European Economic and Social Committee Conference on "Participatory democracy: current situation and opportunities provided by the European Constitution" Brussels - 8-9 March 2004 SUMMARY MEMO
- 1 - This conference was an important event for the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) in its partnership with the organisations of European civil society. The time and topic had been well chosen, which was demonstrated by the fact that there were more than 300 participants and many speakers from European civil society organisations and academic circles, as well as guest speakers such as Bronislav Geremek, former Polish Foreign Minister, Jean-Luc Dehaene, Vice-President of the European Convention, Jacques Delors, former President of the European Commission, Dermot McCarthy, President of the Irish Economic and Social Council, and Alojz Peterle, Chairman of the EU Affairs Committee of the Slovenian Parliament. The discussions led to practical ideas and proposals for making participatory democracy a new factor in European governance in the long term. The EESC intends to play a leading role in this process as facilitator of civil dialogue, drawing on its recent experience in this field and its relations with organised civil society. However, the discussion also highlighted certain disagreements on the substance and form of civil dialogue, its relationship with social dialogue and the role that the EESC could play in this field. Despite this, the prevailing feeling at the end of the conference was that now more than ever we must act to brace fledgling participatory democracy at European level. European democracy in crisis: a fact acknowledged by all All participants agreed that the democratic systems of the countries of the European Union (EU) are afflicted by chronic crisis. Parallel to a withdrawal from social and economic spheres by the State, political parties and even trade unions are becoming distanced from their base and the practical concerns of the citizens. While the former are often too focused on the timeframes of elections, the membership of the latter is being eroded and their legitimacy as social partners jeopardised. Representative democracy, the foundation of the democratic system, is being called into question by those whom it should represent. This uneasiness is equally perceptible at European level. Citizens accuse the European institutions of a lack of transparency, inadequate communication about their activities and distance from the democratic base, from citizens who do not have access to the resources necessary to understand the workings of the EU and their impact on their daily lives. Paradoxically, some speakers, active on the European scene, claimed that there is so much
- 2 - information available that ordinary citizens have difficulty analysing and understanding it. It could be deduced that it is not the information which is lacking, but rather adequate channels for disseminating it. Overall, the organisations of civil society, confident of their own expertise, are calling for a real role in the European decision-making process. Participatory democracy, a cure for the crisis in the politics and added value of the EU Participants felt that democracy in Europe could be revitalised by civil society, which could bring its voice and experience to the legislative process and defend the "rights of those who suffer" (Bronislav Geremek). Civil society must bridge the gap between those who govern and public opinion: only a participatory society enables citizens to fully exercise their rights. At European level, civil society has a part to play in achieving the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy, by preserving the spirit of the European social model and simultaneously allowing innovation, increased competitiveness and economic development. Signs of an EU policy favourable to participatory democracy Article 46 of the recent draft Constitution for Europe enshrines the principle of participatory democracy and lays the foundation for a true European civil dialogue, understood as being dialogue among European organisations representing civil society, and between all these organisations and the EU institutions. A wide majority of participants welcomed this advance which also entails better access to EU documents or the possibility of a citizens right of initiative. For many, the very existence of this article, as of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, is tangible proof of the importance of civil dialogue and the participation of civil society organisations in the work of the EU, as part of the strengthening of the democratic legitimacy of the Union. The Irish presidency of the EU, represented by Dick Roche, Minister of State for European Affairs, is seeking to promote better communication by the EU institutions and greater transparency in their working methods since access to and comprehension of information by citizens is one of the keys of good European governance.
- 3 - The European Commission already organises frequent consultations with civil society organisations. These procedures were recently formalised by common consultation standards and the creation of a special web site on dialogue with civil society. The internal reform of the Commission and the insistence on transparency as a watchword in its services already make it one of the most open administrations in Europe. However, some participants clearly felt that this was not enough: more than mere consultation, they demanded real participation in the decision-making process. They also felt that consultation was too reliant on the goodwill of the Commission and passed over many organisations that could provide valuable expertise. This dissatisfaction reflected a feeling of impatience in civil society organisations rather than any real rejection of the measures taken by the Commission only recently. If we are to learn properly from them, these measures need to be put into practice over a longer period of time. At any event, participants clearly rejected an accreditation system as used in the Council of Europe: the EU must leave the door open to all organisations and thereby respect the life of civil society. What role can the EESC play in European civil dialogue? Clearly, the EESC can contribute to establishing an institutional framework for civil dialogue at European level. The Committee has been reinforced by the European Commission in particular which has undertaken to cooperate with the Committee to enable the latter to become an indispensable intermediary between the EU institutions and organised civil society. However, this process takes time, since the EESC has inherited traditions and a method of appointing members which allow it to give only an imperfect reflection of organised civil society. Some participants singled out the imperfect composition of Group III (Various Activities) as proof of the work that the EESC has yet to accomplish. More radically, some participants even wanted to call into question the central role of the EESC, which they said was using participatory democracy as a strategic tool to enhance its status in the institutional set-up of the EU.
- 4 - These extreme positions do not, however, reflect the EESC s intentions: it certainly does not wish to become the only or mandatory partner for civil society organisations. The fears of some participants were in contrast with the welcome of the majority for the EESC s initiatives, such as this conference or the EESC Bureau s report, prepared by Mr Bloch- Lainé, which proposes the establishment of a liaison committee with European civil society organisations. Should civil dialogue be concentrated at European level? Because of its topic and the body organising it, this conference focused on civil dialogue at European level. However, some speakers said that it should be developed at all levels (European, national and local) to result in a bottom-up process and not simply wait for initiatives from the institutions and governments. At national level, civil dialogue is already a reality in some European countries, such as Ireland. The role of national parliaments should not be neglected, as was stated by Mario Greco, chairman of the European Affairs Standing Committee of the Italian Senate. He stressed the importance of the protocols on the involvement of national parliaments introduced in the draft Constitution, and compliance with the subsidiarity principle in social dialogue as in other fields. In addition to national parliaments, the Economic and Social Councils which exist in most Member States and which cooperate with the EESC also have a considerable role to play in civil dialogue at all levels. Local level, the tier closest to the daily concerns of citizens, must not be neglected: individuals and organisations must be able to launch initiatives knowing that they will be passed on to the European level, and one criteria for the legitimacy of organisations active in Brussels should be their involvement at local level. The EESC, with members from national organisations, clearly has a role to play in this field. How can the legitimacy and representativeness of civil society organisations involved in European civil dialogue be determined?
- 5 - This was possibly the most hotly debated question of the entire conference. Civil society organisations demand the right to participate in the European legislative process. They base this claim on their expertise and experience, their ties and actions on the ground, describing themselves as the voice of people who are excluded from democratic life. They refuse to accept that the institutions can simply choose who they talk to. There are two potential problems in this system: either the formation of a technocracy of the NGOs present in Brussels (Jean-Luc Dehaene), or the cacophony resulting from an uncontrolled overabundance of consultations and other procedures for information and dialogue. To avoid these problems, a list of common criteria for evaluating the legitimacy and representativeness of NGOs must be finalized. Objective criteria such as the number of members or the existence of a mandate voted by members are often not applicable to NGOs. The criteria recently established by the European Commission (good internal governance, etc.) are even more difficult to evaluate. For the moment, even taking into account Article 46 of the draft Constitution, the selection even the enlarged selection of NGOs eligible for European civil dialogue depends on the institutions, and the NGOs have no appeal against this situation. Sanction by popular vote, present in representative democracy, seems impossible in participatory democracy. Confronted with this obstacle, everyone agreed that qualitative criteria (quality and relevance of the expertise) must be favoured over quantitative criteria (number of organisations involved). Participatory democracy must not lose sight of the simplicity and efficiency which are necessary for its credibility. Lastly, some participants mentioned the possibility of setting up an observatory/laboratory for participatory democracy (Raymond Weber, professor of philosophy at the University of Luxembourg) or follow-up committees on the management of the Structural Funds (Henri Malosse, member of the EESC Employers Group) in order to evaluate the work of the NGOs as fairly as possible. Does the work of the NGOs in the context of civil dialogue constitute lobbying? Lobbying is an integral part of the EU s method of working, and it is the direct result of the openness of the institutions. However, this concept can give rise to concern if not backed up
- 6 - by safeguards or ethical rules. It also requires considerable financial and human resources based in Brussels, which is not possible for most NGOs. Tony Venables, Director of ECAS, believes for this reason that lobbying is not connected to civil dialogue. The problem of funding for players in civil dialogue, hitherto considered to a limited extent or not at all by participants, is therefore a key issue in the examination of the scope and efficiency of European civil dialogue. However, the question of resources cannot be the only distinguishing factor. NGOs involved in civil dialogue also lobby by monitoring European information and legislation, putting forward all their expertise and defending their points of view. However, as Raymond Weber said, they must restrict themselves to the mildest form of lobbying, guided by their own ethos. They must also diversify European lobbying, too often limited to economic issues. Finally, they must ensure that their activities are public and open to the citizens whom they wish to defend. Representative democracy and participatory democracy: two complementary fields These two notions were amply discussed, compared and sometimes even pitted against each other in the debates. The former is undergoing a serious crisis and might find a solution in the latter: so it is a question of interaction and mutual reinforcement rather than confrontation between these two fields of democracy. Representative democracy already includes the voice of the people, and despite everything remains the heart of the legislative process at national level. At European level, the regular increase in the powers of the European Parliament are in line with this approach, even if MEPs also suffer from the indifference of citizens, and sometimes have difficulty maintaining a connection with them. Participatory democracy can and must be the vital complement of representative democracy, involving organised civil society in the decision-making process, at European and national level. It must not fail: it must guarantee lasting and effective participation by civil society
- 7 - organisations, whose actions must be accompanied by tools for evaluation and monitoring, in order to preserve their transparency and efficiency. What interaction should there be between social and civil dialogue? These two concepts also were compared, contrasted and even mixed up during the conference. Most participants wanted a clear distinction between these two types of dialogue, while agreeing that bridges between them should not be excluded. The specific characteristics of social dialogue are enshrined in Article 47 of the draft Constitution, as well as the possibility for the social partners (employers and trade unions) to be autonomous alternative legislators. There has been a structured social dialogue at European level since 1985, and it has a solid legal basis. The social partners have prepared an autonomous work programme and their representativeness is regularly monitored. However, social dialogue at national level is vital, since Member States still have considerable margin for manoeuvre in the application of European social standards. Clearly, civil dialogue does not yet have the same experience in terms of practice, nor does it have the same legal basis, at either national or European level. However, real cooperation between the social partners and organised civil society already exists, exemplified by the drawing-up of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The EESC's composition gives it a legitimate right to be involved in the development and enhancement of this cooperation. A need for action: future outlook for participatory democracy The draft Constitution contains remarkable advances in terms of participatory democracy and must be adopted as soon as possible by the Member States. Participatory democracy must revitalise European democracy by supplementing representative democracy and developing its cooperation with the social partners. Such an undertaking, however, will only be beneficial if it is applied at all levels: local, national and of course European.
- 8 - To do this, civil society organisations, together with the European institutions, must take practical steps to ensure their legitimacy and therefore the credibility of the whole process. Already through past initiatives, the EESC has taken the first steps in civil dialogue. Even while considering some internal changes, it can affirm its position as the home of civil society organisations, both on the intellectual level and because of the structures available to it. In line with the Bloch-Lainé report, a liaison committee with these organisations will be set up to structure dialogue and improve the system for passing on organised civil society s ideas, concerns and demands regarding European policies. More generally, European civil dialogue must be fully established so that, in the mid term, its impact on the EU policy- and decision-making process may be properly evaluated.