During the last six months, our beloved European Union nominated and elected its royal triumvirate: the Commission President, the President of the European Council and the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

European commentators Have Read Machiavelli and Schumpeter

Reading the European press comments on the three nominations, José Manuel Barroso as Commission President, Herman van Rompuy as Council President and Catherine Ashton as High Representative, one could get the impression that commentators on European politics were still stuck reading Machiavelli.

The leader commands, the others will follow. This motif of a statue in Vienna is outdated, especially in consensus-led institutions like the EU Council.

Picture: Alexander Steinmetz / youthmedia.eu

How else can we explain the devastation throughout Europe about the nomination of three "weak personalities" or even "nobodies" (Austrian Presse Agentur)?

Obviously, what journalists throughout Europe hoped for was the nomination of three principes, admirable political leaders who have brought their statecraft to perfection and can strategically help the union to develop its grandeur in world politics and at the European home front.

For some commentators, who claim to have a more modern image of political leaders than that of the Italian theorist Niccolò Machiavelli (who died a while ago, in 1527), perhaps the ideas of the Austrian economist and political theorist Joseph Schumpeter (born in 1883) may be a better point of reference. Schumpeter's theory can be summarised by one nitty-gritty sentence: great men make great politics.

In their eyes we got a Carnival triumvirate

Picture: Le Monde / Daily Express

He was called a clown already when he returned as Belgian Prime Minister. Also then he had to seek consensus between Wallonia and Flanders.

In the logic of most commentators it seemed that as we all expected great EU politics, we needed great men to take on the posts. According to the press articles, what we actually got was a Cologne carnival triumvirate: three funny companions whom nobody knows but who spend a season at ridiculous events, drinking and joking with the public and holding unimportant speeches, which are interrupted by fanfares and random shouts of "European Union alaaf!" ("Up with the EU!") from their hangers-on.

This line of thought appeared subtly in media like the German "Tagesschau," which contented itself with pointing out that the most conspicuous fact about van Rompuy was his inconspicuousness. But it also turned up almost literally in media like the British "Daily Express," which dedicated a whole headline to the former Belgian prime minister accompanied by a compelling photo: "UK's Belgian boss is a clown." Whereas Ashton was framed as the token woman, who, of course, is also part of the real Cologne carnival triumvirate – the princess with blonde plaits, no one had to talk much about Barroso, since he had already been boring enough during his first term as Commission President.

It Pays to Look at European history and its "great men"

Picture: Wikimedia

How the media see the new EU leaders: as the Cologne Carnival Triumvirate.

If we accept that our triumvirate indeed rather resembles a carnival association than the perfect group of charismatic political leaders, we still have to ask if these "great" leaders – as the European press assumes – are really more desirable.

A look at European history pays off: Commission Presidents like Jean Monnet, Walter Hallstein or Jacques Delors were not only capable political leaders but also pushed European integration. Monnet is supposed to be the father not only of the European Coal and Steel Community but also of the European Economic Community, the predecessors of the EU. Walter Hallstein successfully pushed the implementation of the Common Market during the 1960s. Jacques Delors not only negotiated the Single European Act but also the Maastricht Treaty with the Euro and the foundation of the EU. These people are the kings, at least, if one asks political scientists about the key actors in integration history.

And here the problems start: the so called "great men" of European integration all lived in a time when the integration process was essentially an elite process which the public may have glanced at every now and then, but in which it was neither willing nor able to interfere. Instead, the "great men" pushed their integrative agenda: common market regulations, a common currency, a common transportation policy – everything became somehow, through some sort of argument, unavoidable to secure the European idea.

today's EU is not about "great men" - IT's a consensus system

However, during the last two decades not only the member states, but most importantly, the public has often raised its voice in referendums and elections, complaining about the undemocratic and inexorable integration process promoted by the so-called "great men."

Subsequently, these concerns have been partly addressed by trying to involve far more players in the European concert. When it comes to European politics, now not only the Commission and the member states' governments are involved: national parliaments and bureaucracies also have a say, and through direct elections to the European Parliament, referendums and the Citizens' Initiative, the public itself has become increasingly involved.

After four rounds of enlargement which again added countless veto players to the system, today's EU is essentially a consensus system, in which the agreement of a very high number of players is needed to do anything, internally and externally. Of course, the influence of single players is diminished dramatically in such systems, especially if the players are very diverse, which is probably true for the union more than for any other political system.

The fact that we have no "great men" around in Brussels anymore is thus easy to explain: on the one hand, "great men" (perhaps David Milliband) are not eager to take office in Brussels because they know that they would have to sacrifice their personal leverage as they would face far more adversaries than in their national systems. On the other hand, even if "great men" came to Brussels we would probably not recognise them or we would be disappointed by them as they would be turned into "small men" within a short time – most probably after their first attendance of a Council meeting about fishery policy.

Picture: The Council of the European Union

Can you spot the clowns? The newly elected Catherine Ashton and Herman van Rompuy (at the edges) seem fairly sober. In the middle: Jose Barroso and Fredrik Reinfeldt.

It is not by chance that consensual systems like today's federal Germany generate political leaders like Angela Merkel, whose biography will one day be named "The Mediator" or "A Woman Sitting Out," kind euphemisms veiling the fact that a German chancellor has effectively very little leverage. In contrast, for the "Iron Lady" Margaret Thatcher, the British system matched her personality perfectly!

We should not hope for superheroes - consensus is the European raison d'être

Ultimately, we should not hope for any European superheroes who may push a personal and perhaps integrative agenda: a Europe from the Black Sea to the Scottish Highlands and from the Gulf of Riga to Gibraltar has to be based on consensus and not on leadership if it wants to take all interests and all people seriously. We should welcome the politicisation of integration during the last decades and not hark back to the glorified past of supposed "great politics."

Considering all this, a former British peace activist with much parliamentary and administrative experience and two former prime ministers of two smaller member states (one of which, Belgium, is essentially a small EU if one looks at its political cleavages) do not seem to be the worst choices.

And finally, it's worth remembering that the Cologne carnival triumvirate is normally made up of experienced and successful entrepreneurs, higher civil servants or managers – no heroes.