Backward boy scouts? The virulent attack by the President of the EU Council, Louis Michel, against the weight, in his opinion excessive, which is granted today to non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and in general to organisations, which claim to be from "civil society", caused a small storm in certain Community circles. A reaction from the political establishment was in the air, in the face of certain distortions of NGO representation compared to those of elected people. The honesty of Louis Michel, fitting for his character, does not lack verve, and his picturesque quality could only cause a few irritations. Below is the crucial passage from the statement by the Council President and Belgian Minister for Foreign Affairs in an interview [Interview made by Laurent Zacchini published in Le Monde on 21 July]:

Today, the media restrain themselves from criticising non-governmental organisation: however, this is a totally irresponsible phenomenon, which completely lacks transparency and representation, it is a corpus that often only represents itself, which has the pretension of having a monopoly over good conscience, which is accountable to nobody, in short, untouchable people. I respect the NGOs, but I never hear a journalist pose questions over them: How do we control their finances? What is done with the money? Why, when you are in Pristina, do you literally trip over the 4x4 Toyotas, which cost dear, with at the wheel sorts of backward boy scouts, who play the serious man, but do not really help? Why this code of silence? Because this is "civil society", reputed as being perfect, which has the monopoly over good conscience, which does not profit, which is not dishonest? In the name of a form of moral terrorism, we have in fact taken policy hostage. They lead public opinion to believe that all that these people do is good, while what political figures do is bad.

The danger of corporatism. In this declaration, the failings of the political figure transpire all the more than the fundamental reasons, which other observers' emphasis with regards to the reverence that surrounds at present the representatives from civil society. Their arguments may be summarised in a few words. The discredit of political figures, partly deserved, does not allow to forget the danger that certain concepts attached to civil society contain, that is to say the danger of corporatism, element forming doctrines that have lead to fascism. Each profession, each social category, each movement of opinion has the right to have its voice heard and to put across its reasons, but not to impose its choices; the political authorities have the duty to listen, to document and understand the opinions and especially the interests present, but the responsibility to decide is theirs as representatives of the general interest, which must summarise the interests of individuals. When the political class does not play this role, it is the most rich and most organised sector-based organisations that know more often their choices and emphasise their interests. These concerns, which Louis Michel did not develop in his interview, lead to the same conclusions that the Council President added to the statements already cited, when saying: the decision, is that of the 'political' nature that is invested, representative and elected. I do not recognised civil society's right to take decision, only that of taking part in the informing before the decision.

The worst systems… This return to the concept of "priority to politics" does not correspond to the fashion of the day, this is the least one could say. And nevertheless, the two trends should go together: wide ranging partnership with civil society (these are the terms of the press release from the G8 summit in Genoa) and the respect for decisions by democratically elected political leaders (as in our countries). In reality, the tones and the behaviour of part of the civil society movements does not respect the decisions of the elected and at the same time the political class has responsibilities in the deterioration of its image. What must never be forgotten, on both sides, is the deep wisdom of the famous definition from Winston Churchill: Democracy is the worst system, with the exception of all others. What ever the failings of western democracy, let us not compare, if you please, the situation of our countries with that of the countries that do not as yet understand freedom. Though enough of these general considerations; any simplification is abusive. The EU has suffered greatly from a lack of contact with its citizens, and the search for more direct and confident links is justified. The political class was demonised in an excessive manner, but it is necessary to recognise that, in several of our countries, the abuses, scandals and sometimes corruption within it are not an intervention by the media. Today, how not remain concerned with the American situation, where certain political choices at the highest level seem dictated by the interests of those that have financed the President's election campaign? One may hope that the situation in the United States will sort itself out as soon as the new administration has consolidated its authority and will better understand the global stakes, in the same manner as Europe has developed and continues to develop in a globally positive manner in the crucial areas: sustainable development, vigorous defence of the Kyoto Protocol, support for a new round in the WTO taking into account the non-commercial concerns and the interests of the developing countries, etc.

Though who could say to what extent the positive development of political choices has been precisely influenced by pressure from certain NGOs and other movements, which fight for several years for the defence of the environment, for the poor countries, for those excluded from our opulent society? How many NGOs have nothing to do with the ironic description by Louis Michel of "backward boy scouts"? How many NGOs have never tried to influence political decisions, concentrating on defending the cause of those they protect? An important representative from the ATD Fourth World Association, which has as aim to help the marginalised levels of the EU population, underlined with bitterness that, in the face of certain warnings, we will never be enough to defend the humiliated and hurt.

Two bodies to revitalise. We see the extent to which generalisations may be unjustified and do not take account of the complexity of situations. There have been and there continue to be abuses by certain NGOs, cases of mismanagement, the loss of direction that tend to give themselves functions, which belong to the political class, not to mention the enraged that only know violence and destruction. As soon as a movement wants to impose its choices through force and claims the right to dictate such or such situation, it requires suspicion. Though at the same time dialogue is crucial; the EU paid dearly for its failings in this field. This Wednesday, after a difficult birth, the European Commission approved its White Paper on governance and President Prodi presented it to the press (see following pages). It is not a secret that the most controversial parties and the most difficult to develop in this document have been those concerning the competences of the regions in the European institutional structure (see a few comments on this issue in the same section dated 19 July, pages 3 and 4), and precisely that concerning the role of civil society.

I will return to this White Paper. For the time being, I will keep myself to recalling that the institutional armoury of the EU includes two ad hoc bodies, one representing the regions, the other economic and social categories. The modernisation and revitalisation of the Committee of the Regions (CoR) and the Economic and Social Committee (ESC) would obviously constitute a first institutional answer to the claims of the regions and civil society. The ESC has taken significant initiatives to better play, than in the past, its role of representative for civil society in the European institutional system (see bulletin of 14 July, p.15), and it is studying the ways in which it can also take into account civil society organisations, which are not organised within it, delicate and complex issue that Jacques Delors has already raised a few years ago and which progressively ripens.

We see it, everything moves at the moment, at least on the level of reflection. It is like a vast puzzle, for which all the pieces must patiently be put in place. For the movements representing civil society to have their right place, without exceeding it, it is crucial that the political class is able on its side to regain the confidence of the people and to prove that it fully plays its role of representative of the general interests.

(F.R.)