Catherine Field: Big question ahead of EU polls ... who cares?

PARIS - Lacking clout, stuffed with second-string politicians, burdened with bureaucracy and a reputation for hot air, the European Parliament faces a struggle for legitimacy next month when voters go to the polls.

Federalists have been hoping the June 4-7 vote will usher in a shining new dawn for the European Union's assembly.

They argue that, after decades as a mere sounding board, the assembly has gradually acquired some genuine powers in EU decision-making - to which more will be added if the Lisbon Treaty to reform EU institutions gets ratified.

And, they point out, the Parliament now has representation over an unprecedented geographical spread.

Twenty years after the revolutions that overthrew communism in Eastern Europe, the 785-seat Parliament is now drawn from 27 states, stretching from the Atlantic to the Russian border, that are home to nearly half a billion people.

The bad news is this: the European Parliament seems to leave most people in Europe utterly indifferent.

Many citizens are quite confused about what the assembly does and where it does it.

They are incapable of naming their local MEP (member of the European Parliament) or even identifying any Euro-legislator at all, with the possible exception of Daniel Cohn-Bendit, a Green who leapt to prominence in the May 1968 French student revolt.

"It's very difficult to get people interested in European issues," admits Belgian MEP Bart Staes. "One of the reasons is that they are interested in their own problems. People say that Europe is too complicated."

In 1979, 63 per cent of voters cast their ballot for the European elections. In 2004, the turnout had slid to 46 per cent, a record low. Next month, only 34 per cent may bother to vote, according to a survey by polling organisation Eurobarometer.

A turnout of such proportions would crush the Parliament's credibility, especially if the tally is low among the young democracies or if it favours the rise of fringe candidates and Euro-skeptics.

"Our main battle is the fight against abstention," French Agriculture Minister Michel Barnier warned last month.

Perhaps the biggest problems are the Parliament's perceived lack of importance, its fuzziness and reputation for waste.

Less than one in 10 European citizens believe its decisions play "a significant role" in their daily life, according to a Gallup Europe opinion poll.

The majority in Parliament has swung between two fudgy blocs that have never held an outright majority - the left-of-centre Party of European Socialists (PES) and the right-of-centre European People's Party (EPS). EPS won 288 seats in the 2004 elections and looks to retain its dominance this time.

Despite the movement to Euro-federalism, political careers in Europe are still made in national capitals.

As a result, MEPs suffer from a reputation of being party time-servers, cronies or politicians at the end of their career, rather than strong, thrusting characters.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy this year vowed that France "must send its best" to Europe. But he has arranged for Rachida Dati, widely condemned as a failure as Justice Minister, to get high ranking in his UMP party's electoral list, thus ensuring her a seat under proportional representation.

In Italy, Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi hand-picked models and actresses among the potential candidates to be fielded by his People of Freedom Party, according to his estranged wife, Veronica Lario.

Simon Hix, of the London School of Economics, and Sara Hagemann, of the European Policy Centre think tank, say that, unlike national legislatures, the European Parliament has never had the big issues and big personalities that make people want to read about it, write a letter to their deputy or get up to cast their vote.

Voters use Euro-elections to punish national governments or national parties, they argue.

"European Parliament elections have failed in any meaningful sense to create an 'electoral connection' between European citizens and politics in the European Parliament in particular and in the European Union more generally," the pair said in a paper published last year.

Fuelling the problem is the widespread criticism of the Parliament's €1.3 billion ($3 billion) annual cost.

At French insistence - enshrined into EU law - the assembly's principal meeting place is the eastern French city of Strasbourg, where it is required to hold at least 12 four-day plenary sessions per year.

The rest of the time it meets in Brussels in an avant-garde building nicknamed "Caprice des Dieux" (Whim of the Gods), partly because it resembles an oval-shaped French cheese and partly because this term mocks the outsized ambitions of the MEPs themselves.

The two locations mean MEPs and their retinue of bureaucrats and translators, working in 23 official languages, have to shuttle backwards and forwards. Special trains are laden with files and haul their way between Brussels and Strasbourg.

The Parliament's secretariat, meanwhile, is based in Luxembourg, which adds to the organisational nightmare.