Equality and the democratic deficit in the EU | Opinion

When she was re-elected President of the European Commission on July 18, Ursula von der Leyen announced to the press that she would form a Commission with the best people and that it would be a joint government. As she did five years ago, she asked the Member States to send her two names to find a place in the composition of the College of Commissioners, one of a man and one of a woman. Although the previous composition of the Commission was not identical, it was very close and always remained above the 40% representation of the least represented gender, in this case, women. On this occasion, the deadline given by the President to the Governments expires this Friday, and most States have proposed a person as the only candidate. The promise of equality is impossible to be fulfilled while there are names on the table.

If Ursula von der Leyen does nothing to remedy this and the European Parliament, which must approve the final composition of the Commission, does not intervene, we will return to the picture we thought was outdated, of an executive made up almost entirely of gentlemen in suits and ties. The “government of the best” will once again not reflect the composition of society or the statistics of higher education in the EU, where there are more women than men completing their studies. And it will do so at the worst possible moment, when democracy is at risk around the world, including in Europe, and all anti-democratic forces openly and proudly agree to policies contrary to the principles and principles of equality.

This is nothing new. Since the 19th century, counterrevolutionary movements have advocated a model of family and society based on men’s authority, complementarity of the sexes and the sexual division of labor, birth control, and the control of women’s bodies in service to the motherland. What is new is that the response to the advance of feminism and the institutionalization of equality policies has been coordinated and strategic. The antidemocratic movements that lead the current populist movement have been coming together formally and explicitly since at least 2013, demonstrating what they call “gender ideology,” occupying spaces and building frameworks of thought to counter equality policies and restore what they consider the natural order, an order that, of course, never existed.

The reasons why European governments have chosen to select mostly men as candidates for the College of Commissioners are varied and not only related to a lack of commitment to equality. Now, their decision will result in a profound democratic setback. The government of a Member State may formally agree with the advances in gender equality; even vote in the Council in favour of implementing measures to achieve them, and propose a man for the position of Commissioner in a similar way because his election responds more to the need to safeguard the internal balance and power dynamics within or with the Commission, than to the expediency and democratic needs of the general government.

Member States justify their choice by saying that the treaties only require them to name one, but they know that, when there is a political objective to be achieved, all resources must be used. Article 17.5 of the Treaty on European Union states that the Commission must be composed of a number of members corresponding to two thirds of the states that make up the Union. However, it also allows the Council to decide unanimously to change this figure, as in fact happened when adopting Decision 2013/272/EU, which establishes that the number of members of the Commission is equal to that of the Member States so that each can nominate a representative in government. A clear example of this is that, when you aspire to have a more representative government – in this case, one that reflects the national diversity of the EU – there are formulas to achieve it.

However, it seems that equal representation in the Commission, included in its Equality Strategy 2020-2025, does not deserve the same consideration, despite the fact that we will have to face an executive that fails to meet its own objectives and demands from third parties, through their external action, or from their citizens when allocating funds. A government that will not be representative of the values ​​that European society represents and which, far from eliminating the democratic deficit that the lack of equality implies, will perpetuate it in a particularly delicate period in our history.

The legitimacy of parity in the field of political representation is related to an interpretation of citizenship, democracy and popular sovereignty that seeks to close the democratic gap that opened during the construction of the modern State based on a social and sexual contract that assigned the category of citizen and the power of representation, although considered universal, only to human beings. Defending parity does not mean that women are a social category that can only be represented by women; if so, we would not be in separate political groups. It questions masculinity as a synonym for neutrality. In this sense, it would represent true universality.

It is surprising that what the anti-democrats see so clearly – that advancing in equality is advancing in democracy – is not seen by the democrats. The solution would probably involve developing a European equality directive that sets out clear objectives and protocols.