Parliament's personalities

As parliament’s power has grown, its support among the public has waned, despite some charismatic leaders, says Martyn Bond

You have to leave the European parliament to appreciate how important it really is.” So said the president of Estonia, Toomas Henrik Ilves, addressing the plenary in Strasbourg in March – and as a former MEP he should know. But why is it that insiders know this truth, but public opinion is so reluctant to appreciate it? When parliament was first elected in 1979, nearly three electors in four across Europe turned out to vote. Parliament may have been powerless then, but it fired voters’ imaginations. At the most recent elections, fewer than half the electorate bothered to vote, despite parliament’s growing powers.

I have watched the last 15 presidents of parliament. Cornelius Berkhouwer was my first, long before direct elections, when I came to Strasbourg as a junior administrator in the council secretariat, an ideal vantage point from which to judge the competence and quality of the other institution. I saw a broad cross-section of politicians in parliament, then as now, whether in high office or aspiring to it.

My first president would contentedly fall asleep when chairing a plenary session, especially after a liquid lunch. But he had a masterful grasp of human nature and was on first name terms with every MEP. His successor, Georges Spenale, paid more attention to the debates, but his powerful voice, even without the microphone, could silence an obstreperous backbencher raising dubious points of order. And Emilio Colombo, doyen of former presidents at the recent reunion in Strasbourg to celebrate parliament’s 50th anniversary, often outfoxed both council and commission.

Direct elections were the first great watershed for parliament in its long march to equality with the other institutions. It may not have given MEPs more powers, but it gave them greater self esteem. Simone Veil, the new president, underlined this sense of importance with the moral authority of a survivor of the concentration camps. Few thought that Piet Dankert, her successor, would leave as strong a mark, but his dynamic image and media savvy boosted parliament’s public image. In Pierre Pflimlin, parliament then elected a successor from an earlier generation, with experience of European politics through war, peace and reconstruction. He anchored parliament in Strasbourg, to the chagrin of Luxembourg, the immediate rival location at the time. The president I knew best was Henry Plumb, the first and only Briton so far to hold the post. During his tenure I moved from the council secretariat to head the parliament office in London. Under his leadership parliament mastered the new powers that came with the Single European Act. He also made the initial breakthrough at heads of government level, presenting parliament’s view in the European council. Enrique Baron-Crespo comfortably won the election to succeed him in 1989, confirming the alternance between right and left for leadership of the house. Building on the success of the SEA, he negotiated further advances in the Maastricht treaty, and led parliament in its positive response to the fall of the Berlin Wall.

The next president, Egon Klepsch, successfully oversaw the new procedures for co-decision that followed ratification of the Maastricht treaty, the second great watershed for parliament. It fell to his successor, Klaus Haensch to welcome Finnish, Austrian and Swedish MEPs, taking, as he put it later “a first step towards the unification of Europe as a continent”. And he astutely introduced the powerful weapon of “public hearings” to test the qualification and character of commissioners before appointment.

Jose Maria Gil-Robles brought great authority to the role, giving parliament the moral high ground in the quarrel that led to the dismissal of the Santer commission. Nicole Fontaine, the second woman to be elected president, helped strengthen the image of the institution both in her native France and in the wider world. Pat Cox, an energetic Liberal from Ireland who broke the mould of socialist and EPP alternance in 2002, presided over the historic enlargement to central and eastern Europe. His successor, Josep Borrell, managed a parliament of over 700 members and coordinated parliament’s response to the French and Dutch rejection of the constitutional treaty. And now it is the turn of Hans-Gert Pöttering to preside over a parliament with greater powers than ever before and about to gain even more with ratification of the Lisbon treaty, powers way beyond his wildest dreams when he was first elected back in 1979.

The irony is that parliament, given these powers by member state governments, has step by step lost popular support. While the European village thrives on consensus and compromise, are the voters losing interest at the lack of real political choice? Groups naming their candidates for president of the commission before the vote next year may inject some political tension back into the European elections. Naming in advance who they want as president of the parliament might help that process further. After the struggle for power and prestige that parliament has largely won, this might stir up controversy about personalities and policies. That could be what voters now expect from the European parliament.