The 1999 European Elections - another breakthrough for the Greens

By Thomas Dietz

Twenty years ago, in June 1979, the first elections to the European parliament were held. The results for the few, at that time only loosely organised green lists contesting the elections were already considerable, but not good enough to send any representatives to the European Parliament. Ten years later the greens could achieve an almost sensational breakthrough. In 1999, they could even top this success, although, after the mixed results in 1994, almost nobody had believed that this could be possible. What were the reasons for this success? Was it just an intermezzo in an ongoing process of stagnation or was it 1994, that was only a short setback? What effects will the results have for the work of the new Green group in the European parliament and its cooperation with the European Federation of Green Parties?

Although the Maastricht and the Amsterdam treaty have extended the rights of the European parliament considerably European elections still have the character of so-called second order elections, where, according to most people's view, not much is at stake. For example, in the European parliament, in contrast to national parliaments, no government is elected or kept in power by a permanent coalition of political parties (for example a red-green or a conservative-liberal coalition) and for most people Europe still doesn't seem to influence very much their daily life (although in fact, it does considerably). Thus, it is more likely for voters, which usually stick to a certain political party, but that are disappointed by the policy of this party on the national level, to vote for another party at the European elections. This gives them the possibility to express their dissatisfaction in a visible way without harming the party's position on the national level. As another consequence of this "nothing-at-stake"-mentality the turnout at the European elections is usually very low, giving the protest votes even more weight.

Since 1979 the greens have always profited from this phenomenon. Their election results on the European level have almost always exceeded their results on the national level. In so far, good results for green parties at European elections are nothing new. But this time, the greens in Belgium and Austria obtained thirty percent more votes than in 1994, in Finland and Great Britain they could double and in France and in the Netherlands they could even triple their results.

All in all, in almost half of the fifteen EU-countries the greens could either improve their results considerably (if not to say sensationally) compared to 1994 (Finland, Belgium, Austria, Netherlands, France, Great Britain) or could at least keep them (Luxembourg). In the countries, where the results for the green parties were declining, they either still obtained a remarkable share of votes (Germany, Sweden, Ireland) or could at least defend their seats in the European parliament (Italy). Only in Spain, Portugal, Denmark and Greece it was (once again) not possible to gain parliamentary representation. Table 1 gives a detailed survey of the respective results, also under a longitudinal perspective.

Table 1: European Election results for the green parties (1979-1999)

2. The results in detail

Although in spring 1999 there were some important European issues attracting a lot of media coverage (especially the Kosovo-conflict and the withdrawal of the European commission), it were again the national issues determining the electoral campaigns and the outcome of the European elections. For the greens and their electorate, however, the Kosovo-conflict played an important role. Some green parties internally suffered severely from the fact, that a military intervention in Kosovo was supported by the governments they participated in. The way, the respective green electorate coped with this, differed considerably, however.

In Germany, for example, it was clear since the beginning of spring that the 1999 elections would be the first European elections to be lost by the greens. The missing success concerning the phasing out of nuclear power, the impression of being only a junior partner in the red-green coalition and the active role of the green german foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, at that time having the EU-council-presidency, in the Kosovo-conflict, gave the electorate and the party members the impression that the german greens were betraying their own ideals. As a result a part of the green electorate stayed at home or voted for the successor of the former east-german communist party, the PDS (Party of democratic socialism), that managed to be represented in the European Parliament for the first time.

The greens in Sweden couldn't repeat the sensational success of 1994, either. At that time one of the scarce poltical forces being against Sweden's adhesion to the EU, they could score the best result for a green party on the national level ever. This time, the swedish parties were in general much more EU-sceptical, making the protest voters not exclusively focussing on Milj˘partiet any more. The electoral campaign of the greens was focussed on questions of the common foreign and security policy of the EU and on a new referendum on EU-membership and European monetary union.

In Italy the greens have faced a gradual decline of their electoral results since 1989, not only at the European level. The ongoing existence of Marco Panella and its several parties and lists competing with the greens and the missing exchange of elites at the top of the party for a longer period of time now have made the greens lose their attractivity for the young voters (voting for Panella this time). Moreover, at least according to the point of view of some observers, during the last years the greens have neglected ecological issues focussing on matters of civil rights instead, making them lose also their traditional electorate. Since there was no extraordinary event in Italy during the electoral campaign, that could change the mood in favour of the greens, one could say, a bit sarcastic though, for the greens it was ãbusiness as usualÒ.

In Ireland, Comhaontas Glas focussed its electoral campaign on the anti-nuclear-issue and on genetically manipulated organisms (GMOs). Since people in Irleland typically vote on local issues, however, and since the established parties led a campaign against the greens, it was not possible for them to keep or even to improve their 1994 results. They could keep their second seat in the EP, however.

In Luxembourg the European elections were held together with the national elections, giving the European elections an even more subordinate character and making the retirement policy the most salient topic instead. Although green topics were more in the background Dei Greng still obtained a very good result, since there was a competing green list, headed by Jupp Weber. Ex-member of the greens and ex-MEP, he left the green group in the European parliament in the middle of last legislature to join another group, the radical alliance. His list scored about 1,4% of the votes.

In Belgium the national elections fell together with the European ones, too. In their campaign AGALEV and ECOLO focussed on traditional green topics, especially on questions of environment and health. The scandal on dioxine-contaminated meat and eggs came right in the middle of their campaign. This scandal left the belgian people shocked and filled with indignation. Together with the Dutroux-affair, which had catastrophic impacts on the image of the political establishment in Belgium, too, this brought the greens a lot of votes from socialist and christian-democrat partisans. The fact, that the man, who revealed the scandal on the European commission, Paul Buitenen, was a green partisan, surely gave the greens a push, too.

In the Netherlands it was probably the charismatic party leader Rosenm˘ller, widely seen as the ãrealÒ opposition leader in the dutch parliament and the focussing of Groen Links on the fight against fraud and nepotism on the European, but also on the national level, that helped the greens to triple their result compared to the last election. In 1994, they missed their second seat very closely, in 1999, as a good example of justice, they gained their fourth one as close as five years ago.

For the European elections in Great Britain the traditional first-past-the-post system was replaced by a representational system for the first time ever. Together with the low turnout (only 23%) and the controversy on GMOs in british public, this fact made the greens gain two seats in the European parliament for the first time [15] .

In Austria the greens "profited" from the Kosovo-conflict. Although Austria was not directly involved, the social democratic chancellor Klima supported a military intervention. This was strictly rejected by the greens, having a mobilising effect on their electorate. Moreover, in their electoral campaign the greens concentrated on a constructive approach of criticism towards the EU hitting the mood of the austrian population very precisely. Another point, that probably helped the greens, was that Johannes Voggenhuber, MEP and head of the electoral list, revealed a big scandal, in which the austrian social democrats were involved.

In Finland the good result was partly due to the low turnout (only 30%), but also to the popularity of the finish MEP Heidi Hautala. She scored 115.000 personal votes, the highest amount of personal votes from all the candidates.

Thanks to the charismatic head of their electoral list, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, the greens in France had a sensational breakthrough compared to the 1994 elections. In comparison to the 1989 elections, however, they almost scored the same result. Apart from Daniel Cohn-Bendit it was probably the good work of the green-left coalition in France, making a green handwriting visible (phasing-out of Superph≥nix, stop of the Rhine-Rhone-Channel, introduction of eco-taxes), that helped mobilising the green partisans and made a lot of people vote for the greens for the first time.

In Spain the situation was complicated like always before, although this time the various green lists and regional sections of Los Verdes managed to contest the elections nation-wide, standing on a common list together with various small regionalist left parties. In spite of this common list the struggles between the various regional sections of Los Verdes went on continuously until the day of the elections. In the end a spanish green representation in the European parliament was as near as never before. Only 3.000 votes were missing.

In Portugal the greens were standing on a common list with smaller left parties, too. In the very bipolarised political system of Portugal and in absence of some events that could bring green topics more to the conscious of the people, the greens didn't manage to gain a seat in the EP.

In Denmark De Grønne contested the elections on two different lists. One candidate was placed on the June movement's list, a political coalition against the further integration of Denmark into the EU, the two other candidates stood on the list ãPeople's movement against the ECÒ, a coalition of several smaller groups, that want Denmark to leave the EU. Both lists had respectable results (15,9 and 7,3%), but no green candidate managed to get a seat. The SF, an observer party of the EFGP scored 7,1% and gained one seat. Due to close links of SF to the scandinavian left parties, its representative decided to join the communist/nordic green left group, however.

In Greece the Kosovo-conflict was a big issue during the electoral campaign, but the greens weren't supported by the peace-movement, since they were made responsible for the policy of Joschka Fischer. So, facing insufficient support and also suffering from financial problems, contesting the European elections didn't seem to make much sense for the greek greens. Consequently they decided not to take part this time.

3.     The composition of the new green group

All in all, twelve green parties from eleven EU-countries could send 38 representatives to the European Parliament, 11 more than five (four) years ago (see table 2 and 3). Although, like in 1989 und 1994, there would have been enough deputies to establish a "pure: green group, the newly elected MEPs decided to enlarge their group by 10 MEPs from regionalist parties (four from Spain, two from Belgium, two from Scotland and two from Wales). Thus, this new group, called The Greens/European Free Alliance (EFA), has become the fourth strongest political force in the European Parliament. As Group presidents Heidi Hautala and Paul Lannoye were elected, Vice-presidents became Nelly Maes (EFA), Danielle Auras and Joost Lagendijk. Heide Rühle from the german greens is the new treasurer of the group.

Table 2: Number of seats for the greens in the EP and their "weight" within the group

Table 3: The newly elected MEPs

To incorporate MEPs from other ideological party families or some of the so-called "non-inscrits" has a long history in the European parliament. By enlarging the group more money and more posts can be obtained, giving the group more possibilities to influence the agenda of the parliament and to present their policy to the public. On the other hand some conflicts might arise between MEPs (or their respective parties) coming from the same country. For example, in 1989 Los Verdes had some problems with a spanish regionalist MEP, being member of the green group and in 1992 the scandinavian green parties were strongly concerned about the membership of an MEP from the danish Socialist People's party in the Green group. Regarding the composition of the new group possible conflicts could arise between the green parties in Great Britain, Belgium and Spain and the respective regionalist deputies in the group. It remains to be seen, if this new situation can be handled sufficiently or if this might lead to permanent trouble.