The committee of the regions in the European Union : analysis of the national and party political dimensions

Background: With the ratification of the Treaty of the European Union, the regions got their roles in the integration process confirmed. Not only did the EU commit itself to the principle of subsidiarity, and open for potential regional representation in the Council of Ministers, but a Committee of the Regions (COR) was established. This committee is a supranational body consisting of representatives from local and regional authorities. The creation confirmed, for the first time, the recognition of subnational authorities as formal actors in European decision-making. The COR has only a consultative function, but the very institutionalisation has strengthened the role of the regions on the European level. Focus of study: This dissertation studies the national and party political dimensions in the Committee of the Regions. The research objective is two-folded. Firstly, I study how the national and party political dimensions are manifested. Secondly, I explore how the members perceive the roles of these dimensions. These roles is illuminated by three factors: the members representative identity, preference regarding the organisation of the COR and voting behaviour. The members of the Committee of the Regions are nominated on the basis of their function nationally. Given the different approaches to subnational government of the member states, the representatives are for example mayors of big cities, presidents of regional governments or councillors in communes. With such various backgrounds, it is clear that the members bring with them different experiences and knowledge to the European level. Historical institutionalism is the basis for the expectation of differences in the members view as regards these two dimensions. This theoretical stand states that institutions are important in forming a politician s opinions and behaviour. The hypothesis set forth in this dissertation says that members from centralised member states are, in contrast to members from federalised states, more likely to perceive the national dimension as more important than the party political. To find data in order to examine this hypothesis, a survey was undertaken of members from Germany, Spain, France and the United Kingdom. These member states were chosen to fulfil the following categorisation: federal state, regionalised unitary state, decentralised unitary state and classical unitary state, in order to get a contrast of different approaches to subnational governance. Findings: The national dimension within the Committee of the Regions is manifested in the composition, nomination procedures and organisation. Further, the existence of the regional co-ordinators within the COR shows that the notion of nationality is strong. The party political dimension, being younger than the national, is well reflected in the COR, although less visible. The existence of political groups with their secretariats is an obvious sign of the party political dimension. The fact that political colours of the members play a role in the nomination procedures within the member states and the election of internal posts in the COR is perhaps not so well known. The individual members perceptions of the roles of the national and party political dimensions were examined by answers from questionnaires. To track possible differences in their perceptions, answers from the respondents were categorised according to nationality. The hypothesis claims that members from the least decentralised member states find the national dimension of greater importance than the party political in the Committee of the Regions, and opposite for the representatives from the most decentralised states. The empirical data indicated that no trends for the members perceptions exist after nationality. The members representative identity were illuminated by their basis for representation to the COR and party political affiliation. Regardless of nationality, most members perceive themselves to represent their local/regional territory to the COR. Few of the members believed themselves to be member states representatives. Half of all the respondents think that the party political affiliation contributes much to shaping their representative identity to the committee. The most centralised member state in this survey, the United Kingdom, is represented in the committee with members preferring the political groups both as working structures and as influencing their voting behaviour. Even more French than German representatives prefer the COR to have an organisation method after party political lines. Although national aspects are well represented in the present administration and organisation of the Committee of the Regions, the majority of the members independent of nationality prefer political groups concerning the working structures. Hence, we see a gap between the present organisation and how the members find it the most appropriate. The method of organisation was an IGC-decision, the member states were in charge. If it were up to the members, the decision would probably have turned out differently. Similar results showed up concerning influence on voting behaviour. 50% of the British members claimed party political influence to be the strongest. For the findings as regards the party political identity to the COR, the appropriateness of organisation as well as influence on voting behaviour, the members from the most centralized states had the same score or higher regarding the party political dimension as the representatives from the decentralized states. Empirical data from the survey proved my hypothesis to be weakened. The national dimension is not as important in the members apprehension as expected, regardless of their nationality. Party politics are surprisingly strong in the members perceptions, and that is not only among members from federal states. Although the political groups have become more important over the last couple of years, it is difficult to judge which is more important of political groups or national delegations. It appears that the most important demarcations are those connected to political groups and national delegations. However, the co-existence of these dimensions seems to function fine in practice. It has proved a useful way to approach the tension between uniformity and diversity, probably a solution to respect the differences it is constrained to have due to the heterogenous membership