I will not be supporting this constitutional amendment in its current or amended form. Simply put, my objections range from this amendment being incomplete and unfinished, my belief that instances of unopposed candidates are products of existing political culture rather than institutionalized problems, my belief that the existence of unopposed candidates are a demonstration of democracy and not a democratic deficit, and the fact that this amendment gives shades of 'Commission confirmation's' which were an election procedure that eventually culminated in a political rift that tore the EU in half and left its intuitions inactive for almost 2 years.
First and foremost, even with the suggested amendments, this proposed constitutional amendment is incomplete. Presumably, this approval voting procedure replaces or takes place concurrently with the regular Commission voting for that specific Office? Or does it take place afterwards? This needs to be specified. Also, the length and times of the process need to be specified.
Now onto my objections based on principles. I feel as if this proposal is attempting to address a problem that is a misdiagnosis. I get the impression that this alleged issue stems from the recent Commission elections, which had to be re-run due to the success of write-in candidates and the rejection of all other the candidates. The election had to be re-run NOT because the candidates ran unopposed - although, for some reason, a certain IA candidate thinks this was the issue, and that idea has somehow transplanted itself here - it was because the quality of all the candidates, including those in competitive races, were roundly rejected. This is evidenced by the fact that there were two candidates who ran for Premier, and both of them were rejected for a write-in candidate. In the following election, the current Premier ran unopposed and won. In summary, people approved of the single candidate who ran in the unopposed election, but didn't like the candidates who ran in the competitive race. The issue was never about the candidate running unopposed, it was about the quality of those specific candidates. As an aside, the EU also has a long and storied history of unopposed Foreign Affairs candidates and it has never been an issue.
A hallmark of what makes a democracy a democracy is the ability to put oneself forward for election. Currently, the EU presents virtually no barriers for candidates to nominate themselves, save for the fact that they can be term limited. If someone wants to run for Commission, then they are completely free to do so. Mandating a quota that there needs to be at least two candidates in a potential special election is a forced, inorganic and actually inherently undemocratic process, one which seems especially unusual to force in an instance where there was only one person trying to run in the first place. Standing for election (or not) is a democratic choice, and it is a choice that is currently available.
Uncompetitive elections are also the result of a political climate, not an institutional problem. As I've explained, the EU currently has no institutional barriers preventing people from running, minus term limits. However, certain political climates, whether it be due to political fatigue, inactivity, toxicity or any other variable, can lead to instances of uncompetitive Commission elections. It's these political climates that need addressing, not the institutions. Trying to fix a broader political culture issue with an institutional fix can potentially exacerbate the issue itself, as we have seen in the past.
At one point, the European Council enacted reforms as to how we elected Commissioners. One of those reforms included 'Commission confirmations' where Commissioners had to actually be confirmed to office by the European Council after being elected. At the time, my Inquistan predecessor actually opposed this measure, because it was blatantly unnecessary, but he didn't make too much of an issue of it when it passed because it was done on rather innocuous terms of democratic accountability.
The reform lasted a single election cycle. In the following elections, Commissioners-elect from Icholasen, Inquista and Inimicus barely managed to squeeze out victories, and their bitter election opponents quickly rallied to have all their confirmations blocked, despite them winning the election. The ensuing toxicity resulted in Icholasen, Inquista and Inimicus withdrawing from the EU's political institutions for quite some time. While I feel, and certainly hope, that this proposed amendment won't necessarily have the same impact in magnitude, it's another instance where an unnecessary institutional procedure has been put into place to fix a non-existent issue, which then end sup creating an issue. While the current political climate is perhaps not as polarised and vicious now as it was then, it certainly could be in the future, and we certainty do see instances now where certain countries do oppose or would block a candidate not on their merits, but based on their political affiliation or which country they are from. I can name at least 2 but probably 3 countries who would misuse this procedure to block an unopposed candidate simply because they come from a specific member state, which is not the spirit in which this amendment is being made. If certain member states have problems with another member state running an unopposed candidate, then they are free to run their own candidate against them and beat them, since that options exists. There is no reason to block anything that is already fair.
Bp. Karinn Lallana
Councillor for Inquista
The Kingdom of Spain