The Conference on the Future of Europe represented a positive first step in the innovation of European democracy. Policymakers will need to use the experience as a catalyst for broader change, well beyond the kind of citizen engagement pioneered during the conference.
The Conference on the Future of Europe
(CoFoE) concluded on May 9 with mixed results for democratic reform. EU
officials worked hard to design an innovative process that gave citizens
a voice in key debates over the EU’s future. However, ambitious and
wide-ranging follow-up will be required if the conference is to generate
tangible progress toward democratic renovation. While the CoFoE was
undoubtedly the most open and participative exercise of this kind that
the EU has ever held, it did little to address the broader state of
European democracy. The conference may lead to one or more regular
EU-level citizen forums; the even more important advance would be if it
serves as a catalyst for wider democratic improvements across Europe.
Citizens’ Chance
Richard Youngs is a
senior fellow in the Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program, based
at Carnegie Europe. He works on EU foreign policy and on issues of
international democracy.
Despite its rocky start, the CoFoE offered
a refreshing contrast with previous elite-dominated intergovernmental
conferences. Initially, the conference preparations were tense,
prolonged, and fractious. The start date was pushed back due to
considerable interinstitutional wrangling. There were moments when many
member states seemed intent on retaining so much control that the
citizens’ input would have been largely symbolic. It is remarkable that
the CoFoE ultimately gave European citizens a far more meaningful role
than might have been expected, even if it is governments that will now
decide how the conference’s proposals are taken forward.
The conference’s four thematic citizen
panels gave 800 randomly selected citizens the ability to explore an
extremely wide range of topics and policies. Citizens were able to
deliberate on new agenda items and ideas, and then presented 178 policy
recommendations. Over a hundred of the citizens involved in the panels
also participated in the conference
plenary. In parallel, a digital platform enabled thousands of citizens
to offer further input, with Decidim software (pioneered in Barcelona)
enabling interactions across different languages. Also, after initially
being frozen out of the conference, civil society organizations were included in its plenary, albeit in limited form.
Some deliberative experts expressed concerns
that the randomly selected citizens were considering overly broad sets
of issues in a short time frame and that the panels felt more like open
conferences rather than carefully targeted deliberation. Critics also
pointed out that there was no role for minority rights groups, pushing
aside rights-oriented agenda items. Another concern was that some
(although not all) of the EU institutions and experts guiding the panels
tilted debates toward their own desired outcomes. Input on the digital
platform came mainly from well-organized pressure groups with technical
expertise rather than the so-called unengaged citizenry.
Citizen panel recommendations fed into the
plenary that included citizens alongside government and EU
representatives—this hybrid form standing in contrast to standard
citizen assembly processes. It was not clear at first how these
recommendations would be dealt with in the plenary, as there was no
predetermined process that guaranteed they would be taken on board.
Several filters existed between citizen deliberation and the outcome:
so-called working groups chose their favored recommendations from the
panels; the plenary could then pick and choose from these working
groups; an executive board could in turn pick and choose from the
plenary; and finally, governments are likely to pick and choose from the
final set of recommendations.
Despite all the shortcomings, however, the
CoFoE undoubtedly put the need for citizen engagement more prominently
on the EU agenda—adding to the momentum created by other initiatives
like the union’s new Competence Centre on Participative and Deliberative Democracy.
Some teething difficulties in creating the first transnational panels
were to be expected, as tried and tested national- or city-level citizen
assembly processes cannot simply be cut-and-pasted to the EU level. The
conference’s final report
calls for citizen assemblies to be held “periodically” in the future.
The exercise has raised expectations around citizen participation that
will be hard to rebottle. Surveys suggest that citizens are certainly interested
in directly participating in EU-level decisionmaking beyond the
conference. The European Commission plans to reassemble the
citizen-panel participants later in 2022 to review what progress has
been made on their recommendations....
more at Carnegie Europe
© Carnegie Europe
Key
Hover over the blue highlighted
text to view the acronym meaning
Hover
over these icons for more information
Comments:
No Comments for this Article