The complexity of European governance and the stagnation of the reform of the European Union

The European Union is a transnational organization that has been increasing its institutional, decision-making and political complexity. For almost a quarter of a century, it has had several attempts at reform, to make decisions more efficient and increase competitiveness.

 

It is known that crises are repetitive phenomena in contemporary societies, and those who know how to manage them can even create new opportunities in evolution. That is, the leaders of Europe, of the member states and of the regional and local administrations are the ones who have the duty and the legitimacy to develop the European project in the situations generated by the present and future complex interdependencies. The energy crisis of 1973 generated a "decade of Eurosclerosis" in the European Community, which was left behind by the selection of a valuable, responsible and determined leadership in the mid-80s, led by the President of the European Commission - Jacques Delors - who assumed a structural reformation of the Internal Market and the institutions in Brussels, favoring the creation of the European Union.

 

We must note that the current European governance mechanism is not only complex, but also unpredictable, sometimes complicated, and the recent manifestations in the European Parliament raise serious questions about future developments. Begun in 1999, after the institutional crisis occasioned by the resignation of the Santer Commission, the current correlation of the elections for the European Parliament with the validation of the team of European Commissioners is a procedure stretched over almost six months, and this in case there are no syncope along the way.

 

The last quarter of a century has brought significant changes to the European political scene, with strong influences on the object, norms and style of European governance. We are currently on an unspecified and, it seems, disputed background, because the forms of politicization of the European Commission have not led to the efficiency of the decision-making process, and even less to the much-promised simplification of regulations and de-bureaucratization. At the level of EU member states, far-right political formations have strengthened, with elected officials in national parliaments, and in some cases even being part of governing coalitions and the European Parliament. Some of these parties have also become notorious through their anti-system messages, also demonstrating against the European project. Recently, leaders of such political formations have openly displayed feelings contrary to the geopolitical orientation of the European Union!

 

A major and worrying element, revealed also by the situation in which all 6 positions of vice-presidents of the European Commission were blocked in the European Parliament, is the visible erosion of the traditional political groups in the European Parliament that defined themselves as pro-European. In 2009, the European Conservatives and Reformists Group (ECR) appeared, being created as an alternative to the two large traditional groups in the European Parliament – ​​the Group of the European People's Party (EPP) and the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D). After this year's European elections, political groups were formed in the European Parliament that openly support an anti-European attitude. Fidesz, the government party in Hungary, was affiliated to the EPP group for years, but it is now part of one that promotes illiberalism, and other formations, such as the League (Italy) and the National Assembly (France) are adherents of far-right ideas, they structurally reject European values. Which makes us realize that the existential crisis of the European Union is also generated by the deep crisis of the traditional European political groups that have until now held a comfortable majority in the European Parliament.

If we analyze the system of the European Union, a few mentions are necessary to contextualize the current moment. The European project is constantly being refined, it does not yet express a finalized formula, and this makes it vulnerable to attacks from within or without. For example, the Internal Market, even though it has completed 30 years of existence, needs structural reforms (see Draghi and Monti's reports); the Euro zone does not include all states; European defense is in its infancy; European diplomacy is still searching for the appropriate objective and style; the Schengen area is suffering greatly, and the immigration file is politically ignored because of its complexity;  and although the achievements of the European Union generated enthusiasm in its neighborhood, the enlargement policy was undefined and without a realistic strategy. The European integrationist project can become fully functional only if there is a real constructivist vision, strategy and will. Let's remember the ideals of the founders of the 50s and how it was then possible to eliminate the barriers considered impossible to cross, sometimes even to discuss. Systemic inertia is not enough!

 

The term "European interest" has almost disappeared from the vocabulary of European leaders, and political groups are closer to corporate interest groups than to the European citizen’s interest. A restoration of the European negotiations is urgently required in the construction and reform of the European Union, in order to achieve the harmonization of the interests of all categories of European actors operating in order to achieve a deep European integration.

 

 

In the last days in Brussels, many adversities are clashing from the shortcomings of the functioning of the institutions of the European Union. In addition to the interests of the member states, the doctrinal confusions in the European political groups, the ideological variable given by the "shades from pro-European to anti-European" is also manifested. It is clear to everyone that in order to make room for the European vision expected by the citizens of the European Union, for a sincere openness to reality and progress, a simplification is needed not only of the regulations, but also of the European decision-making process. The Member States are each with their own national individuality and this is the splendor of the diversity that aspires to the Union. They express internally, through their own forms of government, certain doctrinal realities (from left to right), with indirect European reverberations. At the European level, there is a need for an integration of the conceptions of the European formations in a system of reporting predominantly to European values ​​and ideals. What should also define the political structuring in the European Parliament, where traditional groupings show confusion and slow, sometimes contradictory developments. Surprisingly, the far-right groups in the European Parliament, formed in the fall of 2024, seem to be more cohesive and agile, they clearly express what they are after, even if the other groups do not like to admit it.

 

We hope to have a fully functional European Commission as soon as possible, because inter-institutional disputes do not favor an urgent action to re-enter the European Union at the pace of evolution desired by European citizens and expected by many actors in the international community. Moreover, we want coherence, convergence and efficiency in the work of the newly installed European institutions to avoid the increasingly frequent scenarios that doubt the Union's ability to produce prestigious future results. The international system is under reconstruction and we would have needed a solidly structured European Union, with clear and mobilizing future strategies, with institutions and leadership fully committed to restoring the world. The patience of European citizens has a limit and costs!

 

Authors:

Prof. Dr. Vasile Pușcaș, former Chief Negotiator of Romania for EU accession.

Dr. Dan Luca, expert in Strategic Communication, working in Brussels since 1997.