The permanent dialogue between the EU institutions and the voluntary and community sector, also known as 'civil society,' is already expanding but the European Civic Forum wants the dialogue to be further extended and institutionalised. It has published a manifesto of demands and organised a round table recently where the political parties present at the European Parliament were invited to express their views (see my column in yesterday's newsletter). The debate showed that misunderstanding still exists.
A realistic starting point. Speaking for the EPP-ED Group at the EP, Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou, Vice-President of the EP, hammered home that the EU and its institutions have democratic legitimacy but admitted that a more participatory democracy would certainly be better equipped to deal with the current challenges, which demand a high level of consultation and consensus. She therefore favours “a structured general framework that is efficient and sustainable for European 'civil dialogue,' (…) which can influence EU decisions and policies more effectively.” But on two conditions: a) the organisation of such dialogue “must not lead to rigid, formal structures in addition to the bureaucratic structures”; and b) civil society networks and bodies have to prove they are legitimate and representative. The European Economic and Social Council (EESC) already comprises organised civil society; interest groups and “lobbyists in general” regularly express their views to the EU institutions; the EP itself directly represents ordinary people. The existing structure must be taken into account. The EU needs an active, involved and organised civil society at EU level; but it is necessary to “safeguard the fundamental structures and procedures of the institutional democratic system, especially elections (…) Increasing the 'expression modalities' for civil society should not lead to a weakening or a devaluation of the traditional democratic process.” What should be done is to “enlarge our vision of democracy with more flexible structures and procedures that are better able to express the views of civil society more directly,” without forgetting that new technology “makes it possible for large numbers of ordinary people to get involved in the decision-making process at local authority level, regional level and national level.” But Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou recognises the utility of an alliance based on working side-by-side rather than in competition, which would give civil society more effective control over executive powers in order to “get as many social stakeholders as possible in the decision-making process.”
“Representativity criteria”. The other MEPs who spoke at the round table stressed specific issues. Speaking on behalf of the Socialists, Jo Leinen stressed the need for clarity. The term civil society is used to cover a vast array of different types of bodies and cultural baggage; it has to be structured, representative criteria need to be defined and it needs statutory status. As long as these conditions are met, Leinen is in favour of a one-off grant being given by the EU to provide the necessary funding to set up permanent dialogue. For the ALDE Group, Andrew Duff said clarity was required; MEPs had to be informed about all speakers, knowing on whose behalf they are speaking, and who they really represent (not just who they claim to represent). Speaking on behalf of the Green group, Jean Lambert broadly agreed with the demands in the European Civil Forum's Manifesto but said further clarification was needed in some areas. For example, what is a suitable European legal status for associations? Is this a recognition procedure? Speaking on behalf of the United Left group, Gabriele Zimmer said his group was planning to relay to the EP the ideas and opinions of people who remained on the fringes of the institutions or who are members of minorities. For some targets, like poverty reduction, the role of the voluntary and community sector is crucial and pressure from the sector plays a useful role.
Clarifications. The European Civil Forum's rapporteur, Jan-Robert Suesser, explained a few points. The EU funding being requested is not simply to fund the organisation of dialogue, but also to enable civil society to research and prepare its arguments. As for the representativity of NGOs and voluntary and community groups, several networks have given themselves criteria and plenty of preparatory material already exists. There are so many different kinds of associations and set-ups that it is not easy to create one size that fits all but the issue was being worked upon. The condition of speaking at EU level might be a starting point. Several civil society representatives spoke during the debate, often to voice criticism of the MEPs.
I will try to draw conclusions from the overall debate over the role of civil society in my column in the near future, taking all aspects into account, including the difference between associations and NGOs on the one hand, and representative lobby groups on the other.
(F.R./transl.fl)