Transparency or Tweet-sized briefings?

In the current political climate of the EU, journalists are expressing frustration over the lack of transparency regarding the formation of the new Commission. As of Monday, there were ongoing inquiries about the status of the new leadership and concerns about the underrepresentation of women candidates. The spokesperson's reluctance to provide details has only heightened these frustrations. Meanwhile, potential candidates like Thierry Beaudet have seen their prospects diminish rapidly, illustrating the volatility of the selection process. The timeline for the commissioner hearings is also in flux, with insiders indicating that the bulk of these hearings may occur in November. This uncertainty is compounded by the limited time available during October's plenary sessions, which restricts the Parliament's legal affairs committee from thoroughly vetting candidates. The hearings are structured to include sessions for EU permanent representatives and European parliamentary group leaders, further complicating the process. The EU's approach to governance, characterized by a tightly controlled information flow, aims to maintain stability and prevent public failures. However, this method often leaves journalists and citizens in the dark, raising questions about the effectiveness of democratic accountability within the EU framework. The ongoing secrecy may be seen as a necessary measure to handle sensitive political dynamics, but it also risks alienating the public and media. Ultimately, the balance between transparency and stability remains a contentious issue. As the EU navigates its leadership transition, the challenge will be to ensure that the process is both accountable and effective, without sacrificing the delicate political negotiations that underpin its operations.