In the debate on the democratic functioning of Europe, it is civil society's moment. Following the initiative of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) to present its Programme for Europe, of which civil society has had sight, the European Civic Forum has adopted its Manifesto for a Genuine European Civic Dialogue and held a round table in Brussels last week to present it and discuss it with the European Parliament. The Forum has taken its position in the perspective of the forthcoming European elections and the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, which recognises and reinforces the role of civil society within the EU. Do I need to stress the importance of these initiatives? It is generally acknowledged that Europe and its institutions are not well enough known to the citizens, who do not necessarily understand them; civil society believes that it can play a leading role in improving this situation. All of this is highly positive for Europe. It is with this in mind that the author of these lines commented on the initiative of the EESC (bulletin 9873) and attended the meeting - which was not without its stormy moments - between the Forum and the members of the European Parliament.
Some aspects clarified, some confusion persists. Relations between representative democracy (based on free elections and universal suffrage) and participative democracy (the expression of organisations representing civil society) can be tense, as we know, and have been known to give rise to disagreements and differences of opinion. Most of the disagreements have been overcome and the respective responsibilities have been clarified. The representatives of the social and economic categories defend legitimate, but sectorial, interests. Elected representatives must weigh everything up when they define what the general interest is; and it is up to them to decide. This general principle is no longer contested. But not everything is that easy.
Demands. The organisations which met in the civil society Forum stress that they do not represent sectorial interests, but interests of a general nature: Youth Forum, European movements, social platform, environmental organisations, human rights defenders, etc. These are associations and NGOs (non-governmental organisations), not pressure groups. They call for the terms and funding of their involvement in European public life to be defined. The Forum's manifesto provides answers and requests: a formalised framework for dialogue with the institutions; to be consulted from the initial stage of all projects; appropriate funding.
Clarifications and requests. During the round table, Paolo Ponzano, a high-level European Commission civil servant, reminded his audience of the actions carried out by that institution to develop civil dialogue: funding to civil society organisations (€9.6 million over the last three years); reinforcing transparency by means of extending access to documents; agreements with a number of organisations on the implementation of humanitarian aid funded by the EU; recommendation for a code of conduct for non-profit NGOs. All of this means that the process of establishing criteria for the representativeness of NGOs is underway. The Treaty of Lisbon will bring in a number of new elements: the formal recognition of participative democracy alongside representative democracy; the obligatory nature of civil dialogue; the creation of the citizens' initiative, bringing in an instrument of direct democracy in the European decision-making process. For his part, MEP Richard Corbett stressed that these two forms of democracy complement each other; the responsibility for decisions comes down to the institutions of the EU, but only after they have consulted civil society. Ms Kaufmann, rapporteur of the EP on the citizens' initiative, pointed out that only 12 member states out of 27 recognized this as a possibility at national level. In Europe, a million signatures (collected in at least four member states) would be enough to trigger the initiative.
Then, the contributions made on behalf of the political groups of the European Parliament confirmed that a few differences of opinion and a certain amount of mistrust subsist. The vice-president of the Forum and rapporteur on the manifesto, Jan-Robert Suesser, stressed the need for the role of civil society in the European institutional framework and in all decision-making procedures to be clarified, in order to respond to the concerns and misgivings of the citizens regarding European integration. We must make them feel that they can make their voices heard, that they are being listened to. Dialogue must be open and ongoing. Mr Suesser called for a clear response from the Parliament on two issues: a) taking due account of the results of civil dialogue; b) adequate financial resources to allow dialogue to be permanent.
Tomorrow, this column will summarise the stances taken by the members of the European Parliament.
(F.R./transl.fl)