Despite the possibility for a popular election, it looks likely there will only be one candidate for the post of President in the new European Commission named next year –the incumbent Barroso. Why? The answer is a mix of spinelessness and myth. Niccolò Milanese When pressed on the political form of the European Union in June last year, the President of the Commission – Jose Manuel Barroso – after much flustering around and reference to ‘unidentified political objects’, made the comparison with empire. Previous empires, he said, ‘were usually made through force, with a centre that imposed a will on the others.’ The EU, on the other hand, is unique in being the ‘first non-imperial empire’: 27 states which have freely chosen to pool sovereignty. ‘We should be proud of it, at least, we in the Commission are proud of it’, he concluded somewhat childishly. The European Union Empire will have its largest ever elections in June next year for the European Parliament, and in November 2009 a new Commission takes office. Yet at this moment it looks likely the only candidate for the new President of the Commission will be none other than Jose Manuel Barroso. The same Jose Manuel Barroso who has presided over three negative referendum results, has done nothing to resolve Europe’s identity crisis, and most recently had his Financial Stimulus Plan slapped down unceremoniously by national finance ministers. The same Barroso who is unpopular with most European political parties. Then is the EU Empire undemocratic, like historical empires? Not according to its formal rules, at least with regard to choosing President of the Commission. Although the President of the Commission is chosen by the heads of the 27 nation-states acting as the European Council, they present their choice to the new Parliament for approval. Furthermore, the Lisbon Treaty which 25 nation states have ratified adds that the Council should make their choice ‘in light of the results of the European elections’, thus opening the possibility for European political parties to go into the elections with a candidate for Commission President. So if most political parties are unhappy with Barroso, how come he is the only candidate? The answer is in part manipulation on the part of some heads of state and naivety on the part of others, but is ultimately the result of spinelessness on the part of many European politicians. Most of Europe is controlled by conservative governments, and this is unlikely to change before the next Commission is selected. The majority of heads of state have already expressed their support for Barroso. This is utterly undemocratic manipulation, against the spirit of giving more democratic importance to the European elections that the majority of them have signed up to in the Lisbon Treaty. In addition to conservative heads of state, the heads of state of three countries governed by Socialists have also given him their support: those of the UK, Spain and Portugal. According to the European socialist Enrique Baron Crespo, Zapatero gave his backing to Barroso out of “wanting to be polite”. If this is true, it is utterly naive. But in itself all this decides nothing: the parliament must approve the candidate. Nevertheless the European Socialists seem to have already decided it is a lost cause, and no high-profile Socialist is willing to risk their reputation in running against Barroso. Thus the European Socialists did not nominate any candidate at their congress, which is a little like the Labour Party not nominating a candidate for Prime Minister in the British elections because the polls are against them. The socialists are not alone: the European Liberal Party also decided not to put forward a candidate; the Green Party is even running an anti-Barroso campaign, but it is not offering an alternative candidate because it does not think there is any chance of winning. Some members of the conservative European People’s Party, to which Barroso belongs, have expressed dissatisfaction with his Presidency, but it seems entirely unlikely that the party will nominate anyone else, or even that anyone from the party will dare challenge him, at their congress in the New Year. Such spinelessness from the political parties and their members is completely irresponsible. The most basic demand made of them is to provide a political choice, and the present legislation of the European Union actively encourages them to provide this choice. Whatever the naivety or machinations of heads of state, the parliament has a duty to assert its own importance and it has the powers already to do this. Under the Lisbon Treaty the Parliament would get more co-decision making powers with the Council, but its member parties must lose their spirit of deference if those powers are to have any significance. The European Commission is one of the most powerful executive organisations in the world and controls the most powerful trading block in the world at a time of global economic crisis. Even though it is not the legislative power of the Union, the presenting of only one candidate for the post of President of the European Commission reinforces the hegemonic idea that there is no choice available over what policies to adopt in the face of this crisis. Judging by their actions, this is a situation ours heads of state seem entirely content with. It is also, we can only imagine, a situation that the thousands of corporate lobbyists who stalk the corridors of Brussels are rather happy to live with. It is the myth of the inevitability of the direction of the European Union that must be broken. There is nothing inevitable about Barroso being the only candidate for President of the Commission, just as there is nothing inevitable about the direction or failures of European policy. The appearance of inevitability is a montage created when political machination meets political cowardice, a political cowardice that seems presently endemic in Europe. If we persist with the analogy of an Empire, it is nonsense to place Barroso or anyone else in the position of Emperor. Rather the entire construction seems to be under the hypnotic influence of a myth of its own autonomous logic. In the non-imperial empire, as it turns out, it is not force that imposes an emperor, but fear which makes the “empire” itself into a puppet.