BRUSSELS CLUB NEEDS SHAKE-UP

The independent, monday 31 october 1994

The process by which Jacques Santer nominated his 21 member European Commission last weekend was shrouded in mystery. The Commission is the executive of the European Union - to some degree, an embryonic European government - yet European voters had no say in a matter that impinges directly on their lives.

Essentially, what happened was that 16 national governments put forwards candidates for jobs and then, in a series of backroom deals, Mr. Santer allocated those jobs in a manner intended to miff those governments as little as possible. It was not a good advertisement for a European Union that needs to persuade citizens that it is open, democratic and accountable.

Reforming the Commission is fast becoming the most important task facing the EU. It is unacceptable that such powerful, supranatioanl jobs should be parcelled out among politicians, very few of whom are widely known outside their home countries and none of whom has a direct mandate from the electorate.

It may turn turn out for the best that Neil Kinnock takes charge of European transport policy, and that Erkki Liikanen, a Finnish Social Democrat, is responsible for "budget and administration", but their qualifications for these posts were never put under public scrutiny.

All these questions are coming uo for debate as the EU prepares for its Inter-Governmental Conference in 1996 to revise the Maastricht treaty. At present, the Commission cannot take office without receiving a vote of approval from the European Parliament. But the Parliament is restricted to voting on the Commission as a collective body. Ultimately, it cannot pass effective judgement on the merits of individual commissioners.

This means that, in practice, the Parliament's powers are rather illusory. Members of the EU's most democratic institution are put in the impossible position of either namely accepting a Commission nominated behind closed doors, or rejecting the executive in its entirety and thus detonating a political explosion.

Lack of transparency, and lack of democratic procedure, are two serious problems besetting the Commission. A third, quite simply, is that it is too big. If the EU expands to take in former Communist countries in central and eastern Europe, the Commission could, in theory, have almost 30 members. But 21 members are already too many. With apologies to Emma Bonino and Marcelino Oreja of Spain, is it really necessary to have commissioners for "consumer policy and humanitarian aid" and "EU institutions and culture" ?

The best answer is to bite the bullet, reduce the number of commissioners and accept that, sometimes, some countries will not be represented in the executive. Alternatively, a system of senior and junior commissioners could be set up. But one way or another, the Commission must stop looking like a club for well-paid, unelected politicos.