Research project | Updated 10/02/2010 

On 4-7 June Europe's voters were asked to renew their representatives in the European Parliament. Essential to European democracy, this 5-yearly date in the electoral calendar has held for thirty years. Since 1979 these elections have conferred substantial political legitimacy on the European parliament, since it is the only EU institution directly elected by citizens. This democratic legitimacy has in turn served gradually to increase the power of the parliament. As the "European Parliamentary Assembly", the body was originally limited to a consultative role and comprised national MPs designated by their peers. Treaties have turned it into a veritable European Parliament, with budgetary, legislative and political competencies. The co-decision procedure, introduced by the Treaty of Maastricht, grants the Parliament equality alongside the Council of Ministers during decision-making.

But while the European Parliament's role has expanded significantly, turnout at European elections has suffered a fate of inverse proportions. In 1979, 63% of European voters cast their ballot; in 2004 this figure was only 45.5%. The elections of June 2009 may not escape this rule. They take place in a difficult context. The socio-economic consequences of the world financial crisis, together with the parallel resurgence of the "each for himself" reflex, are linking with uncertainty over the future of the Treaty of Lisbon – which among other things was supposed to increase the competencies of the Parliament.

In addition, media coverage of the European Parliament is weak and its work ill-understood – even though it is seen as an important institution, and one trusted by citizens. Often these are the very reasons given for not voting: a lack of information, poor knowledge of the Parliament, a feeling that voting will change nothing. In such circumstances, scenarios which predict record abstention and the rise of extremes must be taken seriously.

And yet the European elections of 2009 were particularly important. The Parliament was the major winner in the most recent treaty revisions, gaining a gradual extension of legislative co-decision with the Council. The Parliament also has significant influence on the budget, which will be strengthened if the Lisbon Treaty comes into force. As it happens, the EU will begin a re-examination of its budget during the coming legislature – a budget that member states have tended to reduce to a set of bargaining chips, forsaking any overarching vision. In addition, while the link between the result of the European elections and the choice of Commission president is formally established only in the Lisbon Treaty, it is was tacitly agreed that the appointment must be made within the political grouping which won in June. After all, the European Parliament has approved the president proposed by the Council. A vote at European level therefore expresses a far more subtle choice than the simple yes-no of a referendum. It was a genuine opportunity – and a rare one, arising only every 5 years – to express a vision of a future EU which accords with one's political convictions, and to send a strong message both to future MEPs and to the new Commission.