That political institutions, notably representative assemblies, develop and grow through confrontations and the resolution of conflict is a commonplace of political history. Over the last fortnight it has been the European Parliament's turn to encounter such an event in its political evolution. Yesterday's vote to set up an independent inquiry into allegations of fraud and croneyism in the European Commission passionately divided members of the parliament and will be judged variously as a more or less satisfactory outcome to this particular confrontation. But there is no doubt that it is a defining moment in the development of the European Parliament's relations with the Commission and the other EU institutions.
This conclusion is reinforced by the realisation that the European Parliament should not be judged by the standards of parliamentary democracy in the 15 member-states, where governments are accountable directly to national assemblies. The European Commission is not a government in that sense but an executive appointed by the real centres of political power in the EU, the national governments - albeit one with the sole right to take policy initiatives. Nor is the European Parliament a transnational replica of national ones; its party groups are much less disciplined and far more co-operative, in keeping with its constitutional role as a vehicle for the European electorate and a check on the Commission's executive power.
Those who have consistently dismissed the European Parliament as powerless or tame will now have to revise their views. By pushing this issue to the brink of a vote of no confidence in the Commission as a whole, MEPs have highlighted a real democratic shortcoming, the fact that individual commissioners cannot be held accountable for incompetence or wrongdoing. The leader of the Liberal group, Mr Pat Cox, played a valuable role in pointing up this anomaly, which has a strong democratic standing if not yet a legal one. When the parliament comes to exercise the new powers given to it in the Treaty of Amsterdam, including approval of the next Commission president and individual hearings with the new commissioners, it will be able to build up an irresistible case for treaty change along these lines.
Improved oversight and control of the Commission's activities and budgetary planning should follow, using the enhanced powers of co-decision between the Parliament and the Commission also agreed at Amsterdam. And should the independent inquiry set up yesterday unearth evidence of fraud it will be politically impossible to resist the case for sackings or resignations. Discussion of these matters will carry through to the European Parliament elections in June. As a result of this widely reported convulsion it is reasonable to expect greater public interest, political salience and, perhaps, a higher turnout than in the 1994 elections.
Many voices have been raised in criticism of the EU's democratic deficit, as more and more legal, political and economic sovereignty is transferred to or pooled in European institutions. The European Parliament has a vital role to play in reducing the deficit. Its capacity to do so has been substantially enhanced. Attention should now be directed towards ensuring national parliaments are also properly equipped to co-operate with each other and with the European Parliament in extending democratic accountability.