Doubts about the principle, instruments and their application

Two main arguments are put forward by Hix in favour of introducing « politics » in the sense of a leftright debate in European institutions: an ideological conflict with winners and losers would stimulate public interest in European political life and, by giving a clear “mandate to act” to the winner, it would break the “gridlock” which is preventing change in European regulations.

I don’t myself see much of a “gridlock” in the legislative process so that I remain unconvinced by that argument: if a gridlock existed it could presumably best be solved by institutional change including an increase in majority voting.

The idea that ideological conflict could bridge the gap separating elite opinion (generally pro-European) from public opinion (more eurosceptic) is certainly worth considering, because the problem addressed is of fundamental importance, but I have serious doubts on the principle suggested, the instruments and their application to European institutions. On the principle it seems obvious that ideology plays a weaker role in national politics than was the case some years ago. It would be difficult to find any continental socialist leader ready to consider Blairite policies as left wing. Is the present German government left wing or right wing? Or the Belgian? Is the debate in Italian elections about policies or about personalities? It seems a bit of paradox to believe that ideology, which has been declining for years in national politics, could somehow rejuvenate them at Union level.