Case study: Citizen participation at the European level
This article was written by Audrey Fontaine.
Introduction.
The 2020 Eurobarometer survey showed that citizens’ trust in the EU remained high throughout the COVID-19 crisis , and higher than trust in national governments or parliaments. The survey also highlighted that 53% of Europeans are satisfied with how democracy works in the EU, despite the complexity of its institutions. Participatory mechanisms have often been discussed in European institutions. For a long time, EU citizens could directly interact with European institutions only through the right of petition to the European parliament. The treaty of Lisbon, signed in 2009, formally recognized the role of participatory democracy by introducing 4 instruments: European Citizens Initiative, Formal complaints to the ombudsman, Public Consultations, and Citizens Dialogues.
Among EU’s participatory mechanisms, 2 are bottom-up, enabling citizens to challenge the existing policies, and trigger some processes themselves (ECI & petitions). On the other hand, consultations and dialogues are top-down mechanisms enabling citizens to discuss pre-set topics.
In this case study, we will analyze 2 instruments (one bottom-up, one top-down), how meaningful they are in influencing EU policy and decision-making, their impact on EU democracy, and their limits. We end by discussing what can be done to further improve participative democracy in Europe.
European participatory mechanisms.
The European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI), implemented in 2012, is the first supranational instrument allowing citizens to participate directly in the law-making process of the EU. It grants European citizens, under certain conditions (one million signatures, of at least seven member states, gathered within twelve months), to invite the European Commission to legislate and act on a specific matter of interest. However, the existing procedures are so complex and user-unfriendly that it strongly limits citizens’ capacity to use it.
Between the launch of ECI and now, about 70 submissions were made, and only 4 made it to the commission examination level. Many concerns have been raised about the discretionary nature of this instrument, the Commission being the one deciding whether a topic is under the scope of its power or beyond. Among the few initiatives that made it to the Commission evaluation, none had resulted in real legislative actions, deceiving citizens’ expectations to effectively influence policy-making and change existing policies. To address these shortfalls and close the expectation-delivery gap that is source of citizens’ frustration, the ECI should be reviewed by the European commission, with the aim of broadening legal admissibility and increasing follow-ups.
The other instrument we will discuss are the direct consultations of citizens, organized by the European Commission on all major new initiatives that it is preparing. Citizens can express their views, priorities, evaluation of the existing policies and law, before the Commission tables the proposal. Results of citizens’ consultations are then presented to member states and fed into the proposal. Consultations are opened to everyone, with the aim to reach as wide of a scope of citizens and stakeholders as possible. To do so, digital tools have been used. A single access point web portal, “Your Voice in Europe”, was created. Through this portal, any European citizen can access questionnaires designed by the directorates generals of the Commission. However, participants to the consultations are rarely ordinary citizens from broad background. They are mostly professionals or experts of the field, or from lobby groups. The overall number of responses to the consultations is also very deceptive. Thus, the Commission has tried to engage further in social networks, diversify its digital tools to allow more direct spontaneous exchanges and facilitate policy co-creation process. The commission has also given the opportunity to citizens to give their opinion on ways to improve digital consultations and participative processes (Digital Futures, eGovernment4Eu).
Conclusion
The EU institutions already have a range of mechanisms to support citizen participation. Yet, their effectiveness in increasing citizen’s influence over the EU decision-making process is limited.
Most forms of official participative tools are used by restrictive groups of citizen rather than “ordinary” ones: organized lobby group in ECI (to reach the number of signature and time for submission), groups of professional interest in the formal complaints to the ombudsman, experts in a particular field in digital consultations. Thus, citizens tend to have fewer rights to voice and consultation than civil society organizations. Only petitions and citizens dialogue really include individual citizens. But their power is relatively weak, and mainly transparency-oriented. So far, the EU has favored top-downs instruments that provide more transparency in policy-making and improve policy outcomes, rather than bottom-up instruments that foster collaborative decision-making and allow citizens to make their voices heard.
Citizens input are restricted to the consultative phase of policy-making. Many steps remain to be made to go towards a more participatory and deliberative democracy. But national examples such as the citizen assembly in Ireland and the Grand Débat in France have demonstrated that large scale deliberative and participatory processes are possible, giving hope for more citizens’ empowerment and deliberative processes in European democracy. There is a need for a judicious balance of mediated and unmediated citizen engagement in the multi-level complex governance of the EU, with coordinated approach and action among all levels. The challenge will be to design participation in a way that improves democratic accountability on the overall.
In 2020, the European Commission presented its European Democracy Action Plan to empower citizens and build more resilient democracies across the EU. This document contains a pillar to promote democratic engagement and active participation beyond elections. The implementation of this strategical document will be key to take citizen participation to the next level.
This article has been published as per submission by the student (the author) and based on the lecture given by the professor in the context of an assignment, for comments or edits please contact the author : name.lastname@sciencespo.fr
References:
(1) European Commission. Press Release. “Latest Eurobarometer survey (July-August): Economic situation is EU citizens’ top concern in light of the coronavirus pandemic”. Oct 2020 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_20_1975
(2) European union, “Have your say on EU policies”, https://europa.eu/european-union/law/have-your-say_en
(3) European Movement international, “Enhancing Citizen Participation in the European Union” https://europeanmovement.eu/emi-enhancing-citizen-participation-in-the-european-union/
(4) L.Hennen, &al. “European E-democracy in Practice”. Springer. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27184-8
(5) S. Russak. “Pathways for Citizens to Engage in EU Policymaking”. CEPS Policy Insight. November 2018. https://www.ceps.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/PI2018_14_SR_2CU%20chapter%20on%20Pathways%20for%20Citizens%20to%20Engage%20in%20EU%20Policymaking.pdf
(6) R. Young. “Can Citizen Participation Really Revive European Democracy?” . Carnegie Europe. July 2019, https://carnegieeurope.eu/2019/07/30/can-citizen-participation-really-revive-european-democracy-pub-79588
