This transformation took place , in part , because of the way in which the Commission had behaved towards Parliament and had perceived its position inside the institutions . Gil-Robles , President of Parliament between 1997 and 1999 , was very struck by the arrogant attitude of the Commission and its officials . He saw them as determined to maintain a level of independence , which , in his view , was incompatible with a parliamentary system , where the executive depended on the support of a parliamentary majority :
The Commission thought itself to be the centre of the life of the EU and this was reflected in a particular interpretation of independence , an independence from everything , not just from pressure groups or the Member States but also a political independence . At this time , I repeated to President Santer what I had already told him : in a democracy an institution can never be politically independent . There must be what the English call accountability , a political responsibility to someone and that someone must be the representatives of the people … at that moment , the Commission had civil servants , notably the Private Office of Santer who were convinced that they were independent of the Parliament .
What then was the impact of the Commission ’ s fall ? It had a considerable effect on Parliament ’ s view of itself , with the event acquiring an almost legendary status . Most Members saw it as marking a major shift in relations between the Commission and Parliament , between an executive and a parliament . Pat Cox describes it in his interview as a ‘ high act of parliamentarism ’.
A more specific result arose from the inability of Jacques Santer to sack Edith Cresson , the former French Prime Minister and the Commissioner at the centre of the discharge argument . This weakness of the Commission President assumed particular impor-
114