At the beginning I didn't pay much attention to last month's “deliberative polling” on the opinions and wishes of citizens about European construction. There are so many of them and so many opinion polls! The oldest of them, Eurobarometer set up by Jacques Rabier is the most popular and most quoted. The others focus on specific subjects. Why add another one, even if it does add a few methodological innovations? I was wrong and I believe we should congratulate the Notre Europe association for having sponsored this initiative, as well as those who carried it out, as it adds something new.
A new method. Traditional opinion polls ask people to give their opinions about such and such an aspect of Europe and allow for an opinion to be gauged on subjects such as Turkish accession, the advantages (or disadvantages) of the single currency, and their priorities for the future etc. It's a photograph of a given moment. A deliberative poll is something else. This is how it works: a certain number of citizens are selected, chosen in a way to be representatives of public opinion. They are then invited to debate a number of European options. Its starting point is a traditional one: citizens speak for or against an orientation, a choice or demand. Afterwards, however, a core of representative citizens from different member states are then asked to discuss between them the reasons for their choices and compare them in a discussion that takes an opposing view. This confrontation of views then produces a majority or indeed unanimous orientation. In the ordinary polls, the positions of the people polled very often only take into account one aspect of the subject discussed and ignore the others. In deliberative polling, the discussion allows for previously neglected arguments to be considered and positions can develop, which is what effectively happened in this case.
Through his support of the project, the founder of Notre Europe, Jacques Delors, had underlined that this method could enable Europeans to “express more of an informed and well thought out opinion”. The organisers explained that “the aim is to determine what conclusions the population could draw if it had the opportunity of meeting, obtaining balanced information, and getting more involved in the political process” - in other words, if it had the opportunity to debate different options.
The first phase occurred last month. An opinion poll company (TNS Sofres) asked 3,500 citizens from 27 member states about key subjects on the future of the EU: the constitution, Turkish accession, pension reform, etc. 400 citizens were then brought together in Brussels (in the buildings of the European Parliament and Economic and Social Committee) to discuss different choices, with the chance to question European officials in charge of different briefs. The exercise clarified and partly modified the results of the initial polls. The overall results were published on 18 October in Lisbon in an effort to provide heads of state and government (they met the following day) with information about them.
Opinions evolve. Let's be quite clear: the impact of this deliberative poll on the work of the European Council was zilch. The different delegations submitted in a file the figures that had been sent them and it is quite likely that none of the government leaders even glanced at them. What was the point of the exercise then? For me, the interesting point lies in the observation that citizens' opinions can evolve if they study the dossiers and participate in a debate where different opinions are expressed. Thus changes to the age of retirement, originally rejected by 62% of citizens polled, saw opposition fall to 42% after the discussion, and the opinion that keeping the current pension systems would lead to a collapse of the system jumped from 49.8% to 58.9%. Support for Turkish accession slipped from 55% to 45% between the two phases. These are, of course, only examples.
Advantages and prospects. This first exercise appears to suggest that deliberative polling methods could (if it were theoretically possible to make them more widespread) even influence the results of a referendum, and that knowledge of the dossiers and reflection could change a sometimes superficial motivation that can determine the approval or rejection of a project. It could improve the way “participatory democracy” works because choices are based on better knowledge of the arguments. However, even if it remains largely episodic, I think Gaëtane Ricard-Nihoul, Secretary General of Notre Europe, should not abandon the principle behind it. (F.R.)