How do MEPs think about and whom do they perceive their constituencies to be?

Typically, role orientations in political representation are addressed in two ways: i) what role orientation (e.g. delegate, trustee, partisan etc. – Table 5.3) representatives themselves perceive to fulfill and ii) whom they take instruction from (Table 5.2). Before these two classical questions were asked in the author’s MEP survey, a more experimental formulation of a question targeting whom MEPs conceived their constituencies to be was asked first (see Table 5.1. for its exact formulation). Though very similar to the classical ‘focus of representation’, this first question differed slightly in that it sought to better understand whether MEPs perceive their constituencies in the classic territorial-electoral sense (as they are almost by default expected to) or whether other aspects factor into their perceptions of a constituency. By enabling MEPs to select more than one response also steered away from a uni-dimensional concept and allowed room for more heterogeneous accounts, an observation that was made during interviews.

Table 5.1 MEPs’ constituency perceptions (N=147)

As a member of the European Parliament, when you think of ‘your constituency or district’ it is composed of: (tick all that apply)

European Union and all its people 51%

The national territory and all people of your member state 44%

A sub-region in your member state 38%

People who voted for your party 12%

People who voted for you 9%

Others please specify 4%

The results in Table 5.1 reveal several insights. First, they confirm that MEPs perceive their constituencies as heterogeneous and dynamic rather than uni-dimensional entities where their notion of a constituency comprises several different ‘constituencies’. This particularly observed when examining the frequencies of MEPs’ responses (not pictured), where 68 per cent MEPs chose one categorical response but one-third considered ‘their constituency’ to be composed of two or more sub-constituencies. The most common combination, among 26 per cent MEPs, was Europe and their national territory, region or their party’s voters. The tendency to represent multiple sub-constituencies is logical given that in comparison to national MPs, for MEPs the number of possible sub-constituencies multiplies. In principle, MEPs may be approached by national as well as European interests groups, by regional as well as national governments, national party or their EP party group, by their nationals but also non-national ‘constituents’ from other European countries.

Secondly, the findings reveal that the pan-European constituency - ‘European union and its people’

features strongly in whom MEPs perceive their constituencies to be. 51 per cent MEPs list Europe in combination with other constituency categories while one in every four MEPs lists the EU exclusively as ‘their constituency’. ‘My nation and its people’ and ‘region’ ranks second and third respectively while party and personal voters ranks the lowest. The less than 4 per cent of respondents who choose t o specify their constituencies as part of an open ended response either specify the names of their constituencies²⁶ or specific sub-groups such as “citizens of Luxembourg and foreigners”, “artists” or “vulnerable groups in society”.

Observation made during interviews also confirmed MEPs’ strong representational loyalty to the pan-European constituency but also their multi-layered composition. The following illustrate examples of these reflections:

“Officially, my constituency is the Spanish territory and its people, but also the Catalan people.

On the other hand, I am a European legislator who was elected to look at Europe through the eyes of a Catalonian – but to work towards and act on behalf of a common project – the EU”

(Spanish MEP).

26Majority re-qualified their reference to the sub-region they represent either by stating its specific name ‘East midlands’,

‘South West of England and Gibraltar – my constituency!’, ‘the four regions in my constituency’ or in the form of more abstract references ‘comme un découpage arbitraire du territoire’ (trans. an arbitrary division/part of a territory). Other group of answers tended to included ‘people/ citizens’ in general or ‘people in and outside of Europe’ or ‘my local electoral constituency where I am also a local representative’.

“Though my official role is to represent the French speaking part of Belgium, I was also elected to strengthen EU integration and to represent European rather than national interests. The promotion of national interests and representation of Belgian people is the job of national Parliaments and [their]

members, not mine” (Belgian MEP).”

“German nation but mostly European interests, then party, then region. But I personally decided to focus on European (and not on national/ local) issues since being an MEP is a full time job… (German MEP).”

On the one hand, the dominance of Europe in MEPs’ constituency perceptions is on the one hand to be expected. After all, MEPs function in a ‘European’ environment, the core of their work concerns EU issues which explains their pronounced loyalty to the pan-European constituency. From the rational electoral perspective, however, it is less sensical. Because MEPs are nominated by their domestic parties and are elected to represent national or regional (Belgium, France, Ireland, Italy and the UK) constituencies, their loyalty to the pan-European electorate does not bring them electoral rewards. Instead it would be expected that MEPs conceive their party’s voters or their respective electoral districts as the dominant logical constituency.

Interestingly, however, when answers to this first question – which simply asked whom MEPs think their constituencies are – were compared to MEPs’ survey responses concerning questions about their ‘representational focus’ and ‘whom they take instruction from’, the role of Europe became less dominant. Its importance was slightly demoted – see Table 5.3. This seems to suggest that though at the cognitive or ideological level Europe features strongly in MEPs’

perceptions about whom they represent, at a more functional level, perhaps where concrete interests are at stake MEPs represent their sub-national and national – or classic electoral constituencies. Yet, at the same time, when voting in the EP, MEPs report to rely mostly on their

‘own opinion’ but also on their national MEP delegation and EP party group.

Represents in the EP Mean N

These various observations imply that MEPs’ ‘own judgment’ is the gate keeper when they make decisions. In other words, MEPs consider themselves as free agents, relatively free from the pressures of their national parties. In this aspect they differ from their national counterparts from Western democracies with PR systems, where strong party pressure is a pronounced feature. At the same time, in practice, it is more likely that a complex web of factors ends up influencing and informing MEPs’ decisions as well as to prompt them to represent diverse ‘constituencies’. In MEPs’ day-to-day realities, their acts of representation are conditioned by various pressures, interests (EU, national, sub-national, societal sub-groups) and personal idiosyncracies. These dynamically interact, advance and recede from MEPs’ foreground of internal decision making.

The multi-dimensionality and dynamic interplay of factors that influence MEPs’ acts of representation confirm past studies (Pitkin 1967, Norris 1999, Mansbridge 2003) as well as Fenno’s (1978) work who observed that representatives strategically sub-divide their constituencies into ‘concentric circles of influence’. Similarly, MEPs’ interview testimonies revealed that MEPs consciously drew distinctions between and sub-divided the ‘official’ - classic electoral and more workable constituencies ‘in practice’.

27The values expressed in both tables refer to mean scores per response category when using a 1-5 Likert scale with (1) never, (2) rarely, (3) sometimes, (4) often, (5) very often - values.

Takes Instruction from²⁷ Mean N

When in an interview MEPs were asked when you think of your constituency who do you think of?

– an interesting pattern in the answers emerged. MEPs commonly distinguished between their

‘official’ constituencies and those they represent ‘in practice’. Almost instinctively the ‘official’

constituency included geographic references - “well of course, people of Germany”, “my national constituency”, “in theory, every voter in Scotland”, “the whole of Spain”, the “10 million people, 9 different counties in my Southeast region of England”. However, the initial ‘instinctive’ answers were usually followed by more refined specifications referred to as the ‘real’ constituency or ‘my constituency in practice’.

The ‘constituency in practice’ typically referred to combinations of smaller sub-constituencies, targeted subgroups or foci of representation. These further tended to be ranked in some sense of a hierarchical order such as: “my region, national Dutch people but also all Dutch speaking people in Europe” (Dutch MEP); “my voters, women’s organizations, and given my own professional background as a medical doctor, doctors and health care practitioners also” (Slovak MEP); “Italy and Europe but most importantly the general public since I need public opinion to support the issues I advocate” (Italian MEP); “National constituency – Estonia, my party and my very close district Tartu”

(Estonian MEP), or the more abstract “my constituency is my national state but when I vote, I prioritize human values and the general interests of society as such, and then European citizens”

(Slovak MEP). Other more intricate explanations included:

“People of Ireland, my Labour party and also Dublin. You see, we have only one Labour (party) MEP from that area, also in Ireland the urban-rural constituency cleavage is very important to

represent…” (Irish MEP)

“My constituency is the Labour party but also the trade union movement and my party voters, and those who voted for me. At the same time I am free of obligation in a representative sense since I was directly elected by my voters to best decide on issues of value to them” (UK MEP)

“In a sense, what I do (as an MEP) is importantly influenced by the reality that I actually have three jobs: I am an MEP, I represent the Partito Radicale (of Italy) and I am also a Secretary General on the Ethical committee on Stem Cell research in my country. …however, at some level I am also

constituency-less since more than anything my duty is to bring awareness to the general public on issues …” (Italian MEP).

These testimonies show that though the classic territorial considerations do feature in MEPs’

perceptions of their constituencies, in reality, they are overshadowed by a medley of subsidiary and more defined foci of representation or constituencies.

The selection process shows to be subject to pragmatic considerations, an attempt to simplify

MEPs’ complex realm of (possible) constituencies into more ‘workable constituencies’ and more narrow representational focus such as representation of select ‘flagship issues’ or issue-based interest groups. This process, however, is not always simple for MEPs. As one German MEP explained ‘I don’t know how my colleagues do it, but it is not possible to represent and do everything satisfactorily with the complexity of the work we have”. Or as another UK MEP noted “it is difficult to represent these counties and people in them in terms of classical constituency ties because they were constructed rather then forming organic, cohesive units - their needs, preferences and themes are too diverse-heterogeneous and it is difficult to find what is specific to them and how to bridge them to Europe”.

Observations about how MEPs think about their constituencies show that whom MEPs perceive their constituencies to be and whom they focus on in practice are not necessarily the same.

MEPs’ foci of representation tend to be splintered rather than focused on a single uniform group.

In practice, a complex web of dynamics factors into MEPs’ selection making process on which constituency they will focus on during their mandate, but relatively little is known about this process.

When looking at the determinants of variation in MEPs’ constituency perceptions, being from a new EU member state, ballot structure and pro-constituency attitude played the strongest role.

MEPs from open ballot systems and regional districts were more likely to consider their region rather than Europe as their constituency, while MEPs from ordered or closed systems were more inclined to consider their ‘country’ hence wider notion of a constituency. All British MEPs (except one) exclusively perceived their region as their core constituency while some countries showed some intra-country variation. 55 per cent Italian respondents, for example, chose nation or region in combination with Europe while nearly two-thirds of French MEPs chose Europe exclusively. Among the six Belgian respondents, Europe rather than regional constituency was chosen as the main choice.

Being from a new EU member state and MEPs’ pro-constituency role orientations also showed to influence the way MEPs think about their constituencies. With the exception of all (four) Slovenian MEPs who chose Europe, MEPs from CEE member states were more prone to consider their ‘national territory and its peoples’ as their constituency. Also, MEPs who attached attitudinal importance to ‘being active in their constituencies’ were less likely to think of Europe as their constituency while those who valued ‘advancing EU policies in the world’ in

their work as European representatives were more likely. Incumbency usually associated pro-EU integration hence possibly favoring a pan-European constituency base (Franklin & Scarrow 1999) showed to be insignificant when it comes to MEPs’ perceptions.