National parties have nothing to lose from a better resourced and more democratic Party of European Socialists

At the European Parliament level, political parties divide into ideological – rather than national – blocs. The second largest is the centre-left Party of European Socialists (PES). Here, Julian Priestley, a former adviser to the PES’s Martin Schulz in a piece which originally appeared on the Policy Network website, argues that the PES should become more democratic in order to build its legitimacy and help push for a more democratic Europe.

Credit: PES Communications, CC BY NC SA 2.0

Europe’s socialists gather this weekend in Budapest for the congress of their European party (PES). They meet in sombre mood: after the Berezina of the British election and mediocre to border-line disastrous midterms in Spain and France, it is hard to point to any successes for mainstream social democrats. Those in power are hammered for their complicity in austerity policies, those out of office have yet to develop a coherent alternative to them. The radical left snaps at their heels, the mainstream right suffers too but keeps ahead of its traditional rivals.

All the centre-left parties understand that developing a coherent alternative requires a Europe-wide approach and that this will only achieve credibility if their European party organisation is able to develop policies and campaign for them. So far, national parties have been reluctant to cede greater responsibility to their own European party for fear of ‘losing control’. But what ‘control’? They have lost so much control in the last few years in pursuing short-term national agendas and treating cooperation with other members of their ‘political family’ as some kind of tedious chore – a technical necessity – that they might start asking themselves whether a new approach is not now required.

First, the European parties should accept individual members. The experiment with ‘activists’ has paid off for the PES with thousands now joined up and ready to campaign. But they demand a voice in the European party and the right to vote when it makes decisions.

Second, the parties should become democratic. Delegates to congresses like the one in Budapest should not be designated on the principle of Buggins’s turn or unswerving loyalty to the national leadership. They should be voted by national or regional party members and mandated democratically on the key issues to be taken. This in turn could lead to a serious discussion of European policy at party branches in the member states.

Third, the European party needs the wherewithal to develop policy on the great European issues. The tiny staffs at the headquarters of the European parties are simply overwhelmed with the organisational, campaigning and policy demands placed on them. A significant increase in human and financial resources available to the parties is now required. And coordination with the relevant parliamentary groups and the policy foundations should not be hampered by artificial bureaucratic rules but actively promoted.

Fourth, the parties need to start preparing the 2019 European elections now. They do that by stepping up thematic campaigns on key issues which differentiate. A social democratic critique of TTIP, the strict observance of fundamental rights by member states – not least in the country where the PES will be meeting this weekend – a radical reform of the EU budget in 2016 so that its job-creating potential is fully realised; these are just examples of what could constitute distinctive social democratic campaigns in the run-up to the preparations for the elections.

Fifth, now that the spitzenkandidaten system has established itself, the parties need to draw lessons for the future. The next European campaign will be centred more clearly on the lead candidates for Commission president. But even its most fervent admirers recognise that the 2014 experience had a particularly commodious room for improvement. Yes, the upshot of the Juncker nomination has been to enhance the European parliament’s role in the decision about the top job: without the spitzenkandidaten procedure, Juncker would not have been the nominee. With it at least voters whose interest was engaged could feel themselves for the first time involved in this crucial personnel decision – and the commission, with its legitimacy somewhat enhanced and its close cooperation with the European parliament, now clearly feels more comfortable in using its right of initiative, and where necessary confronting national capitals in the wider European interest.

But the new process did not catch fire. It did create interest in informed circles in the national capitals and on occasion with a wider public (at party rallies and in some TV debates). Even with the procedure bedded in, the parties need more time, resources and organisational firepower to ensure that the ‘personalisation’ of the election could start paying dividends.

The best place to start is to look at how these lead candidates are selected by the parties. Having nominating conventions at which delegates democratically chosen by party members made their choice would be a step forward. Holding closed primaries of party members in all the member states, preceded by hustings at which candidates could be subjected to scrutiny and put forward their vision of Europe would widen still the interest in the process. But the game-changer would be open primaries, like those organised by an increasing number of our national parties, reaching out beyond current dwindling memberships to new potential supporters and provoking the widest possible debate on options for Europe’s future.

If PES opens up the internal debate on a more open, democratic and transparent procedure for selecting Juncker’s successor in 2019 they will be showing a kind of confidence in the future of their movement, and place themselves unequivocally on the side of those pushing towards new democratic frontiers in Europe.

—

Note: This piece originally published on Policy Network’s website, and is reposted with their permission. It represents the views of the author and not those of Democratic Audit UK or the LSE. Please read our comments policy before posting.

—

Julian Priestley was secretary general of the European parliament from 1997 to 2007. He was special adviser to Martin Schulz during his campaign for the commission presidency. His book, co-authored with Nereo Peñalver Garcia, The Making of a European President is published by Palgrave Macmillan. Their policy paper on the lessons of the 2014 elections for the European political parties is published by the Jacques Delors Institute