Von der Leyen's Power Play Reveals EU's Contempt for Conservative Forces
When blocking Italy's conservative nominee while defending Spain's scandal-hit minister, the EU shows democracy has a party color.
🇸🇪 Also available in Swedish / Artikeln finns också på svenska
A political drama currently unfolding in the corridors of the European Parliament starkly illustrates the Union's democratic deficit. The appointment of the new EU Commission has devolved into a power struggle where the supranational establishment openly attempts to block national conservative forces—with Italy's candidate Raffaele Fitto at the center of the conflict.
A System Designed for Power Abuse
When appointing the new EU Commission, MEPs are formally tasked with examining candidates' competence and suitability. In practice, however, the process has evolved into a cynical power play where ideological considerations and political horse-trading completely overshadow questions of actual competence and experience.
It speaks volumes that the Parliament, which likes to present itself as a guarantor of democratic values, now openly discusses how to block nominations from democratically elected governments—particularly when these governments happen to represent a national conservative line.
Most striking is how the so-called "Ursula majority"—comprising the Christian Democratic EPP, Social Democratic S&D, and Liberal Renew—now acts to cement its power by systematically attempting to exclude other political forces.
The Establishment's New Power Coalition
The political developments in several member states, where voters in democratic elections have given increased support to national conservative forces, has created panic in the EU establishment. In response, a new power coalition has emerged, where former adversaries like EPP and S&D now unite to maintain their control over EU institutions.
This explains the ongoing attempt to block several nominated commissioners. The strategy becomes evident in the case of Italy's candidate Fitto, where the left demands that he be denied a vice-presidential post—despite representing the EU's third-largest economy.
The left's stance lays bare their true priorities. They claim Fitto cannot hold a leading position because his party ECR was not part of the coalition that voted for Ursula von der Leyen. In other words: being nominated by a democratically elected government and having relevant competence is not enough—one must also belong to the "right" political camp.
Double Standards Exposed
The Social Democrats' selective approach demonstrates the depth of this bias. While they try to block Fitto—despite his solid merits and relevant experience—solely due to his conservative party membership, they simultaneously champion Teresa Ribera. This despite Ribera currently being at the center of one of Spain's worst political scandals, where her handling of the Valencia flooding catastrophe led to hundreds of deaths.
The Spanish case highlights this hypocrisy. While regional authorities in Valencia were responsible for direct disaster management, the overarching responsibility for warning systems and national coordination lay with Ribera as minister. Despite this, she tried to evade her responsibility by blaming regional authorities—leading Spanish parliamentarians to suggest she should "sit in a courtroom instead of the Commission." But for the EU establishment, such incompetence matters little, as long as one belongs to the right political camp.
A Systemic Flaw in EU's Heart
The ongoing drama around commissioner appointments exposes a fundamental flaw in the EU's construction—a built-in defense mechanism against any real change. When a member state, like Italy, democratically elects a government with a different vision for Europe, a series of bureaucratic barriers activate to neutralize this choice. Parliamentary committees, commission processes, and administrative procedures become weapons to block unwanted voices from reaching influential positions.
This gatekeeping mechanism operates with ruthless efficiency: First, member states' nominations are formally accepted—to respect the democratic facade. Then, technical objections and procedural questions are deployed to prevent these representatives from gaining real influence. In Fitto's case, it's about alleged "lack of conviction about the European project." In other cases, it might be "insufficient experience of EU work" or "questionable understanding of EU's fundamental values."
The result is a self-reinforcing power concentration. Those already controlling EU institutions can effectively block all attempts at reform or course correction. When member countries see their democratically elected representatives systematically marginalized, frustration and EU skepticism grow—which in turn becomes justification for keeping these voices from power. Meanwhile, more authority flows to Brussels, with the claim that "populist forces" make it impossible to trust national decision-making processes.
The Way Forward
The current crisis around commissioner appointments should serve as a wake-up call for all who care about democracy and national self-determination. Technical adjustments or cosmetic reforms are no longer sufficient—the entire system for EU governance needs to be reevaluated.
A first step would be to return power over commissioner appointments to the member states, where it rightfully belongs. Parliament's role should be limited to examining candidates' formal competence, not their political views.
But ultimately, it's about a larger question: Should the EU develop into a supranational federation where the establishment can override member states' democratic choices? Or should the union return to its original purpose as an intergovernmental cooperation where nations' sovereignty is respected?
The answer to that question will determine Europe's future.
■