(23 May 2024 – EPC)
Speakers:
- András Baneth, Strategic Communications Expert, Best-Selling Author and Entrepreneur
- Levente Kocsis, Chief Data Scientist, Eulytix
- Sophia Russack, Researcher, CEPS
Moderator:
- Corina Stratulat, Associate Director and Head of the European Politics and Institutions Programme, European Policy Centre
Before the discussion, Attila Kovács, founder of Eulytix remarked that this event and the publication titled The European Parliament elections 2024: Getting more jitters from the mainstream than the far-right are the first tangible products of the cooperation between EPC and Eulytix. He expressed that big data can challenge or confirm common beliefs and provide insights to legislative and political forecasting, and foreshadowed more events to come as part of the said cooperation.
Sophia Russack stated that campaigns have not become more transnational. The European elections have remained 27 national elections in a sense that parties do not seem to put true effort into describing what is at stake on European level. However, the topics have changed, have become more transnational, and EU politics have become more politicized on national level. We can expect a higher turnout, probably not because parties have done a good job at campaigning, but because people understood the importance of the EU due to crises such as climate change and war.
András Baneth agreed that there is no true European campaign, but there are some positive signs. The European Parliament is now better at communicating, and it is reflected in national campaigns that we are dealing with global issues. Important European topics are discussed on national level, “Europe – to some degree – is sexy again”. The interest in elections has grown, though there might be protest votes, and results that people might not be happy with, but it seems to motivate more people to participate. Voting intention is said to be over 70% which might actually materialize. The numbers will be especially interesting in member states with traditionally low turnout.
Russack addressed that the far-right has been quite good at mobilizing young voters, so getting more people to vote does not necessarily go in the direction we would want it to go. It will certainly be interesting to see how first time voters decide. Up until recently, most of us were sure that younger people lean more to the left. The issue is that they do not feel represented by political elites, but Tik-Tok stars, like Jordan Bardella, seem to succeed in appearing attractive and like one of them.
Baneth pointed out that there is an increasing distinction between people who question the system and people who are unhappy with the decisions of the system. According to him, “the system as such should not be called into question”. That is a massive pressure on democracy which has to be fought. The institutions must stay in place, they just have to improve, become more transparent. After all, democracy is about being able to challenge the decisions that you make. He mentioned that European politics seem to become like Eurovision. Alliances are primary, and performances are secondary, as other factors play into who votes for who – so dynamics are somewhat similar.
Corina Stratulat drew attention to some current adaptation techniques: radicalization among mainstream parties and moderation among radicals, both to capture voters. Russack said that on the far-right, we can see moderation and radicalization as well. After elections, there is always renaming, reshuffling and regrouping. But it has already started with AfD being kicked out of ID, PiS becoming unbearable for ECR, and Fidesz really wanting to join a group after being non-attached since 2022.
Levente Kocsis warned us not to disregard country specific dynamics, because they might produce opposite effects. In the European Parliament, the far-right is fragmented, they are the least cohesive and successful groups. ID was on the “winning side” in only 44% and ECR in barely 55% of plenary voting sessions which is strikingly low compared to the 87% of the Greens and 86% of Renew. There are issue areas where the cooperation of far-right parties is stronger, in other cases it is weaker. Foreign policy and Ukraine can be named as a breaking point, while far-right parties can find a common ground in environmental policy, sometimes even with the EPP.
Stratulat reminded us that polls predict a significant rise of the far-right. “The nationalist time bomb is ticking” – she quoted, asking how concerned we should actually be. Kocsis underlined that this has been an ongoing tendency for a while now, but its effects have been moderate. A recent simulation exercise explored how different things would have been in this legislative cycle if the distribution of seats had been as projected. Approximately 5% of voting sessions would have had a different outcome which seems remarkably low. But if we look at crucial issue areas – environmental policy, agriculture, institutional and social policy – where the EPP might be tempted to cooperate with far-right parties, the critical question comes down to how far-right the EPP is willing to go. The group’s primary partners have been S&D and Renew, and they have a tradition of co-sponsorship which will most likely persist, since 40-50% of MEPs are to be re-elected. It might discourage the EPP to give up its social infrastructure and open up to the far-right.
Russack explained that before the elections, we always have a conversation about the rise of the far-right, then during the term we realize “ça va” and at the end of the term we say “it was not so bad” after all. But the truth is that there is a steady increase of far-right, “the water is slowly getting hot”. According to her, the EPP might be inclined to look to the right in some issues, and the agenda can get more conservative. We have to keep in mind the distinction between the right and the far-right, and where we draw the line, the so-called “cordon sanitaire” – right now applied against ID.
Baneth thinks that the definition of right and far-right depends on where we stand, on our point of reference on the spectrum. He talked about the “anchoring effect” when the political shift pulls the others towards different directions even if there is no direct coalition. The broader point he wanted to make was that we have a lot of intuition, we tend to think we know what will happen. During a similar event, 90% of people did not believe that Juncker would actually become Commission President, but then he did. That is why data driven organisations are important, because their analyses have predictive value which can contradict intuition. Baneth suggested to be careful with what we think we know and try to be more data driven. He also wondered what would have happened in the above-mentioned simulation exercise if one vote had been different. For example, in the case of Ukraine’s membership, even one decision could have been very consequential.
Kocsis agreed that we should make a distinction between ECR and ID, between soft and hard Euroscepticism. The Left has usually been labelled as soft Eurosceptic, but the MEPs of the group still managed to efficiently pass amendments. Kocsis expects ECR to be similar in the next cycle. He is somewhat concerned about the Green Deal, that it might become hindered, but he does not think there would be a backsliding. Russack remarked that the far-right is traditionally sceptical of enlargement and institutional reforms too. But the next Parliament will most likely be more unpredictable.
Baneth insisted that institutional reforms must be done, because the current system would be unworkable after the next enlargement, especially with 35 countries in theory. “Doing less, but better” could be a political strategy as well. Instead of creating new areas of competence, we could stick to what we already have, and enlarge in that way. But we would still need reforms in the decision-making process.
Talking about enlargement and institutional reform, Kocsis mentioned that most of the party manifestos referenced the principle of subsidiarity which points to a tamer approach. He also stated that the EU institutions will have to adjust to the new political reality so that a broader consensus could be reached. According to him, the EU cannot afford failure in the institutional reform, even if far-right parties will try to pull it back from the supranational path to direct it to the intergovernmental direction.