Brussels, 13/11/2006 (Agence Europe) - In reply to an invitation from the Commission, as part of its follow up to its white paper on European communication policy (EUROPE 9121 and 9122), 300 organisations from civil society held discussions on 9-10 November in Bergamo (Italy) on strengthening the ties between European citizens and Community institutions. First observation: lack of European public area, dialogue is weak and frustration is gaining ground. Second, there is a genuine demand from civil society for structured dialogue at all democratic levels. Recommendations were made in favour of more participatory procedures and reflection, which also focused on the use of the internet as a tool and the risks that this could engender. The content of the message and its communication remain indissoluble, the shadow of the institutional crisis and the direction of the European project continually hovered above the “Empower06” forum. Giorgio Napolitano, president of the Italian Republic, and Romano Prodi, Italian prime minister, both sent a message of support to participants.
European public area. Bronislaw Geremek MEP (ALDE, Poland) said that, “the main problem is the inexistence of a European public area” because this area at a European level is “not a normal thing” and is “first of all linked to the nation state”. Claus Haugaard Sørenson, Director General for communication at the Commission affirmed that, “The European public area is not a very evanescent notion, sometime it appears then disappears: we have to forge it so that we can have a genuine European democracy”. He did not try and hide the “difficulty” this institution had in “making the link” and getting the message across. The white paper bears this out: citizens are becoming disaffected with Brussels and consider that they have little chance of getting their voices heard on European issues. Massimo Crucioli from the European Anti-Poverty Network tried to put things in perspective and explained that they were trying to “understand how at a local level we can build” this area because “in the local neighbourhoods there is little talk about the European public area apart from when the money gets there, which is not good and not often”.
Frustration. Discussions in five workshops revealed the frustration felt by part of civil society due to the lack of dialogue. Nolan Quigley from the British Council of associative organisations deplored the fact that”, “there is no understanding there with the Commission, it does not understand what a forum is!” He said that they should give them the money “and we will organise the forum and make better recommendations!” Laurence Wattier from the Information Diffusion Europe Association criticised the conference for being “the counter-example of participation and communication”. Professor Markku Welenius, the Director of the Finnish Centre for Research Perspectives was “astonished by the amount of criticism” and saw this situation as the beginning of “the age of conscience” where “we are more and more aware of what's at stake” in daily life. Speaking on behalf of the European Contact Group for civil society, Ilona Kish summed up the “frustration”, explaining, “so far the process has not been working well!”
Margot Wallström, Commissioner for communication strategy, who came to conclude the conference, said that she understood the frustration very well and that she was aware that there remained a lot to be done but that “with the help of civil society” the “white paper constitutes a totally new vision”. In her eyes involving citizens empowered them and this is the “most important theme” in the document as it suggests that citizens have “the right to be informed fairly” as well as “express their opinions and be understood”. Wallström provided assurances that her services would produce a follow-up to this event as part of the Commission's action plan it would be presenting in the fiftieth anniversary of the treaty of Rome in Berlin in March 2007.
Participation. Some speakers highlighted the importance of citizen participation for improving democracy at a European level. Pierre Barge from the European Human Rights Association insisted on the quality of participation for effective dialogue and communication, “participating is proposing and accompanying public policies, evaluating them”. Speaking on behalf of the Maison de l'Europe in Paris, Ghislaine Glasson Deschaumes said that they should “decouple lobbying”, necessary for “participation requiring democratic practices”. Ilona Kish stressed that, “participation is essential for elaborating policies. There is a need to structured mechanisms upstream as much as possible and to explore innovative tools”. Daniel Spoel from the Civil Society Permanent Forum proposed transforming the Commission's DG “Communication” into a DG “Participation” with ad hoc consultation procedures.
Recommendations. Encouraged by the Commission, participants produced recommendations for tightening the links between civil society and the Community institutions. On several occasions the idea of setting up autonomous civil society forums was suggested at a European level.
“Effective channels of representation” were necessary to involve citizens on matters of European interest such as a “European civil service” or a “European peace corps”, said Paolo Alfier of the Forum Veneto. Jean-Claude Boual, Secretary General of the European Liaison Committee on Services of General Interest said that a way had to be found to allow debate in autonomous forums, while ensuring that the solution was not too institutionalised. Andrea Frosini, a member of the Terzo Settore Forum, suggested the creation of a large European Foundation, managed by the associations themselves, which would co-finance projects promoting European citizenship.
Participants gave several examples of structured dialogue between the institutions and civil society. Isolda Agazzi described the mechanism of the Conference of Consultative Associations within the UN, which is made up of “3000 NGOs” and whose “consultative status” requires it to be consulted. The example of the Council of Europe was also given. For the national and local levels, Paolo Alfier described the experiment carried out in the North East of Italy, where a permanent round table of MEPs provided a place where elected representatives and citizens could meet to discuss important issues, so that the former knew “what we want” and citizens knew “what they do”. The Naples Europe Direct centre, which is a member of the European network of 400 local EU information centres, is about to try out, fully autonomously,a new form of “civil dialogue” using “open space technology”, said Pierluigi De Rosa.
The association's European status. Several speakers regretted that the proposal for a status for the European association had been removed by the Barroso Commission as part of its “Better Regulation initiative. Stefano Milia of the European Information and Documentation Centre (EIDC) in Rome said that the Italian organisations his centre spoke to felt it was essential to take the issue back in hand. A “status for the European association” had to be defined, argued Massimo Crucioli. Why had the proposal been retracted, wondered Emilio De Capitani, head of unit of the EP's civil liberties committee.
Tools of direct democracy. How can direct links be established between citizens and the Community institutions? The Italian associations showed “great interest in instruments of direct participation”, such as popular initiative and European referendum, said Stefano Milia. “It is not possible to have consultation beginning at the end of July,” complained Caroline Gonthier of the European Citizens' Action Service (ECAS), stressing the need to be able to have access to authentic documents.
What can the Internet bring to direct democracy? “The tools exist. That is not the problem. The question is: Are we ready?” said Gilles Berhault, President of the Association Communication and Information for Sustainable Development. The Internet was “possibly participative democracy's major tool,” he added, and it was up to us to make it a tool for knowledge, not manipulation. Adriano Farano of the CafeBabel.com webzine said the Internet 2.0 would allow the challenge of multilingualism to be tackled. The Director of the Centre for Direct Democracy Studies of the University of Geneva Alexander Trechsel said he had found nothing on “e-democracy” in the White Paper, yet the “best laboratory” was at European level. Warning of the dangers of a “push-button democracy”, he felt electronic mechanisms should “always” be used to supplement traditional ways of involving citizens. Debbie Wilkie, Director of the Scottish Civil Forum, warned of the risk of exclusion that systematic use of the Internet could bring. In Scotland, 30% of people did not have Internet access, she said. The Commission circulated a note on direct consultation tools available through the “Europa” portal.
European Citizen Initiative. On the sidelines of the conference, the “European Citizen Initiative” alliance campaigned for the application of the right to petition contained in the Constitution (see EUROPE 9301). Asked by EUROPE about this campaign, Margot Wallström welcomed the initiative, while pointing out that the Commission remained “hesitant” over picking out some parts of the Constitutional Treaty because of the opposition from some Member States.
Institutional crisis. “Communication only exists from the moment there is content,” said Mr Sørensen. He stressed the need to “encourage citizens and NGOs to reflect” on tomorrow's major challenges “to help politicians take the right decisions”. Such reflection would not break the deadlock in the institutional crisis paralysing the EU. “The EU is in crisis,” said Mr Geremek, regretting “the return to national interest to the detriment of European interest”. Citizens had to be told that if no progress was made, we would go backwards, he said. In “the weakness and failure of the political parties”, Andrew Duff (AKDE, UK) saw the nub of the inter-institutional crisis. Mario Monti, the former Competition Commissioner and President of ECAS, said the fault was particularly that of “national governments which have got into the habit of polluting European public space by distancing themselves only a few minutes after taking a decision in Brussels”. There was talk of many instruments, tools and mechanisms, but “Do we have a European dream?” asked Markku Wilenius.
There will be three other follow-up conferences on the Paper: on the media in Helsinki on 4-5 December; in Berlin at the start of January with Member States; and on the principles of information and communication in Brussels in February. (mb)