In one of those reversals of moral judgment so familiar to our media-fuelled political system, the ‘stay-at-home party’ has been declared the biggest winner in the latest European elections. This is not the first time: it has become commonplace to regard candidates and/or political parties as both responsible for and victims of the disaffection of sovereign voters. These voters, in exercising their sovereign right, feel that they have every right to choose whether to turn out and vote in order to ‘reward’ the policies they like or, instead, whether to go about their normal business on polling day in order to ‘punish’ all the policies that are not worth a trip to the polling station. Meanwhile, on election night, the television studios are full of people shedding crocodile tears who, between sobs, try to outdo each other in lamenting the lack of effective policies and the decline of democracy.

In the case of the latest European elections, the record levels of collective hypocrisy are not unrelated to the record number of abstentions. Ever since January, either out of laziness, ignorance or, occasionally, out of jealousy, the editorial staff of the major broadcast media have repeatedly hammered out that no one cared about Europe, that Europe was too far removed from everyday concerns and that the French had decided not to turn out and vote. For different reasons, most political parties felt that it was tactically wise to maintain that feeling, even while claiming the opposite: with the notable exception of the Greens, candidates focused their efforts simply on ensuring that their hard-core supporters turned out to vote. The public television service surpassed itself in deliberately ignoring the spirit of its role: it was the party leaders and not the candidates who were invited to attend the only national debate to be aired on public TV (which did not even broadcast a proper election night special)! Some of the regional press went along with this near-boycott, which was not really compensated for by the efforts of other newspapers, though these were, fortunately, supplemented by a large number of new websites, blogs and internet media.

The frankly absurd rules that now govern the election campaign did the rest: the fear of seeing candidates exceed their electoral expenditure ceiling or the media favour some candidates at the expense of others is so great that silence and inaction are the only sure ways to avoid being in the wrong. Just when the politicians have most to say and the voters are expecting the most from them, they disappear from the front pages, TV and radio broadcasts and even advertising. On such occasions, the CSA or Higher Audiovisual Council, France’s broadcasting regulator, plays the role of a Higher Abstention Council.

With universal suffrage so subverted, it is vital that we get back to ‘basics’, as they say in rugby. Let’s venture two iconoclastic proposals.

The first concerns the voting system. Let’s ban, once and for all, any system that prevents not only those standing in the elections but, subsequently, those elected from making themselves known to the voters. How many people know who ‘their’ MEP is? What about ‘their’ regional councillor? If proportional representation is used, i.e. the list system, let’s ensure that constituencies are small and familiar to everyone, and let’s add the other democratic essential: preferential voting. Accordingly, in the European elections, administrative regions would be more appropriate than large, totally artificial interregional constituencies. In the Aquitaine region, parties would be asked to submit lists of three candidates in alphabetical order, and voters would be free to express their preference, or even vote for candidates from different lists. After all, this is the system currently used for municipal elections in small districts, which are the ones closest to the citizen. And it is the only way, in a list system, to ensure that elected politicians are just that – elected, that is to say they are chosen by the voters and not appointed by their party leaders.

The second proposal will, no doubt, lead to a more lively debate. Its objective is to highlight the fact that voting is not just a right, it is also the most important of all civic duties. Far from being the heroes hailed by the media, non-voters are nothing but bad citizens, in just the same way as absentee MPs are bad MPs. Contrary to what is generally said, it is not the candidates who are collectively ‘punished’ by voters who stay at home: at all events, there are enough people who do vote to ensure that representatives are still elected. The main victims are the non-voters themselves: the decision is made without them. And they are not then taken seriously when they complain about measures being taken by leaders that they have let others elect.

Some countries push this argument to the point of making voting compulsory. The principle is consistent with the philosophy of civic duty, but its application is hampered by the problem of imposing an effective punishment – usually a fine. So why not introduce a points system on polling cards similar to the tried and tested points system on driving licences? The system could also award ‘bonus’ points rather than just imposing penalty points. For example, a voter who failed to vote in three consecutive elections would be denied his right to vote in the fourth. A voter who voted in four consecutive elections would receive an extra point so that he would not be penalised if he failed to vote in any subsequent election. The system could be supplemented by taking into account the points on an applicant’s polling card when recruiting for a tax-funded job, and by drawing up a list, easily accessible on the internet, of non-voters who are not allowed to vote in the next elections and/or a list of ‘good citizens’, exemplary voters who have been awarded a number of bonus points. And let’s have no talk of violation of privacy here: this is very much about public life, and the law already allows any voter to consult the electoral register and find out whether or not a voter cast his vote.

What is now called ‘citizen behaviour’ or ‘participatory democracy’ primarily involves the exercise of the most important of all civic duties: voting.

Alain Lamassoure, 13 June 2009

It’s a first! For the past thirty years, voters have not really felt very clear about the purpose of the European Parliament elections, and so those who did go out to vote tended to use them as an opportunity to express their dissatisfaction with the government of the day. Even in 2004, the unpopularity of Jacques Chirac and the government of Jean-Pierre Raffarin won the PS (French Socialist Party) twice as many votes and seats as the UMP (Union for a Popular Movement). It was this tradition which – because it was the easy thing to do, and also out of sheer laziness – led the socialist party and, more surprisingly, François Bayrou, to campaign in this year’s election on an ‘anti-government’ ticket.

This strategy has backfired on them spectacularly. The socialists have lost nearly half their seats in the European Parliament, while MoDem has experienced a crushing defeat.

The fact is that the public has by now realised, more so than many political leaders, just how quickly history has moved on. The way in which Nicolas Sarkozy, during the French Presidency of the European Union, managed to tackle the biggest crises of our time – the war between Russia and Georgia, the financial crisis, the recession, climate change – showed that the major issues of the age were now to be decided at European level. The facts speak for themselves: sovereigntism has now become pointless. Nobody can seriously argue that tackling these major issues should involve ‘less Europe’. Denmark, Sweden, Poland, Hungary, the Baltic countries, and even increasingly the British, bitterly regret having put off joining the euro before the financial crisis broke. The colourful Philippe de Villiers was the only candidate elected out of 532 from the new Eurosceptic family ‘Libertas’, which had set its sights on winning no less than 100 seats across Europe! His Irish ally, Declan Ganley, the ‘hero’ of the Irish ‘no’ vote on the Lisbon Treaty, did not even get the minimum number of votes to be elected in his own country. As for Jean-Marie Le Pen, he can now concentrate on sorting out the dispute over his own political succession between his daughter Marine and his former heir apparent, Bruno Gollnisch: these three are now the Front National’s only remaining survivors in the Strasbourg Parliament.

This was my fourth European election campaign, and for the first time ever I have had voters coming up to ask me about Europe itself. They clearly understood the importance of this new level of government, but felt ill-informed and wanted to know how their vote might influence the course of events. Never before have I had to conduct such an educational and non-partisan campaign. I have no regrets, either as a citizen or as a candidate.

This time voters have clearly chosen to give their verdict on Europe more than anything else. They overwhelmingly supported the resolve and clear-sightedness with which Nicolas Sarkozy and his government steered its Presidency of the Union through the toughest period of the financial crisis, and they hoped that this same energy would continue for the next five years. They liked the alternative programme offered by Europe Ecologie, whose candidates, headed by Daniel Cohn-Bendit, deserve credit for focusing only on European issues. Yet the socialist party, paralysed by deep divisions on Europe which still persist four years after the 2005 referendum, had little to say. François Bayrou completely sidestepped the issue, choosing the worst possible moment to walk away from the confusion on Europe that was so central to the identity of the centrist political family, in order to pursue his personal quarrel with the current incumbent at the Elysée.

In doing this, the voters have demonstrated great political maturity. They no longer confuse the elections. In 2008, voters in the municipal elections ignored the outcome of the presidential elections: they knew that different issues were at stake. In 2009, the issues were different again. This was a vote on Europe, and voters ignored traditional national or local divisions: the UMP came out in the lead in every département and in all the major towns in Aquitaine, including in the Landes, which everyone thought would be ‘dark pink’ forever. In 2010, the regional elections will be a different exercise again.

These comments may seem very optimistic in view of the low turnout (only one in three voters made the effort), but there is every indication that Europe will soon no longer be seen as complex and obscure, once the Lisbon Treaty is finally adopted. Next time around, people will be asked to elect a Parliament with full legislative powers, and through this, even choose ‘Mr’ or ‘Mrs Europe’, just as they would choose their mayor in France or our neighbouring countries would choose their Prime Minister. The issue will be as simple and clear as it is in national or municipal elections, and turnout will therefore be correspondingly higher. The age of a democratic Europe, the people’s Europe, the citizens’ Europe, can finally begin!

Alain Lamassoure, 8 June 2009