Barroso: an effective EU leader

This month the European Parliament will probably re-elect Barroso as President of the European Commission. The matter has been an issue of debate for months now, also because of the claims that Barroso would lack ambition. The sluggish re-election characterises European decision-making rather than Barosso's incapacity. In the intricate European decision-making process where everything is politically sensitive, Barroso even seems to thrive.Should the Portuguese José Manuel Barroso be re-elected as President of the European Commission? The appointment of a President is of great importance for the European integration process, especially now the EU can no longer be taken for granted and there are major economic problems. However, Barroso's appointment has been dragging on for months now, illustrating the major doubts surrounding him. In fact, his entire Presidency has been quite bumpy. Barroso is seen as lacking ambition and only seems to listen to the large countries.

To get a better picture of him the EP made him draw up a policy plan. This plan has already been discarded as vague and ineffective, in line with Barroso's image over the past five years. Nevertheless, he will be re-elected if only because there is no other candidate. Before inferring that all the wrangling points to Barroso's deficiencies, we should bear in mind that his predecessor, Prodi, also had a difficult Presidency. Prodi's predecessor, Santer, even had to resign. Apparently, there is something that considerably complicates the job of President. What capacities does a Presidency require, and does Barroso possess them?

The sluggishness surrounding the re-appointment underlines something which is more important than the personality concerned. In the EU everything is sensitive and sly countries moreover want quid pro quo, particularly when it concerns appointments to top positions. This characterises the sensitive and complex European negotiations which a Commission President should be able to master. National ministers with their grassroots support and the political groups in the EP have to agree to the Commission proposals. Besides national and EU party colours, EU decision-making involves winning over Member States which, for whatever reason, are not always happy with European interference. Gaining the support of, particularly, large countries can be an enormous challenge. Even pro-EU countries may oppose EU solutions for unpredictable reasons. For instance, Germany has, for a year already, been trying to put off decisions - including on Barroso's appointment - until after its own elections. A crucial point is also that the internal market is nearly completed and every further step has to be fought for. The permissive consensus that European integration is good no longer exists.

With this multitude of obstacles (political parties, large/small countries, views on European integration, unpredictable political pitfalls, clashing personalities, etc.) the President should be someone who knows how to play the European political game. He - we have not had a 'she' yet - should have perfect timing, sometimes operate with great aplomb, often leave successes to others and, above all, has to find arguments with which everyone can agree.

In this respect, Barroso seems to be the right person. His 'lack' of ambition is in line with the decreasing European enthusiasm. Someone with concrete European ambitions would encounter mainly opposition. Nevertheless, Barroso has achieved a great deal in the past five years. Against Germany's will he pushed for liberalisation of the energy market and reinforcement of cooperation in justice and home affairs. He did not hesitate to tackle France, Poland, Italy and Spain on their protectionism. Negotiations with Turkey were continued while many member states insisted that they should be frozen. Highly sensitive decisions could be taken due to his influence, such as about the reorientation of the European budget and the common agricultural policy. In the case of agriculture, a formulation was found which allowed Blair to say that a thorough revision of the budget had been achieved while Chirac could tell the home front that agricultural subsidies had been safeguarded. At the same time, the agricultural reforms were firmly put on the agenda.

Barroso moreover strongly professionalised the organisation by reshuffling senior positions even though this is a very sensitive in - particularly the large - Member States. Internally, he has made sure that the organisation and the Commissioners report to him and externally he operates visibly at the highest political levels. With Barroso the Commission has become more presidential and less collegial.

Barroso's performance has been characterised by his pragmatism. He claims to have a grand vision but also emphasises that achieving your goals is what matters. He may secretly cherish his image of vague, directionless and leaning towards the big countries. In the meantime, the Commission has been reformed, EU policy has progressed on major issues and the crisis has not resulted in beg-thy-neighbour policy among the Member States like in the seventies and eighties. Nor should the claim that the Commission is doing nothing about the crisis lead to hasty conclusions since major efforts are put into creating three regulatory agencies for financial markets. There is no doubting his capacities to operate in the current EU political setting. Asking for more 'vision' would be ignoring the importance of the Commission President in oiling the political wheels.