POLITICAL LEADERSHIP FOR THE EUROPEAN UNION

To be effective political leadership in the EU requires:

1. Strategic thinking,
2. A preparedness to confront problems head-on,
3. The courage to propose solutions that may entail risks and
4. The ability to persuade others to accept the need for change.

Managing the European Union is, at the best of times, a particularly difficult task. Its decision-making structures do not resemble the pyramidal organisations of a nation-state or a large business. In the EU, various supranational institutions share power with the Member States: the lines of authority are mostly horizontal rather than pyramidal. There is no single institution clearly in charge and able to give orders to the rest of the organisation. Nothing happens unless a broad coalition of institutions and governments agree that it should, which is why decision-making is so slow.

The EU Council is supposed to provide the Union with leadership. It should set the agenda of European politics and promote plans for the future. Yet, in the past years, the Council has not met this expectation. The rotation of the presidency entails a lack of continuity in the agenda-setting procedure; the Summit agendas are overloaded with gritty details and each presidency pursues more or less specific topics (‘shopping lists’). This is why the Council currently fails to fulfil its original strategic purpose.

While the euro binds together the disparate nations of the eurozone, independent national sovereignty creates perpetual conflict, resulting in a lot of talk but no concrete action. No leader wants to sacrifice their own citizens’ interests for the sake of another nations’ interests . The lack of social and cultural affinity among the independent eurozone nations creates a situation in which compromises must be made, but agreement on the degree of compromise leads to endless negotiations. A currency union can work, but not amidst the fragmented leadership characteristic of the political disunity in the eurozone. A currency union must be supported by a framework of institutions and mechanisms that comes from greater political integration. Without this political unity, leaders of individual member countries will butt heads and postpone solutions, hoping that the other side will eventually surrender. Meanwhile, ordinary citizens continue to suffer.

Europe’s crisis partly stems from the EU being an elite-led project which pays great respect to technocracy (forgetting that the technocratic method was just a means to address politics, not an end in itself). So Europe needs more politics, more leaders, and more than leaders, it needs committed European citizens who believe the EU is the place to find solutions to European problems, political representatives who make Europe a forum for their political battles, economic and social actors thinking about pan-European problems and solutions.

Today Europe lacks an effective consensus over strategic goals and an appropriate metric for measuring progress toward their achievement. Lacking consensus on the proper balance between the austerity measures demanded by Berlin and the economic growth that will be necessary if Europe is to remain true to its fundamental values, leadership has been replaced by the politics of “muddling through.” Legitimacy would afford European leadership the authority needed to make the sorts of value trade-offs that are a precondition for effective strategy. But since legitimacy ultimately derives from the consent of the governed, the prospects for legitimate political leadership hinge on redressing the European Union’s democratic deficit.

While the challenges facing many countries in Europe are enormously complicated economic and political puzzles, the leadership of each country is facing a crisis of credibility. Voters are increasingly uncertain about their individual future and about the ability of their leaders to deliver a convincing set of solutions with which they can identify and support. Governments face skepticism and anger, often generated by indecisive or opportunistic leaders but also by the impatience of citizens often unwilling to face hard choices. Europe needs leaders who can convey authenticity and honesty in portraying what is at stake while inspiring support for difficult decisions. Those leaders will not be found in the offices of the EU in Brussels, as much in the national capitals. They will be those men and women who can convincingly remind their own citizens and those of other countries why Europe still remains a shared goal with shared benefits and sacrifices. Europe has created a large set of institutions. It still remains necessary to create Europeans willing to invest their interests and future in them. Europe needs those who can show leadership in reforging a convincing narrative for that purpose.

States being states, Europe needs bottom up, consensual leadership. Bottom up because, popular Brussels fictions notwithstanding, no EU institutional system can cajole sovereign member states into actions at odds with their perceived self-interest. Consensual, because Europe only works if the Member States are pulling in the same direction. Leadership requires followership. Even leadership by the “bigs” imposed on the smalls (assuming the former themselves manage to agree) will result ultimately only in resentment and non-compliance. Clearly, this places limits on the possible.

Europe needs a robust, far-sighted, and crisis-solving leadership. The euro crisis has unearthed short-term national responses. Political leaders aren't providing an overall framework for how they see the crisis and how it should be solved.

So Europe lacks leaders that can frame solutions, which are convincing beyond their borders, about a joint European future.