated.’ – European across the EU, rather than through the meanders of the political process, was not an uncontroversial Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, State of the Union address, 13 September 2017.

Disclaimer The #EURoad2Sibiu Series is part of an ongoing project by the European Political Strategy Centre (EPSC) to intellectually accompany the work of the European institutions in setting out a path for the future of the EU at 27 in the run-up to the Leaders’ Summit in Sibiu in May 2019. The Series will shed light on a number of initiatives that were identified as priorities in European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker’s State of the Union address and/or have been included on the Leader’s Agenda. The views expressed in these papers are those of the authors and do not necessarily correspond to those of the European Commission. 1 The Spitzenkandidaten model: Box 1. The EU has travelled far: part and parcel of the EU’s Treaty evolutions leading up to the institutional development Spitzenkandidaten model The European Parliament first gained a say in the The European Union has been through more than two procedure to appoint the Commission with the Treaty decades of dynamic institutional development. It has of Maastricht in 1992, which stipulated that the embarked on new projects, such as the Economic and nomination by the governments was to take place Monetary Union; enlarged to twenty-eight members; by common accord after consulting the Parliament. created new structures and streamlined its decision- But this was not extended to the selection of the making. The need and desire to deepen the EU’s President.2 Only with the Treaty of Amsterdam, in legitimacy has closely accompanied these endeavours, 1997, did the Parliament gain the right to approve fuelled by a perceived ‘democratic deficit’ that the candidate for the post of Commission President, dominated debates about the future of Europe in the prior to the approval of the entire College.3 The Treaty 2000s. Attempts to bridge the gap between decision- of Nice then modified the appointment procedure makers and citizens were therefore prominent on the in the European Council, moving from unanimity to EU’s political agenda. qualified majority. In accordance with the EU’s system of ‘dual Finally, the Treaty of Lisbon decisively legitimation’, set out in Article 10 of the Treaty on the , European Union (TEU), citizens are represented both strengthened the role of the Parliament empowering it to elect the candidate, rather than directly through the European Parliament, and indirectly merely approving him or her. Specifically, through their own governments, working together in the Article Council and in the European Council. 17 paragraph 7 of the Treaty on European Union states that a candidate for President of the Far from being a one- European Commission is proposed by the European Yet, while the EU has acquired new off event, it reflected Council to the European Parliament, ‘taking into functions, its democratic mandate a long-term trend in account the elections to the European Parliament had not grown accordingly. In the EU’s institutional and after having held the appropriate consultations’. fact, it was the desire to breathe new development. The candidate is elected by the European Parliament political life and energy into the EU’s by a majority of its component members. legitimisation process that led to the launching of the Spitzenkandidaten experiment in 2014. Although conceived in a relatively short time, the Spitzenkandidaten approach was in effect both a result, as well as an integral part Figure 1: Citizens say stronger role for of the process of EU reform. Far from being a one- European Parliament in designating off event,it reflected a long-term trend in the EU’s institutional development. It was also a logical Commission President is democratic progress consequence of the entry into force of the Treaty of ‘To what extent do you agree or disagree with the Lisbon, which specified that the outcome of the elections following statement: the election of the President and the European Commission as a whole by the to the European Parliament needs to be taken account European Parliament based on the result of the when proposing candidates for President of the European European elections represents significant progress for Commission (Box 1). The Treaty of Lisbon also established democracy within the EU?’ a closer link between citizens and the democratic life of the EU, stating that Members of the European Parliament are Total ‘Agree’ Total ‘Disagree’ explicitly ‘representatives of the Union’s citizens ’. 19% Don’t know The development was met with a strong endorsement from citizens. In a 2014 survey, 63 percent of respondents agreed with a statement that 18% ‘the election of the President of the Commission taking 63% into account the results of the European elections represented significant progress for democracy within the EU’, whereas only 18 percent disagreed.1

The development was Source: European Parliament, 2014 met with a strong endorsement from citizens.

2 For the first time in the history of the European Union,10 History as it unfolded: the five parties decided to elect their ‘lead candidate’, whilst two declined to do so – the Alliance of European 2014 Spitzenkandidaten Conservatives and Reformists,11 and the European experience Alliance for Freedom.12

The Treaty of Lisbon did not explicitly require European Martin Schulz, then President of the European political parties to identify ‘lead candidates’ in advance Parliament was selected in November 2013 to represent of the European Parliament elections. However, this idea the Party of European Socialists. Guy Verhofstadt had been brewing for a number of years (Box 2), and was selected to represent the Alliance of Liberals the combined effect of the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty and Democrats, while Ska Keller and José Bové and political readiness helped the Spitzenkandidaten represented the European Green Party, and Alexis idea to reach maturity in the run-up to the 2014 Tsipras the Party of the European Left. Finally, in European Parliament elections. March 2014 and less than three months before the elections, Jean-Claude Juncker emerged as the lead candidate for the European People’s Party during the Box 2. The gestation of an idea: its Convention in Dublin, where he received 382 of how the Spitzenkandidaten 627 votes cast. Michel Barnier, the other contender for concept emerged the role and the then French European Commissioner in charge of financial services, received 245 votes. A The story of the Spitzenkandidaten process goes third candidate – former Latvian Prime Minister Valdis back to at least 1997, when a general convention Dombrovskis – had withdrawn his candidacy before the of Germany’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) poll took place, on 5 March 2015, choosing to endorse party endorsed the idea of putting forward a ‘top candidate Juncker instead.13 candidate’ in the European elections who would go on to become President of the European The hope was that the process would help European Commission, should the party win the elections. The political parties to convey their propositions more clearly idea of a lead candidate was also picked up by think to the electorate, and raise interest among citizens as tanks at the time – most notably in a petition from their votes played into the process of selecting a new 4 the Jacques Delors Notre Europe Institute in 1998. President of the Commission.

Discussed thoroughly by the European Convention This sentiment was captured by then-candidate Jean- on the Future of Europe (2002-2003), the first Claude Juncker, who stated that the process aimed ‘not apparent ‘nomination’ of a party ‘candidate’ to personalise, but to visualise one of the issues of the was made during the European People’s Party’s election campaign, which was to know who would be Warsaw Congress on 29-30 April 2009, when appointed President of the Commission and how’. the party designated the incumbent Commission President José Manuel Durão Barroso as the its The fiveSpitzenkandidaten launched pan-European lead candidate for the 2009 elections – a decision election campaigns in order to introduce themselves to that was made in anticipation of the Treaty the European public and present the positions of their 5 of Lisbon, rather than as a consequence of it. political groups. These took place over a very short However, this nomination did not culminate in a period of time – concentrated in the last three to four Europe-wide campaign, nor did any of the other weeks ahead of the elections. European Parties designate a lead candidate. Held under the motto: ‘This time it’s different. Thus, in 2012, President Barroso called on Choose who’s in charge’, the 2014 elections other European political parties to nominate nonetheless did not guarantee that the candidate put lead candidates for the post of President of the forward by the party which ultimately won the largest 6 European Commission, a call that was reiterated share of the vote would be elected as President of the in a Resolution of the European Parliament Commission. It did ensure, however, that that candidate 7 in November 2012. The following year, the would be best positioned to find a majority support in 8 Commission issued a Recommendation calling the Parliament. for lead candidates in the 2014 European 9 elections, as well as a Communication linking In practice, as the lead candidate of the party the selection of lead candidates to enhancing which won the largest number of seats in the the democratic and efficient conduct of the European elections of 22-25 May 2014 – the upcoming elections. European People’s Party Group obtained 221 out

3 of 751 seats, with 29.43% of the vote, against They also held, for the first time ever, pan-European 191 seats or 25.43% of the vote for the Group televised debates. Although the candidates concentrated of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and their campaign activities on the last three to four Democrats – Jean-Claude Juncker was proposed weeks prior to the elections, the Spitzenkandidaten as the candidate to the post by the European process introduced a positive ferment to the party Council, in its decision of 27 June 2014, which was political dynamic, boosting competition for ideas.14 adopted with 26 Heads of State or Government voting And, while national issues continued to dominate in favour and two against. the elections, as has traditionally been the case, the Spitzenkandidaten process nonetheless On 15 July 2014, following a debate on his political strengthened their European dimension. priorities, to which the European Council was also invited (following from Rule 117 of the EP’s Rules of Procedure), The televised debates structured the campaign process, the European Parliament voted in Juncker, with 422 votes ensuring that each candidate had the opportunity in favour, 250 against, 47 abstentions and 10 non-valid to present his or her campaign proposals to citizens votes. His support stemmed from across the European across the EU. From April 9 to May 20, a total of nine Parliament’s party groups, providing him with much TV debates were organised, a first for European more than the required absolute majority of 376 votes Parliament elections. out of 751 MEPs, and making him the first President of the European Commission elected according to the Of these nine, four were bilateral debates between Spitzenkandidaten model. candidates Jean-Claude Juncker and Martin Schulz, hosted by national media outlets (Austrian public broadcaster ÖRF and German public broadcaster ZDF; Has the Spitzenkandidaten the German public broadcaster ARD; France 24; and LCI/ RTL), with the head-to-head debate on 9 April 2014, experience worked? hosted by France 24, kicking off this series. Given the short time afforded to prepare and execute it, the Spitzenkandidaten process made a strong Particularly noteworthy were the 28 April 2014 debate imprint on the EU’s political reality. When assessing in Maastricht, where four of the lead candidates the pros and cons of the approach, it is important to draw took part in their first-ever live exchange aired a distinction between what it can be and what it on Euronews,15 and the 15 May 2014 Eurovision cannot be, given the EU’s legal framework and political #tellEurope debate hosted by European Broadcasting tradition. The Spitzenkandidaten approach is about Union in the European Parliament, in which all five lead allowing citizens to better identify the leading candidates candidates took part. The latter was the first TV debate for the function of the President of the Commission and held in all official languages of the European Union the programmes they stand for. The corollary of that is (i.e. with simultaneous interpretation, and where each the creation of a political Commission, with a stronger candidate could speak the language of their choosing). mandate to set priorities for the EU and respond to challenges in a manner which results from its political programme. The Spitzenkandidaten approach is not the equivalent of direct presidential elections, by means of which citizens would directly elect the head of the EU’s executive arm, but it is comparable to the practices of parliamentary democracy that exist in many Member States.

Introducing the leadership factor in EU political campaigning On 9 May 2014, candidates Juncker and Schulz debated When it comes to giving European politics stronger in Florence, Italy, at the invitation of RAI and the visibility, the 2014 elections were indeed unprecedented, European University Institute. By the time the last votes very much as a result of the Spitzenkandidaten process. were cast on 25 May 2014, Martin Schulz had visited 16 The candidates embarked on electoral roadshows across 25 Member States, while the Juncker campaign had Europe, debating both with each other and with citizens. covered over 90 stops in all EU Member States.

While national issues continued It is nevertheless important not to overestimate to dominate the elections, as the impact these campaigns on European citizens. has traditionally been the case, Their short timeframe was a natural limitation on the the Spitzenkandidaten process nonetheless strengthened their European dimension. 4 ability to generate public attention. Furthermore, none ahead of the 2014 elections. In addition, consultations of the candidates was able to visit all 28 Member between the European Council and the European States, both due to the short campaigning time but also Parliament with regard to the election of the President because of the difficulty of coordinating with local and of the European Commission took place, in line with the regional party structures. Declaration on Article 17(6) and (7) of the Lisbon Treaty, which recalls that the European Parliament and the ‘To understand the challenges of his European Council are ‘jointly responsible for the smooth or her job and the diversity of our running of the process leading to the election of the Member States, a future president President of the European Commission’, and requires should have met citizens in the them to ‘conduct the necessary consultations’ with each other prior to the decision of the European Council.18 town halls of Helsinki as well as in the squares of Athens.’ – European Finally, it is significant thatother institutional Commission President Jean-Claude arrangements, in particular those concerning Juncker, State of the Union address, 13 the composition of the European Commission, September 2017. remained the same. Once elected, Jean-Claude Juncker took decisions regarding the nomination of candidate Commissioners in close cooperation with Boosting all EU institutions national governments, which is what many capitals were By placing the candidates and their political programmes most concerned about. under increased scrutiny, and opening up the electoral process, the Spitzenkandidaten process ultimately Not a silver bullet equipped the new President of the Commission with a stronger mandate to lead the institution in a more The Spitzenkandidaten process was never meant to political fashion and to take tough decisions when it solve all the challenges of the EU’s legitimation process, proved necessary. Importantly, it enabled him to enshrine which extends far beyond the European Parliament his campaign platform as the Commission’s policy elections. This was made explicit in the European programme, and its starting point for all policy initiatives, Commission’s Recommendation of 2013, which rather than subjecting him to the usual compromises proposed a series on complementary steps to enhance based on the lowest common denominator. the democratic and efficient conduct of the elections to the European Parliament. Far from being an example of one institution boosting its powers against another, the Spitzenkandidaten Nor was the Spitzenkandidaten process ever going process led to a more mature relationship within to be an antidote to the steadily declining turnout the institutional triangle. One could further that elections to the European Parliament have argue that its introduction helped to ‘manage been witnessing since 1979. However, the 2014 the dichotomy between supranational and elections were the first to stem the steady fall intergovernmental’.17 in overall turnout rates since the first direct European elections in 1979: Whilst turnout in 2014 In fact, a number of political leaders and governments was still the lowest ever, at 42.61 percent, the decline actively supported the experiment, as reflected in between 2009 and 2014 was minimal (0.36 percent), the final report of the Future of Europe Group of eleven compared to the period between 2004 and 2009, when EU foreign ministers who wrote in 2012: ‘The European turnout fell by 2.5 percent19 (see Figure 2). Parliament should boost its democratic visibility by the nomination of a European top candidate by each political group for the next European Parliament elections’. Figure 2: Voter turnout in European Parliament elections, 1979-2014 And while a number of other Member States were 100% concerned about the apparent ‘power-grab’ on the part 80% 61.99 58.98 58.41 of the European Parliament that the Spitzenkandidaten 60% 56.67 49.51 process represented, with some considering it to go 45.47 42.97 42.61 40% ‘further that what is foreseen by the Treaties’, it is important to recall that many individual Heads of 20% State and Government – and their national parties 0% 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 2014 The Spitzenkandidaten – themselves participated in the EU9 EU10 EU12 EU12 EU15 EU25 EU27 EU28 process led to a more European party congresses that led Note: EU average mature relationship to the selection of lead candidates Source: European Parliament, 2014 within the institutional triangle. 5 In some countries, the turnout even increased with local realities. And naturally, Eurosceptics jumped on significantly, for example in Germany – rising from the occasion to argue that European elites are out of touch 43.27 percent in 2009 to 48.10 percent in 2014 – or in with the day-to-day reality of the European citizens. Greece – from 52.61 percent in 2009 to 59.97 percent in 2014.20 However, extremely low voter turnout in a small number of Member States such as the Czech Republic (where voter turnout was as low as 18.2 percent in 2014) or Slovakia (13.05 percent) had a non- negligible effect, bringing down the EU average.

Language remained a natural barrier, limiting the impact that the Spitzenkandidaten had in the different Member States. The rather hasty organisation of the 2014 Spitzenkandidaten process reinforced the language constraint because many of the debates and events were scheduled at late notice, affecting arrangements for interpretation. As a result, there was weak interest on the part of the mainstream media in many of the debates. For example, even though the 15 May 2014 ‘Tell Europe’ debate was broadcast simultaneously in 28 countries More broadly, a true European ‘polity’ can only be by 55 TV channels, 88 websites and 9 radio stations, created over time, and requires regular investment, in France, the event was only available via two public during European Parliament elections and beyond. For channels of the Assemblée Nationale and the Senate, as this reason, efforts to engage more and better with well as one news channel, iTélé. In the future, the extent European citizens on Europe and its future cannot to which the language barrier will continue to affect the be condensed to the mere duration of an electoral selection of lead candidates is less certain although campaign, but need to be fostered over time – through multilingual candidates will continue to have a clear Citizens’ Dialogues, democratic conventions, in national advantage. and regional Parliaments – by representatives of EU institutions, but also by national and regional politicians. One of the lessons learned of the 2014 experience is certainly that more time should be allocated to the campaign itself. However, the caveat of extending Foundation for a more the duration of the campaign is that it would require candidates to declare themselves at an earlier stage. This political Commission could be particularly challenging for acting high officials The Spitzenkandidaten process enabled the Juncker – especially serving Prime Ministers – although this is not Commission to be, from its very inception, a so very different in the context of national elections. fundamentally more political Commission, compared to its predecessors. Indeed, Jean-Claude Juncker One can also argue that the context and content of the successfully mobilised a cross-party majority in the campaign remained predominantly national in 2014, European Parliament, which arguably generated a sense given that the candidates for Members of the European of joint political ownership – across party lines – around Parliament were selected nationally by the political parties his political guidelines. and elected in line with the different national procedures. At the same time, the Spitzenkandidaten process did It gave a greater personal legitimacy21 to candidate allow the parliamentary campaign to gain a stronger Juncker and to his ten areas of priority action.22 These European dimension. Each representing A true European ‘Ten Priorities’ Priorities’ originally stemmed from 23 ‘polity’ can only be a European political family, the candidate Juncker’s five-point campaign pledges, but created over time, candidates focused extensively on the were then expanded to fit with the European Council’s and requires regular European agenda, while listening to Strategic Agenda, and further refined through exchanges investment. national, regional and local sensitivities. with all the political groups of the newly elected European Parliament.They eventually became a shared However, it is these very sensitivities that make Agenda for Jobs, Growth, Fairness and Democratic European level campaigns uniquely challenging: Change that would provide the necessary impulse to issues and programmes that resonate in one part of the prioritise efforts and enable the Commission’s political EU may not garner similar interest – and may even be capital to take targeted action, taking responsibility interpreted negatively in other parts of the Union, leading for the outcome of decisions, and taking decisive steps to the perception that European debates did not resonate in the face of complex and emerging challenges.

6 President Juncker’s concept of a political Commission legitimacy of EU institutions was at the heart of the sought to shift the perception of the Commission process. To bolster this, it proposed a mandatory as a technocratic and slow institution into one Transparency Register covering all three EU institutions that is becoming more proactive, responsive and – which has now been agreed. assertive. Furthermore, the Juncker Commission has not shied away from responding flexibly to the complex challenges it faced, whether in the field of economic Impact on the institutional management, investment or migration. architecture of the Union His call for a European Union ‘that is bigger and more The question of the impact of the Spitzenkandidaten ambitious on big things, echoed what he had learned process on the institutional balance within the Union has from European citizens on the campaign trail. It led to a raised broad political and analytical interest. number of innovations inside the Commission, fostering more cross-policy work, and more collegial discussion of One of President Juncker’s key campaign goals was to proposals, thereby helping to overcome past policy silos raise the Commission’s standing vis-à-vis the two other and ensure greater collaboration amongst members of co-legislators, and to ensure it became more equidistant the College. It has not only contributed to a strategic between the European Parliament and the EU capitals. repositioning of the European Commission’s work, but it was also taken up in the EU’s 60th anniversary Rome Insofar as the political guidelines put forward by each Declaration, signed by all leaders of the 27 Member candidate the Spitzenkandidaten process were intended States, the European Council, the European Parliament to shape the legislative basis of the entire mandate, and the European Commission,24 making it a defining Members of the European Parliament were de facto functional criterion for the work of the EU as a whole. more active in the political agenda-setting of the next European Commission. For some observers, the closer To put this ambition into practice, the Juncker proximity between the Commission and the Parliament Commission created a Task Force on Subsidiarity, risked creating too much acquiescence between the Proportionality and ‘Doing Less More Efficiently’ in two institutions.25 But in reality, support for Commission 2017, under the chairmanship of the Commission First proposals in the European Parliament is never Vice-President. The Task Force will identify policy areas guaranteed and securing it remains a challenge on a where work could be devolved or definitely returned case-by-case basis. to Member States, as well as ways to better involve regional and local authorities in EU policy making and In addition, inter-institutional consultations between the delivery, in line with the twin principles of subsidiarity Commission, the European Parliament and the Council, and proportionality. The final political ambition of this as well as with the European Council, have intensified work is to close the gap between ‘promise’, ‘expectation’ under the Juncker Commission. After his election to the and ‘delivery on the ground’ – integral features to Commission Presidency in Strasbourg on 15 July 2014, foster democratic accountability and legitimacy in the he stressed that the Commission would neither be a European Union. ‘servant of the European Parliament’, nor a ‘secretary to the heads of government’. While pushing for a more The Juncker Commission’s President Juncker also political role for the Commission, he also insisted on renewed efforts to encouraged members of the increase transparency and the need for the three institutions to work more closely accountability for its actions College to take part in more together, as ‘Community players’. is also a legacy of the public debates, both at the Spitzenkandidaten process. European level and in the This willingness to cooperate more systematically was, Member States, in line with among others, put into practice through the adoption the spirit of the Spitzenkandidaten process of reaching of the European Commission’s work programmes,26 out more deliberately to European citizens. College which are signed by the three institutions involved in the members have engaged politically with citizens in an legislative process (the European Parliament, the Council unprecedented manner, whether via Citizens’ Dialogues of the European Union and the European Commission) in or visits to national (and where relevant, regional) 2016, in line with a new Interinstitutional Agreement Parliaments, presenting and communicating the on Better Law-Making. This same agreement has also common agenda for Europe, but also listening to ideas. led to a new practice according to which the Presidents of the three institutions issuing joint declarations on The Juncker Commission’s renewed efforts toincrease the legislative priorities following the adoption of transparency and accountability for its actions the Commission’s Discarding the Spitzenkandidaten is also a legacy of the Spitzenkandidaten process, work programme and system would be a step back in insofar as the imperative of increasing the democratic drawing it. These joint the direction of a more opaque and less inclusive decision- 7 making system in the EU. declarations set out broad objectives and priorities for improving the Spitzenkandidaten model along two main the following year and identify items of major political channels, which are mutually compatible and can be importance which, without prejudice to the powers pursued in parallel: conferred by the Treaties on the co-legislators, should receive priority treatment in the legislative process. • Improving the existing model In this scenario, the basic tenets of the Spitzenkandidaten system would be preserved but Options for the future: practical changes would be introduced to make sure from improving the the approach has greater impact in the next elections. • Bolstering European political parties with Spitzenkandidaten process to strong links to their members nationally European political parties will need to play a more an integrated EU governance pronounced role in the electoral campaign to ensure In spite of the short run-up time, the Spitzenkandidaten that elections to the European Parliament are process granted gave more visibility to the election about European issues. Today, they remain diverse of the President of the Commission and enabled confederations that struggle to resonate with their its formula to evolve in the direction of a political national constituent members. Stronger political Commission that responds swiftly to emerging political parties, with close links to the capitals, would make challenges. For a first-time experiment, its contribution the Spitzenkandidaten experience more valuable. towards strengthened vibrancy of the democratic life in the Union was considerable. Improving the Spitzenkandidaten

Discarding the Spitzenkandidaten system would be process a step back in the direction of a more opaque and less Among the main drawbacks of the 2014 inclusive decision-making system in the EU. This would Spitzenkandidaten experiment were the sheer novelty of neither be in line with the progressive development of the idea and the limited amount of time available for the the European Union of past years or with the need for a campaign, which made proper outreach difficult. While further strengthening of its legitimation process in years these downsides will naturally be less significant second- to come. time round, in the 2019 elections, European political parties can and should also take can further steps to improve the The experience of 2014 already enables the process by addressing a number of issues, including: identification of certain characteristics that individuals selected as Spitzenkandidaten are likely to share. • Timing and procedure for selecting parties’ provides a clear advantage, and Multilingualism candidates and their role in the drafting of knowledge of the three working languages of the EU electoral manifestos institutions can be considered quasi pre-requisites. Longer campaigning periods would allow for enhanced Executive experience is necessary given the scope political engagement. The democratic vibrancy of of the tasks at hand. And finally, the credibility and the debate would generally gain from the political effectiveness of the candidate will be bolstered if they families deciding about Spitzenkandidaten at an early are considered by the European Council as ‘one of stage. The caveat is that top candidates, especially their peers’ – given that the Commission President people who are acting Prime Ministers or Presidents, also sits in the European Council. Of course, these might not be willing to put their names forward characteristics do not, and cannot, preclude the pool of too early. Furthermore, the work of the European potential candidates to the position of Spitzenkandidat, Commission could be affected if a sizeable number of and eventually to President of the European Commissioners were to decide to stand for election Commission, but they can serve to facilitate the process and the campaign starts early. However, it has in the future. certainly also been the case that holding primaries has contributed to making European issues clearer to Given the importance of reconstituting the European the citizens. In practical terms, the establishment of Union as the Union of twenty-seven members and in electoral lists, as well as the nomination of lead light of the debate on the future of Europe that was candidates by European political parties, would initiated by the European Commission’s White Paper benefit from being completed by the end of 2018, in March 2017, consideration should be given to a although of course, it is up to the political parties to more ambitious move towards a fully-fledged decide on the procedure for selecting their candidates. and integrated system of EU governance with an appropriate legitimisation process. This would entail

8 • Upgrading the visibility of the Spitzenkandidaten European level, meet clear and updated criteria – Changes in electoral laws should ensure that the including representation in a sufficiently large number of names and logos of European political parties and EU Member States – and respect of the values on which the names of the Spitzenkandidaten feature on the EU is founded; and strengthening enforcement, so electoral lists and ballot papers across the EU, as is that abuse can be tackled and funds reclaimed. already established practice in a number of Member Beyond political party financing, theSpitzenkandidaten States for some or all of the national parties. In campaigns themselves will require support if they are to 2014, nine Member States allowed national parties to achieve real outreach. indicate their affiliation to European parties on ballot papers. They should also appear in media campaigns Bolstering European political parties and in the manifestos of national parties. In this way, the citizens would be better able to decide on their with strong links to their members choice of European electoral platform. nationally European political parties have developed over time as • Marathon campaigning across the EU confederations of their national constituent members, Prior to their selection, candidates could commit to striving to be more than the sum of their parts. Their debating actively across the EU, with a significant political platforms are often very wide-ranging, reflecting number of campaign stops, ideally in all Member the diversity of views across the Union and existing States. Provisions enabling translation into national national parties, whilst their structures also vary. The languages would also be useful. way that parties resonate in Member States can be reinforced through more visibility and engagement around • New rules for the financing of the their values and views on the future of Europe. As part Spitzenkandidaten campaign of the evolution of European political parties, boosting European political parties that are registered as membership across the EU and with more engagement European legal entities have access to European around political platforms would greatly benefit financial support. In September 2017, the Commission European democracy. put forward proposed new rules aimed at: increasing transparency, so that people know who they are voting for; improving democratic legitimacy, so that funding goes to entities that register at the

Figure 3: Timeline for the election of the new President of the European Commission European Political Parties European Council Developing manifestos and European Political Parties Decision to propose a identifying potential candidates Selection of European Parliament candidate for President of the (Spitzenkandidaten) Spitzenkandidaten Elections European Commission

Early 2 Feruary eptemer 201 Mayune 2021 201 201 to Feruary 201 201 une 201

Informal meeting of the Spitzenkandidaten European Council on institutional campaign across Europe issues, including Spitzenkandidaten European Parliament European Parliament Approval of the new New legislature European Commission

uly eptemer Octoer 1 ovemer 201 201 ovemer 201 201

European Parliament Council in agreement with the European Parliament European Commission Election of the new European Commission Presidentelect Hearings of candidates for Taking office Commission President by Designation of candidates for new Commissioners majority of component members Commissioners

9 Conclusion: making European democracy more complete The Spitzenkandidaten process of 2014 was a political innovation aimed at offering European citizens clarity on the names of contenders for the top executive post in the European Union and their electoral programmes. In this sense, it fulfilled its purpose and led to a stronger and more mature relationship between the institutions. It contributed to making European democracy more complete.

However, this remains a work in progress. For 2019 and beyond, more effort is needed to improve the Spitzenkandidaten model, by ensuring that campaigns are active and dynamic. This is first and foremost the responsibility of the European political parties, and relies in part on their relationship with national constituents. The objective at the end of the day is for the European elections to be about European issues: about the challenges and the tasks that Europeans face jointly in the Union. More than sixty years into the project and at a historic time of relaunching the Union in a smaller setting, this is what both the institution and the citizens deserve.

10 Annex: Evolution of the selection process of Presidents of the European Commission Treaty of Maastricht Treaty of Amsterdam Treaty of Nice Treaty of Lisbon Article 158 EC Treaty Article 214 EC Treaty Article 214 EC Treaty Article 17(7) TEU

Step 1: Governments Step 1: President of the Step 1: The Council, Step 1: Taking into of the Member States European Commission meeting in the composition account the elections nominate by common is nominated by of Heads of State or of the European accord, after consulting common accord by Government, and acting Parliament, and after the European Parliament, the Governments of the by qualified majority, having held the appropriate the person they intend to Member States. The nominates the person consultations, the European appoint as President of nomination shall be it intends to appoint as Council (EUCO), acting the Commission approved by the European President. The nomination by qualified majority, Parliament shall be approved by the proposes a candidate to the Step 2: The Governments European Parliament European Parliament of the Member States, by Step 2: The Governments common accord with the of the Member States, by Step 2: The Council, by Step 2: The candidate nominee for President, common accord with the common accord for shall be elected by the nominate other persons nominee for President, European Commission European Parliament whom they intend to nominate other persons President, adopts list by a majority of its appoint as Members of whom they intend to of persons it intends to component members the Commission appoint as Members of appoint as Members of the the Commission Commission, in accordance Step 3: The Council, by Step 3: Nominated with the proposals made common accord, adopts candidate and other Step 3: The President by each Member State the list of other persons it Members of the and other Members of proposes for appointment Commission are subject, the Commission are Step 3: The President as Members of the as a body, to a vote of subject, as a body, to and the other Members Commission, on the basis approval by the EP vote of approval by the of the Commission are of the suggestions made by European Parliament subject, as a body, to a Member States Step 4: After approval vote of approval by the by EP, final appointment Step 4: After vote European Parliament Step 4: The President, the by common accord of approval, final HRVP and other Members by governments of the appointment – by Step 4: After approval of the Commission Member States common accord of by European Parliament, subject as a body to a the governments of the President and Members vote of consent by the Member States of the Commission are European Parliament appointed by the Council, acting by qualified Step 5: Afterconsent from majority the European Parliament, the Commission is appointed by the EUCO, acting by qualified majority

11 Notes

1. European Parliament, 2014, ‘Parlameter survey 2014: citizens 18. The Declaration on Article 17(6) and (7) of the TEU annexed to the cheer Parliament’s role in Juncker election’, available at: http:// final act of the intergovernmental conference which adopted the www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20150213IPR24006/ Treaty of Lisbon, signed on 13 December 2007, states, inter alia: parlameter-survey-2014-citizens-cheer-parliament-s-role-in- ‘(...) in accordance with the provisions of the Treaties, the European juncker-election Parliament and the European Council are jointly responsible for 2. Article 158(2) TEC Maastricht the smooth running of the process leading to the election of the President of the European Commission. Prior to the decision of the 3. Article 214 (2) TEC Amsterdam European Council, representatives of the European Parliament and of 4. Jacques Delors – Notre Europe, 1998, ‘From the single currency the European Council will thus conduct the necessary consultations to the single ballot box’, available at: http://www.delorsinstitute. in the framework deemed the most appropriate. These consultations eu/011-19881-De-la-monnaie-unique-au-scrutin-unique.html will focus on the backgrounds of the candidates for President of 5. See Peñalver García, N. and Priestly, N. (2015). The making of a the Commission, taking account of the elections to the European European President. Palgrave Macmillan: New York. Parliament (...).’ The Declaration leaves open the choice of how and where these consultations should take place. 6. José Manuel Durão Barroso, 12 September 2012, ‘State of the Union 2012 Address’. Available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/press- 19. European Commission, 8 May 2015, ‘Report on the 2014 European release_SPEECH-12-596_en.htm Parliament elections’, DG Justice and Consumers, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/citizen/news/150508_en.htm 7. European Parliament, 22 November 2012, Resolution on the elections to the European Parliament in 2014 (2012/2829(RSP), 20. European Parliament, 2014, ‘Results of the 2014 European available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=T elections’, available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ A&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2012-462 elections2014-results/en/turnout.html 8. European Commission Recommendation of 12 March 2013 21. See Hussein Kassim. et al., ‘Managing the house: the Presidency, on enhancing the democratic and efficient conduct of the agenda control and policy activism in the European Commission’, elections to the European Parliament (2013/142/EU), available (2017) 24(5) Journal of European Public Policy, 653-674 at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ 22. Ten Priorities, as outlined in the ‘New Start for Europe: My Agenda .L_.2013.079.01.0029.01.ENG for Jobs, Growth, Fairness and Democratic Change’. 9. European Commission, 12 March 2013, Communication on 23. See Juncker.epp.eu ‘My Priorities’, available at: http://juncker.epp.eu/ ‘Preparing for the 2014 European elections: further enhancing my-priorities their democratic and efficient conduct’ (COM(2013) 126 24. European Council, 25 March 2017, ‘Declaration of the leaders of final), available at:http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ 27 member states and of the European Council, the European TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52014DC0012 Parliament and the European Commission, available at: http:// 10. European Parliament, 2015, ‘Spitzenkandidaten; the underlying www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2017/03/25/ story’, available at https://www.europarltv.europa.eu/en/ rome-declaration/ programme/others/spitzenkandidaten-the-underlying-story 25. See Desmond Dinan, ‘Governance and Institutions: The Year of the 11. Euractiv, 24 February 2014, ‘EU Conservatives call single candidate Spitzenkandidaten’, Journal of Common Market Studies, Volume election campaigns a ‘1950-style vision’’ http://www.euractiv. 53, 2015 com/section/eu-elections-2014/news/eu-conservatives-call-single- 26. See: Etienne Bassot, Wolfgang Hiller, ‘The Juncker Commission’s candidate-election-campaigns-a-1950-style-vision/ ten priorities: State of play in mid-2016’, (2016) European 12. Euractiv, 10 April 2014, ‘Far-right parties join Tories in rejecting Parliamentary Research Service, 1-36 common EU candidate’ http://www.euractiv.com/section/uk-europe/ news/far-right-parties-join-tories-in-rejecting-common-eu- candidate/ 13. Cerulus, L., 6 March 2014, Juncker wins Dombrovskis backing as EPP congress kicks off, for Euractiv, available at:https://www. euractiv.com/section/eu-elections-2014/news/juncker-wins- dombrovskis-backing-as-epp-congress-kicks-off/ 14. See Jean-Claude Juncker’s acceptance speech after delegates of the EPP Congress in Dublin elected him as EPP Spitzenkandidat in March 2014 for the 2014 European elections: https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=Dm66RtyWxtM 15. The invitation was declined by Alexis Tsipras. 16. For a more detailed account, see Martin Schulz’s campaign’s website: https://www.pes.eu/en/news-events/news/detail/Martin- Schulz-wraps-up-historic-European-tour-in-Lyon 17. Term used by Andrew Duff:http://andrewduff.blogactiv. eu/2017/09/10/is-the-european-parliament-really-a-serious- parliament/

PDF: ISBN 978-92-79-78819-2 • doi:10.2872/831778 • Catalogue number: ES-AE-18-001-EN-N Site/HTML: ISBN 978-92-79-78820-8 • doi:10.2872/918092 • Catalogue number: ES-AA-16-013-EN-Q

12