AT THE “Parlamentarium”, the snazzy visitors’ centre of the European Parliament in Brussels, an exhibit displays video messages and objects left by leading MEPs. Martin Schulz, the parliament’s president, picked a chunk of masonry: a piece from a low wall that once separated Germany and the Netherlands. “The wall is no longer there, thanks to the EU,” declares Mr Schulz. The European Union cannot claim, like NATO, to have brought down the Berlin Wall, but it can boast of removing internal barriers within the EU.

For Mr Schulz, Europeans are rightly jealous of their separate identities; but to preserve them they must be more united. And the place to debate their future is the parliament. It was Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party, who punctured this illusion: “this is the only parliament in the world that cannot initiate legislation on its own,” he says in his video message. The parliament was the “least important” of the EU’s big three institutions. In a city of many presidents, running the parliament counts for less than running the European Commission (the EU’s civil service) or the European Council (representing 27 governments).

Critics of the EU are growing louder and may well be more numerous after next May’s European election. Europe is increasingly blamed for the economic crisis and for unwanted immigration. Trust in EU institutions is at an all-time low. Citizens feel they have no influence on decisions taken in Brussels. Turnout at the European election has fallen at every poll since 1979.

In response, Mr Schulz is arguing for a political experiment that would turn the election into a Europe-wide contest. Political groups would nominate candidates for president of the European Commission, who would then slug it out in hustings and on television screens. It is an open secret that Mr Schulz, a German Social Democrat, seeks the job himself. It is a long shot, yet his name appears on every list of plausible candidates. A man who built his career as a thorn in the side of European leaders may yet have a big role in setting their agenda.

By mimicking national elections, with the leader of the winning party becoming “prime minister”, Mr Schulz hopes to shift voters away from narrow domestic concerns (often they see the European election mostly as a chance to kick their national government). He wants to change the debate from a sterile argument for or against the EU into one about what kind of union it should be. It would also be harder for the likes of Mr Farage to denounce the commission for being “unelected”.

A former heavy drinker, now teetotal*, and bookshop owner, Mr Schulz made his way from municipal politics to the European Parliament, where he later became leader of the main European centre-left Socialists and Democrats group. Outside Brussels he is best known for his clash in 2003 with Italy’s prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, who, stung by criticism, told Mr Schulz he would be ideal in a film role as a Nazi concentration-camp kapo.

Even admirers say Mr Schulz can be pugnacious and impulsive. Yet he has impressed American officials as a clever politician who is seeking to build the European Parliament into something akin to Congress. Though critical of Angela Merkel’s policies on austerity, he likes to act as mediator between the German chancellor and the French president, François Hollande. Even a natural foe like Britain’s prime minister, David Cameron, is said to find Mr Schulz’s opening comments at EU summits enlivening. Yet muscle-flexing and point-scoring by the parliament—holding up a painstaking compromise on the EU’s next seven-year budget, capping bankers’ bonuses or promoting a financial-transactions tax—understandably infuriate many governments.

The parliament’s most ambitious bid is the attempt to impose its choice at the top of the commission. Hitherto that choice has been made by national leaders, with the endorsement of MEPs. More democracy may be laudable, but it brings new problems. Europe is not a country with a single people. Instead of a thrilling clash of titans, debates could turn into a babble of jargon between unknowns. An election, not a selection, would favour Brussels insiders, like Mr Schulz, over serving prime ministers who may be reluctant to risk their jobs. And a more politicised president would be more beholden to the parliament, and less likely to represent the interests of all EU countries.

In any case, an indirect election would do little to lift the fog of complexity. The commission will be packed with 26 other government appointees. Its proposals must be approved by the Council of Ministers (representing national governments, usually behind closed doors) as well as the parliament. The parliament has no say in economic policy. As Pierre Kroll, a Belgian cartoonist, put it: “You can lose democracy if people do not understand anything. Who really controls the budget of my country?”

Who dares needs luck

The European Parliament has often been a repository for well-meaning but unknown euro-idealists or superannuated national politicos. Yet it can also be a launching-pad. Ex-MEPs now serving as prime ministers include Italy’s Enrico Letta, Denmark’s Helle Thorning-Schmidt, and Latvia’s Valdis Dombrovskis. Even Mr Hollande briefly served in Strasbourg.

Mr Schulz is now moving ably to propel himself to the top. Yet success will require the alignment of many stars. The European Socialists will have to beat the centre-right European People’s Party, or at least do well enough to claim victory. If Mrs Merkel retains her job in this autumn’s German election, the Social Democrats will have to enter a grand coalition if they are to influence her choice. And even if Mrs Merkel is minded to pick Mr Schulz, would other leaders, worried about a “German Europe”, allow a German to run the commission?

*The original reference to Mr Schulz being "a reformed alcoholic" has been amended at the request of Mr Schulz's office.

Economist.com/blogs/charlemagne