ANALYSIS OF THE EUROPEAN ELECTION RESULTS IN FRANCE

European Elections June 2009 by Ségolène Pruvot The first striking point of the European elections is the low participation: only 40% of French voters went to the voting booths on the 7th of June in France. In other words, 60% of the voters did not seem to think that their vote would make a difference. It is no surprise: it had been long foreseen and it just the continuation a trend of decreasing participation rates to the European Parliament (EP) elections, previously observed not only in France but also in most European countries. However, it is a reality that cannot and should be ignored. Participation to the EP elections has been decreasing in most EU countries since the first time the EP was elected directly in 1979. And if, in France, participation to national elections (parliamentary, regional and local) has also been decreasing slowly and consistently, at the exception of presidential elections, participation rates for national elections are higher than those of last Sunday. Is it the sign of a lack of interest for Europe? Does it show dissatisfaction with the current form of European integration? Does it reveal a lack of understanding of the role and functioning of the European Parliament? These are the most common explanations given by politicians, pro-and contra-European organisations and journalists. All these explanations seem to contain some truth: It is no news that the European Union seems bureaucratic, the role of the European Parliament is certainly insufficiently understood and finally, the way policy-making in Europe functions is probably misunderstood. But can one rightly pretend that voters at the national level fully know and understand the role of their Parliament and the way policy is made? Are nation-states not bureaucratic in many ways? This is not sufficient to conclude that voters do not have ideas about the type of society they want to live in and about the type of policy they want to be implemented. The interesting element is that not going to vote does not necessarily mean that one does not have an opinion about Europe and about European issues. Recent opinion polls broadly suggest that citizens’ interest in Europe is higher than participation rates seem to show. For instance, a poll led by the Fondation pour l’innovation politique shows that 56% of Europeans think it is a good thing that their country belongs to Europe, which is not much but more that the 43% of voters on Sunday. Similarly, an after-election poll run by TNS/Sofres also shows that abstention may reveal more disappointment with national political parties than lack of interest for Europe: that is the case for at least 30% of people who did not go to vote; whereas 20% of the electorate only have not gone to vote because they disapprove European integration as it is. This is confirmed by the results of the elections: people who went to vote did want to vote on European issues, and according to their idea of what Europe should be or do for them. They have voted for parties that had clearly expressed an opinion about Europe and discussed European issues. The main ‘winners’ of the European Elections in France are the Union pour la Majorité Parlementaire (UMP), the party of President Sarkozy (27.87 % of votes nationally) and the Greens, Europe Ecologie (16.28 %), a coalition of political parties gathered behind Daniel Cohn-Bendit. Both are coalitions that have led their campaign on European issues. The UMP, the campaign of which has been orchestrated by N. Sarkozy, has capitalised on the results of the French European Presidency. The campaign slogan of the UMP ‘When Europe wants, Europe can’ was clearly a reference to the political activism of the French president during the last semester of 2008. A more critical reading of the underlying images behind the slogan “When France wants, Europe can” reveals that the dream of a Super-France Europe is not very far… Europe Ecologie capitalised on the current relevance of the Environment protection debate but also led a true European campaign. The coalition was led by Daniel Cohn-Bendit, who has become in France the ideal-type of the European - he is a German and French bi-national, he has long been advocating for more Europe and has shown during the campaign his deep knowledge of European issues. His main partner in the Ile de France (Paris) region was Eva Joly, a franco-norvegian lawyer. The main loser appears to be the Socialist Party. With only 16.48 % of the votes nationally, it is far from an uncontested second political force. It is true that social-democrats have lost votes in other European countries, like in Germany. However, at the French level, the socialists may have suffered from a campaign mostly focused on anti-sarkozy arguments. The Modem, party led by François Bayrou, who two month ago also appeared as the main critic towards N. Sarkozy, also achieved very poor results. Finally, small anti-capitalist and anti-European parties (as the Nouveau Parti Anticapitaliste for instance) have also attracted fewer votes than they expected. The apparent willingness of voters to vote on European issues sounds like good news for Europe . However, the results of the elections may ironically set the framework at the European level for a less communitarian European policy making, and more focus on intergovernmental policy making. First of all, the European Parliament, elected by 43% of European voters, cannot be granted a high representative power. Second, many of the newly elected Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) are also new to the functioning of European Institutions – or even to European issues. Some of the newly elected French MEPs have not always shown a great interest for Europe. For instance, the Minister for Justice Rachida Dati considered her nomination on the UMP European election lists as a punishment and Brice Hortefeux, current Minister for Social affairs in the government, unexpectedly elected because of the good UMP results, has already decided not to leave the government to go to the European Parliament. Such people are not likely to be the main advocates for and actors of a strong European Parliament. Finally, the likely renewal of J.M. Barroso as the next President of the European Commission is no good sign of a future improved balance of power. His name as become the symbol of a weak commission that acts as the executive organisation of the Council of Ministers. Despite the campaign against his renewal launched just after the elections by the Greens and the emergence of P.N. Rassmussen as a social democrat alternative, since the EPP appear as the winner of the elections, finding an alternative sounds less and less plausible. It would be tempting to conclude on a disillusioned and pessimistic note. However, if, in other countries as well, voters increasingly vote on European issues, and if this is understood and heard by political parties, there is some possibility that transnational issues be better taken into account in the future months and years. French people may object that “ With enough ‘if’s one could get Paris to fit in a bottle” / “Avec des ‘si’ on mettrai Paris en bouteille”, but if the potential for change seems to exist, there must be ways to activate it.