Divergences or misunderstandings? Are there perhaps more misunderstandings than divergences between the European Parliament and the Civil Society Forum? (EUROPE 9888). Both parties agree on most things: that dialogue between the representative organisations of civil society and the EU institutions be deepened and strengthened, and that this dialogue be organised in a way that allows civil society to effectively influence European decisions. Organisations representing civil society should, however, prove their legitimacy and representativeness. The institutions and MEPs should, in particular, know who their interlocutors are and who funds them.
Demand for clarity. There needs to be a clear distinction between pressure groups who have the right to speak on their own behalf and the charities and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) that defend a general interest. Pressure groups also have the right to be heard and listened to but they have to declare who they actually are. The role of politics is to define the general interest and make decisions. The EU, for example, is at this precise moment experiencing a particularly sensitive and sharp conflict between the interests of fishermen from certain regions, for whom fishing is not only a vital activity but also a tradition and way of life, and the safeguarding of the sea and the survival of numerous species of fish. The respective demands are legitimate but partly contradictory and politics must be about arbitrating on behalf of the general interest and safeguarding the future.
The conflict is therefore not between political leaders on the one hand and social or economic activists on the other but rather, emanates from the different demands, which each have a certain legitimacy. This is why arbitration is often difficult and the choices made differ according to the political shade of the decision-makers. Sometimes, major principles are under threat. Human rights activists call for a freeze in relations with Russia due to a given line taken by the Kremlin in Chechnya, Georgia or elsewhere but any interruption in gas supplies is catastrophic for entire nations. It is easier to defend major principles when one is not responsible for defending the national interest, economy or wellbeing of citizens. Politics is about making a decision and those making it can sometimes get it wrong. They cannot, however, ignore their responsibilities.
Dialogue is sometimes difficult. Civil society's demand to be listened to and financed adequately is legitimate but so too is the demand for civil society to be transparent and representative. Organising the dialogue between political leaders and civil society is not easy. Several attempts have been made and several instruments exist, particularly for imposing transparency on the lobbies and regulating their relations with the institutions. The Commission and European Parliament (the absence of the Council is regrettable) have just agreed, in principle, on a few essential points: the code of conduct and the common register of interest groups (lobbies). These instruments, however, have already been accused of creating a false impression of transparency (EUROPE 9889). Other initiatives have not been followed up, such as the Commission's project for a statute of European association for “non-profit making NGOs”. The Civil Society Forum acknowledged that the updating of a European Statute of Association is not easy. The Lisbon Treaty will improve the situation but we are still waiting for it.
From think-tanks to information bodies. In a lively and quite controversial speech made on 17 April, European Commissioner Siim Kallas called on the think-tanks to be transparent and requested that they place themselves on the lobbies register. The majority of them believe it “absolutely crucial that they are able to project an image of independence” (EUROPE 9884). The full text of the speech suggests that Kallas considers a large number of think-tanks are not really independent and are funded by private interests. The title of his speech was in fact, “A more transparent and accountable Commission - And what about the Think-Tanks?” We sometimes get the impression that a similar opacity exists in the area of European news. The media that increasingly distributes daily news about Europe and its activities free of charge, are multiplying. Some of them explicitly indicate that companies or industrial groups fund them, others are much more discreet.
Is it not appropriate that the transparency required for the lobbies, charities and think-tanks also applies to information agencies?
(F.R./transl.rh)