What do Bertie Ahern, Jean Claude Juncker, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, José Manuel Barroso and Tony Blair all have in common? Well, they are all likely to get more backing from the centre-right for any candidacies for top jobs in the EU next year… and they are all men.
Party political balance and geographical balance are always at the top of the agenda when it comes to the carve-up of candidates in the EU, but there are growing calls for gender balance to be taken into account as well. Margot Wallström was the first to cite the lack of women candidates at the end of last week. This was followed by an ALDE press conference (watch it on Europe By Satellite here – needs Real Player) in the European Parliament with Diana Wallis, Karin Riis-Jørgensen and Anneli Jäätteenmäki to call for at least one woman in the top three EU positions (Commission President, European Council President, EU Foreign Minister).
Neelie Kroes also puts in an appearance and she states that without efforts from the European Parliament, the Netherlands government, and from Commission President Barroso to get 1/3 of the Commissioners to be female she would not have managed to secure the nomination to be Commissioner for Competition. Considering she’s considered one of the more effective Commissioners that’s a significant statement.
So who are the women who could be considered for any of these positions? In no particular order: Margot Wallström, Neelie Kroes, Tarja Halonen, Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga, Angela Merkel, Ségolène Royal, Dora Bakoyannis, Ursula Plassnik…? I’m surely missing some as I don’t know all the top ministers in all Member States. Suggestions?
(Hat tip for the link to the press conference: Brussels Blogger)
Jon, an interesting point, but where is your innate tactician’s soul?
The more ’special interests’ there are to cater for, the more difficult it is going to be to keep the number of top jobs down, and I thought you were going for two instead of three.
As far as I remember the Protocols mention only geographical diversity and country size (not even political criteria).
Personally, I would prefer a double-hatted president of the Commission and the European Council taking into account the EP election results, and a qualified high representative/vice-president.
Excellent if one of them is a woman, but I would like to refer to ‘objective’ criteria I have brought to the fore in earlier blog discussions.
I perfectly agree with Wallstrom. However the problem is deeply rooted in the soil of the Member States. If there was 14 States with a woman as a foreign minister and the same amount of women as prime ministers, we would not have been here talking about how to increase the presence of women in the top EU seats….
Anyway given the problem and the fact that here we are trying to help solving it as better as possible on a EU level, I think the better solution would be (for this round) a man for the double Presidency and a woman as an high representative, this is not because I think that there isn’t any woman able to be both President of the Council and of the Commission but because I think it would be very difficult to campaign at the same time for the introduction of this double Presidency and for making a woman been on that seat as the first step.
I think it’s better to focus on the main aim of our campaign, the double presidency without “mettere troppa carne al fuoco” (literally “putting to much beef on the fire”
), and collaterally we can campaign for a woman as foreign minister, ooops, high representative…
When the double hat presidency will be actual, then we can start campaigning for having a woman as President.
As long as I understand why we would like to support and campaign for the establishment of ‘a presidential function’ in the EU , I cannot see an intrinsic value of having a ‘female president’.
On the other hand I would understand why one should campaign for Mary Robinson, the former President of Ireland and United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. She is an excellent layer and a distinguished politician, expert in European integration. She has argued many landmark cases before the European Court for Human Rights and the European Court of Justice.
She is a Charismatic, Competent and a Committed European…
…oh yes, and she is a woman as well.
No need to roast two beef portions over a single fire if one portion is already cooked.
I disagree with the tone in these comments. I think it is very important that we address the questions about gender balance within the top positions.And I do see an important value in having a female president.
Being a woman is not a “special interest” it is representing slightly more than 50 per cent of EUs population. Yes, I wish we will one day live in a society where gender does not matter. But the society we live in today, where women in all EU countries earn substanitally less then men, have less powerful positions and are victims of violence and abuse beacuse of their gender, it is still highly relevant to make sure that this half of the population is fairly represented.
Furthermore, alot of reserach shows how a gender imbalance affects the culture within an organisation. here is one example if you are interested. Having an all male leadership of the EU is harmful for gender equality, not foremost in a direct way on which decision will be taken by these people, but on the whole culture in the EU-insitutions and probably beyond.
I think one of the reasons men are over-represented in the EU and the national political scences is that far too many poitions are apointed in underhand negotiations in parties that often resembles men clubs. Therefor campaigning for a more democratically accountable EU-president is also benefitial for the representation of women.And campaigning for women representation in the leadership is benefitial for the democratic accountability.