This week, José Manuel Durão Barroso, the former and now also future President of the EU Commission, has been reelected with a narrow absolute majority vote in the European Parliament. But his reappointment has been far from uncontroversial: Not only did four major political groups in the Parliament, namely the Socialists, Liberals, the Greens and the Leftists, openly refuse to endorse Barroso, but he eventually also depended on the votes from the eurosceptic group – what an irony, Mr President!
So did, at the end of the day, all the acrimonious debates on the Portuguese’s reelection in times of economic crisis and unsolved climate issues turn out to be vain? Not exactly! The lively debate, discussed not only in Brussels’
Barroso during the vote in the European Parliament (Source: http://www.presstv.ir)
more or less closed political circles but also broadely covered by the media all over Europe and numerous blogs on the net, did the EU a favour by enhancing its democratic profile. No – did Mr Barroso’s fellow-conservatives say: Quite the opposite, it paralysed the EU at a crucial moment. But this is nothing but disguised campaigning.
From an impartial point of view, the whole nomination and reelection process had two merits: First, it spoiled the Member States’ plan to discretely reappoint the weak President at the head of the Commission in order to preserve their own influence in EU decision-making. Secondly, it aroused a broad democratic debate within and outside the institutions that partly created what the EU bitterly needs: a continent-wide public sphere where citizens, media and politicians discuss key decisions. This summer, a lot of people all over Europe finally saw that the EU executive is not the stooge of the Member States, but a political leader who needs a democratic majority to be elected. That’s quite a step forward rather than an impediment for the functioning of the EU.
