Suchergebnisse

AbstractIs it still right to classify European elections as 'second‐order elections'? There are some reasons used to justify such a classification that are changing or evolving, while others are not. A neat and tidy first‐/second‐order division may not be appropriate. But is the 'lead candidate' (Spitzenkandidat) development one of the reasons to re‐evaluate? In most Member States, it had little impact on the election campaign and, at the time of writing, the effect on the final choice of Commission President is not definitively settled, but it looks as though it has changed the expectations of many politicians involved in that choice. Its longer term evolution remains to be seen and could well become more important for political actors, but the jury is still out as to how far this might eventually impact on the wider public.

The nature of the European Parliament is studied. An overview of the parliament's distinguishing characteristics is provided, eg, its transnational democratic nature & close connection to the EU. Although the EU is not characterized as a centralized governmental system, it is stated that the EU does possess several federal qualities, eg, the prevalence of European law over national law. The development of the European Parliament's powers during the late 20th century is then considered; specific attention is directed toward examining international agreements that have augmented its authority & the European Commission's function in evaluating the executive. Various differences between the European Parliament & other democratic legislatures are noted; in addition, multiple explanations for decreased voter turnout in the 1999 parliamentary elections are offered. The need to recognize the European Parliament as a successful example of a multicultural & multilingual transnational governing body is stressed. J. W. Parker