If we look at the situation of European politics today, a collage of chaos emerges. France has been stuck in a caretaker government for two months after legislative elections that neither party won decisively. The hard right came out on top in a set of state elections in Germany on September 1; Its federal chancellor, Olaf Scholz, looks certain to defeat in the nationwide vote this time next year. The less said about Hungary and its powerful Prime Minister Viktor Orban, the better. Coalitions formed by parties with low similarity keep governments with small majorities in power, from Spain to the Netherlands. And then there’s Belgium, a country where politicians bargain for a year or more before forming a government (current count: 88 days). Part of the charm of democracy is that it is chaotic, but Europe has taken chaos to a higher level.
Even amid the voter-induced uproar, in a rainy corner of northern Europe a part of the continent’s government machinery keeps churning. A new roster of 27 European Commissioners is currently being assembled in Brussels, with new assignments expected to be handed over in the coming days. From migration policy to trade, regulating big tech, strengthening European defence, monitoring national finances, drafting green rules and much more besides, some aspects of life in the bloc fall outside the EU’s executive purview. Are. The technocratic approach it advocates sidesteps questions of democratic accountability. But it has been so effective that the approach of leaving administration to experts has become popular even outside Brussels. When politicians fail to form national governments, external “experts” are sometimes called in. The lure of technocracy is a blare to those who just want to get things done, voters be damned.
The march of European technocrats is due to the flow of “competences” – to use a bit of Brussels Patois – from its 27 member states to the EU. Once a coal and steel trading club, it has turned into a government in all but name. Often this isn’t a bad thing: For example, it would be absurd for two dozen medium-sized neighboring countries to have their own decarbonization targets. In many crises, from COVID-19 to the war in Ukraine, Brussels’ mandarins have wielded greater influence. As it has done, a large share of the EU budget is given to countries that meet conditions set by Eurocrats, whether it be court reform or labour. Law. In theory, if not in practice, for example, the bloc’s rules constrain national governments’ natural desire to run bottomless budget deficits.
Another big dose of torture is in the works. On September 9, former European Central Bank boss Mario Draghi is expected to unveil a report on how to revive the bloc’s sclerotic economy. Rumored to come in at 400 pages, it is already being hailed as a brilliant blueprint for what governments should do to stay in the good graces of the EU. There is no doubt that Mr Draghi’s report – the mandate of which will be included in the working brief of the incoming Commissioners – will be full of good sense. But if so, who will decide? Politicians need to worry about how their policies will perform at the ballot box. As the EU’s latest technocrat-in-chief, this is of no concern to Mr Draghi. That’s tough luck for any voter who thinks he’s misled about the future of industrial policy.
The timing of the report, which was largely prepared in advance but released just after the European elections, without including its recommendations, is unfortunate. This would strengthen claims that the EU is not accountable to voters. This point is often exaggerated. The 720-strong European Parliament oversees the commissioners, and will audition each interested person for the post in the coming weeks (Ursula von der Leyen, who has led the Commission since 2019, was elected by the Parliament for a second term in July was approved by). National governments have a greater say in how the EU institutions use their powers, rather than deciding who leads them. But those who claim that Brussels is a fountain of red tape beyond scrutiny also have a point. Often the rules affecting Europeans are the work of a 32,000-strong bureaucracy, which doesn’t have to worry about what public opinion is about their latest initiative.
And technocracy has taken hold at the national level as well. European politics has gone haywire. Gone are the days when two big parties would win elections with only one clear winner. They now include more than a dozen, including greens, liberals and nationalists. The compromise required to form a coalition is even more elusive, even more so when hard-right parties are considered weak, as they often are, when it comes to coalition formation. In the ensuing standoff, settling for an undisputed expert is often the only obvious solution after months of impasse. Mr Draghi was appointed as Italian Prime Minister in 2021, the fourth technocrat to hold the post since the 1990s. The new Dutch prime minister was until recently a civil servant in his Justice Ministry, when squabbling politicians failed to find a dominant leader acceptable to all, when he was promoted to the top post. French President Emmanuel Macron was said in recent days to be considering an unnamed mutual-insurance administrator to serve as prime minister. Why?
The specialist will see you now
When politicians are working together, a little technological interference may be no bad thing. But the purpose of politics is to take decisions. In practice this means that one is balancing the advice of experts with electoral realities. As former Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker memorably said, politicians around the world know what needs to be done, not how to get re-elected after doing it. Democracy remains vibrant by driving out existing people, leaving room for new people who can listen to a different kind of expert. Technocrats will always have their place in a well-functioning politics, but it should be in the background.
To stay on top of the biggest European stories, sign up coffee europeOur weekly subscriber-only newsletter.
© 2024, The Economist Newspaper Limited. All rights reserved. From The Economist, published under license. Original content can be found at www.economist.com
