Democratic Participation in a Citizens’
Europe: What Next for the EU?
Conference Report
University of Liverpool - 5th May 2016
Liverpool European Law Unit
THE START OF A NEW CONVERSATION ON EU PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY
Brought to you by:

Liverpool European
Law Unit, at the School
of Law and Social
Justice, University of
Liverpool

The ECI Campaign

The Democratic Society

People2Power

Citizens for Europe
Report Contents:
Overarching
Conference Themes
2-4
Paths to Participatory
5-7
Democracy
Social Movements and
Campaigning
5
Deliberative
Democracy
6
Direct Democracy and
Crowdsourcing
7
Charting a Course
Forward
8-9
Moments of crisis can contain
within them the seeds for
revitalising reforms and future
progress. Since the 2008 global
financial meltdown, European
Union
(EU)
policy
has
increasingly been made by
elites using the least democratic
methods and within the
institutions least accountable to
citizens. This can make EU
governance appear at times like
a medieval siege with elites
huddling behind fortress walls,
terrified to let down the
drawbridge lest populist hoards
destroy all they have built.
Tragically, blinded by fear,
leaders fail to see their
strongest potential allies: the
majority of ordinary citizens
who just want the EU political
system to be fair. This requires
that citizens have meaningful
opportunities
to
influence
policy - even if most never get
involved.
“Participatory democracy is the
middle ground between the
elitist-populist death spiral.”
–
Bruno
People2Power
Kaufmann,
On 5th May 2016, just weeks
before British voters were set to
decide on the UK’s EU
membership,
participatory
democracy
activists
and
researchers sat down together
in Liverpool to begin to explore
how citizen participation might
revitalise the European project.
This report shares highlights
from these discussions.
A
companion publication to be
published in late 2016 will
explore many of these issues in
greater depth.
“If we do not raise the level of
engagement (in politics) then
we (society) will fail.”
– Conference participant
NOTE ABOUT THIS REPORT
This report is a global synthesis of ideas
pulled from speeches and numerous
small group discussions that took place
throughout the conference on 5th May
2016, as well as articles that appeared
prior
to
the
event
on
www.people2power.info.
Ideas are
organised by theme. Individuals are
quoted when their names are known.
Workshop
and
table
discussion
summaries refer to ideas recorded in
written notes. Information was pulled
from recorded speeches, table group
notes, workshop note-takers, Twitter
comments and idea wall comments.
1
On Twitter
@livuni_LELU
@Demsoc
#DemEU16
@people2power
@ECInow
Democratic Participation in a Citizens’ Europe: What Next for the EU?
Page 2
OVERARCHING CONFERENCE THEMES
Throughout the day, several broad themes emerged repeatedly in different
contexts and voiced by diverse participants. Below is a summary.
Social movements, deliberative democracy and direct democracy are complementary.
There is no single “best”
form of citizen participation
for the EU level. Each serves
a different purpose. Social
movements allow issues to
bubble
up
from
the
grassroots and amass citizen
power to pressure decisionmakers. Deliberative forums
bring ordinary citizens into
the heart of decision-making
where
they
can
act
collectively for the common
good. Direct democracy tools
ensure that citizens can impact
policy and will therefore be
motivated to engage.
These distinctions aren’t strict
and there is much overlap.
Direct democracy can facilitate
deliberation and issue learning.
Deliberative forums can lead to
binding decisions and inspire
citizens
to
join
social
movements. Social movements
can use deliberation and help
issues to ripen to the point they
are ready for a direct
democracy tool such as a
referendum.
“Deliberative democracy is a
form of direct democracy. The
difference is the format.”
– table group summary
“The educational
aspects of direct
Improve what exists first.
democracy are
most important.
The more you
participate, the
more you learn.”
– workshop
summary
Many
participants
were
surprised by how many EU tools
for citizen participation already
exist -- such as the European
Citizens’
Initiative
(ECI),
petitions to the European
Parliament,
stakeholder
consultations and online policy
crowdsourcing tools such as
Futurium for science and
innovation. They are all
underused. Most are poorly
communicated to citizens.
Some have significant design
flaws. All have untapped
potential. There is clearly much
that can be done with current
tools
and
infrastructure.
“We have democracy without
democratic accountability or
effective governance. Start
with what we have and make
that better.”
- Peter Cruickshank, Edinburgh
Napier University
Add an EU-level citizen deliberative body.
What seems to be entirely
missing at EU level are ways to
bring ordinary citizens into the
heart of EU decision-making -where they may deliberate
policy options and decide which
are best for the common good.
To meet this need, a proposal
for institutionalising a European
Citizens Assembly made up of
rotating groups of ordinary
citizens chosen at random
found
many
enthusiastic
supporters.
“Decision-making by
deliberation among free and
equal citizens… is about as
far away from current EU
practices as one could get.”
– Graham Smith, University
of Westminster
2
Democratic Participation in a Citizens’ Europe: What Next for the EU?
Page 3
Participatory democracy must be designed by and for people, not bureaucrats.
Both EU participatory tools and
communication
methods
operate in a top-down manner
that meets decision-makers’
needs but not those of most
citizens. Issues are framed from
the point of view of elites and
exclude
critiques
and
contentious debate. They thus
fail to connect with citizens.
Citizens will engage with EU
policy if it touches what they
care about. Open debate,
where diverse views may be
thoroughly explored, is also
healthy
for
democracy.
Better EU civic education, more
accessible communications and
user-friendly participatory tools
are all helpful. However,
ultimately what is needed is a
cultural shift toward active
citizenship where citizens are
expected to be part of the EU
policy-making process.
“Stop imposing a subject on
citizens. Most people don’t see
how it impacts their everyday
life. We need to find a new
way to speak about Europe.”
– Lucie Anizon,L’ Institut de la
Concertation
Create a neutral EU public participation authority.
Participants
concluded
that
participatory democracy tools
need neutral watchdogs to avoid
their co-option by powerful
entities. EU institutions, including
the Commission, were judged
inappropriate. They are neither
genuinely neutral nor do they
possess the necessary skills and
expertise to engage citizens.
“Participation is a
culture change… so
that it’s not just…
where Brussels asks
people to
participate, but
where people
expect to
participate.” –
Anthony
Zacharzewski, The
Democratic Society
- The Ideas Wall -
Participatory democracy enhances representative democracy and
complements technical expertise. It does not replace either.
As the only directly elected EU
institution, it is concerning that
the European Parliament is
increasingly cut out of decisionmaking. Citizen participation
tools could be designed to
specifically
enhance
its
influence (e.g., an e-petition
that leads to a plenary debate
in
Parliament).
Technical
expertise is vital to inform
deliberation and decisionmaking among both citizens
and elites. This is also the role
of issue-expert NGOs which
citizens can directly support
either by offering their skills as
volunteers or with financial
donations.
“Since the financial crisis,
the EU has closed off
avenues for engagement….
(there’s a) need to
rebalance the powers
between institutions… Stop
fearing citizens….The
European Parliament is an
ally to social movements.”
– Louisa Parks, University of
Lincoln
3
Democratic Participation in a Citizens’ Europe: What Next for the EU?
Page 4
The EU needs a “networked” or “platform” infrastructure for participatory democracy.
Citizens need multiple channels
through which they can engage
with European policy issues.
These could be local, national,
regional or EU-wide. They could
be
via
intermediary
organisations such as national
parliaments or civil society
organisations. They could also
engage citizens directly with EU
institutions. They could be
online or face-to-face. All these
different approaches need to be
networked to enhance citizen
voice and power.
“There is a
danger in
thinking that
participation
takes place
locally. So many
problems are at
European level.”
– Graham Smith,
University of
Westminster
“We need to move
from individual
innovations to
something that
looks like a
network or
platform for EU
democracy.”
- Anthony
Zacharzewski, The
Democratic Society
Technology can make any citizen participation process easier to scale
and spread transnationally.
“Technology is always
making things easier.
Whatever the exact
forum that materialises,
someone will come up
with it.”
– Oliver Escobar, University of Edinburgh
Technology has made
many things possible
that were previously
considered impossible. It’s
already being used to build
transnational social movements, facilitate citizen deliberation and simplify participation via direct democracy.
Digital exclusion is certainly a
concerning reality but we
should not be stopped by
what now look like insurmountable logistical challenges to EU-wide citizen participation.
Institutionalising participatory democracy at EU level is challenging, but worth the effort.
The overall conference mood was
one of hope and possibility. The
EU level is much more complex
than the national level with many
logistical
and
procedural
challenges to citizen involvement.
Strong elite resistance and poor
public understanding of the EU
create more barriers.
However, public participation at
EU level is both possible and
necessary.
4
“Elite involvement won’t
disappear. (Is this) legal rock
throwing?”
- table group
Democratic Participation in a Citizens’ Europe: What Next for the EU?
Page 5
PATHS TO PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY
This conference brought together practitioners and researchers who specialise in different approaches
to public participation: social movements, deliberative democracy and direct democracy. Although
they found much overlap and complementarity, it is equally important to keep in mind the specificities
of each approach and how each could be strengthened at EU level.
Social Movements and Campaigning
What
unites
approaches
grouped loosely as “social
movements and campaigning”
is that they are entirely grassroots driven. Citizens, not elites,
set the agenda. They themselves decide on which issues to
engage. Through diverse actions, they raise awareness and
facilitate public discussion of
issues and support policy ideas
to ripen to the point where
they may become law. Through
collective action, citizens also
amass power that can convince
decision-makers to act.
“Social movements have always
been there to negotiate power
relations with an emerging centralised state...and the boundaries of
citizenship (what is right and
wrong in our societies).”
– Louisa Parks, University of Lincoln
After the financial crisis of 2008,
social movements lost many of
their best outlets within the EU
institutions. More policy decisions were taken using intergovernmental rather than community methods. Policy-making
responsibilities within the Commission moved from civil society friendly DGs to those closer
to industry. At the same time,
the grassroots base weakened
as Brussels-based civil society
organisations professionalised
to be expert lobbyists, and European social movements became more localised (e.g., occupation of public squares).
Many Brussels-based policymakers appear oblivious to
citizens’ frustration with how
the EU works and feel no need
for change. Only grassroots
citizen actions can convince
them otherwise. Given this,
speakers and participants focused on how to reinvigorate
and trans-nationalise European
social movements.
matically reduced costs and
timelines, as well as increased
the sophistication and effectiveness, of EU-wide issue campaigning. Professional campaigners now combine mass
online petitions with targeted
actions that focus on specific
decision-makers and mobilise
the groups most relevant to
them. Organisations such as
WeMove.eu are going a step
further to build communities of
like-minded citizens who themselves
set
the
agenda.
“Lobbying and campaigning are
linked. It’s about giving citizens
tools to shout louder… Decouple
public opinion from being co-opted
by business to enable citizen
voice.”
– table group summary
Individual citizens can use data
now easily available online to
become citizen lobbyists. They
can advocate policies using
social media, talk with policymakers in person or use their
skills to support civil society
organisations. Not only will
deeper citizen involvement
improve the quality of policies,
but using one’s talents for the
common good enhances human
well-being. However, prospective citizen lobbyists need to be
supported to use advocacy
tools and connect with issue
organisations.
“Campaigning together on issues
builds solidarity and cohesion. We
focus on what unites us rather
than what divides us. Ultimately
unity is what is needed for the EU
project to succeed.”
– Rebecca Baron, WeMove.eu
“There are lots of
fantastic ideas, but
they all need to
work together.
There is no single
solution that’s going
to change the way
the EU works.”
– James Organ,
University of
Liverpool
“Policy-making needs citizens.
Don’t leave it purely to the professionals…Voting is too little and
running for office is too much.
Citizen lobbying is in-between.”
– Alberto Alemanno, HEC and The
Good Lobby
Dynamic and flexible EU-wide
social movements are being
built using online and offline
community organising techniques. Technology has dra-
5
Democratic Participation in a Citizens’ Europe: What Next for the EU?
Page 6
Deliberative Democracy
Deliberative democracy brings ordinary citizens
who don’t necessarily have an issue to promote
into the heart of decision-making. Citizens are
given the information and structures they need
to deliberate the strengths and weaknesses of
policy options, as well as express their preferences. Deliberative forums may be designed as
consultative exercises or empower citizens to
take binding decisions. However, issues are
typically chosen and framed by decisionmakers, not by citizens
themselves.
“There’s a lot of
hunger for
popular
participation in
the EU. At the
moment, it’s
about working out
the institutions.”
– Jeremy Moulton
Deliberative democracy seems to be entirely
missing from the EU policy-making process.
There have been a few experiments with deliberative forums (e.g., Plan D), but none impacted policy or was made permanent. Consultations with civil society organisations or debates
in Parliament are sometimes equated with
deliberative democracy. However, unlike citizens, members of these bodies cannot easily
change their minds or search for a solution that
is best for society overall. They must prioritise
the goals of their organisation’s members or
political party.
“How about an ECA to represent future generations?”
- table group summary
While there was a lot of interest in integrating
citizen deliberation into EU policy-making, design
problems still need to be worked out. There are
obvious challenges of language and distance, some
of which could be solved by technology. Deliberation also needs to be designed to welcome all
viewpoints, including Eurosceptic voices which
elites can see as threatening. However, the major
challenge seems to be fitting it into an already
complex
policy-making
process.
“What would its role be? Consultative? Veto
power? Enforce a referendum? Set agenda? Decide?”
- table group summary
“Some writers have suggested that the EU is a
deliberative system…but what is missing is
democracy. Citizens have very little part in
that system.”
– Graham Smith, University of Westminster
Several deliberative democracy tools used in
local and national government could be
adapted to the EU level. The idea that was
most widely discussed was a European Citizens’
Assembly (ECA) made up of randomly-selected
citizen who represent the EU’s diversity. It
would be far more diverse than any existing EU
institution -- in age, gender, education, profession and social class -- as well as protected
from lobbyists and political pressure. ECAs
could be held occasionally on contentious issues, as an outcome of a successful ECI
(European Citizens’ Initiative) or even become a
new EU institution with a regular role in policymaking.
“Why not a chair in the European Council (for
the ECA)?”
– Twitter comment
6
“The EU is already very complex. Is there a space
for another institution?”
- table group summary
Democratic Participation in a Citizens’ Europe: What Next for the EU?
Page 7
Direct Democracy and Crowdsourcing
Direct democracy tools empower citizens to have a
concrete impact on policy.
They thus offer a highly compelling incentive for citizens
to participate. Since all citizens have a chance to influence policy, they also enhance the representativeness
of representative democracy.
Similarly, crowdsourcing taps
into the wisdom and experiences of large numbers of
people to identify new policy
solutions.
“Direct democracy is what
gives citizens the ability to
strongly influence law and
policy…We need impact to
go along with the deliberation.”
– James Organ, University of
Liverpool
The greatest benefit of direct
democracy seems to be the
policy education and deliberation that takes place
through citizens considering
policy proposals and debating them in public gatherings and media. Even if a
proposal fails to become law,
the public has still been actively involved in policymaking.
“Direct democracy produces
“happy losers”…who feel
happy with the system…
(because) dialogue is in the
centre.”
– Bruno Kaufmann, IRI Europe and People2Power
There are 1,000s of direct democracy tools in use worldwide
(see
www.direct-democracynavigator.org). Their impact is
linked to their design. They can
be bottom-up initiatives where
citizens can set the agenda or top
-down plebiscites where decision
-makers initiate the process and
frame the issue. Speakers were
critical of the latter (e.g., the UK’s
referendum on EU membership)
but supportive of the former
(e.g., the European Citizens’ Initiative).
used for EU issues. While they
empower citizens, they can also
undermine EU solidarity since
nationals of just one country
take decisions that impact residents of all EU Member States.
An EU-wide referendum right
would treat all citizens equally.
It could be used for treaty revisions or to implement successful ECIs.
Another tool in use in many
Member States that could be
adapted to EU level is an epetition. If enough citizens support the petition, it could trigger a plenary debate in the
European Parliament or compel
it to create a legislative initiative report (i.e., ask the Commission to propose legislation).
Similarly, participatory budgeting, which empowers citizens
to propose and select projects
to fund, could be used to allocate EU structural funds.
Currently at EU level, there is
only one weak agenda-setting
tool: the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI). The ECI allows one
million EU citizens to invite the
Commission to propose legislation, but does not compel it to
act. Participants agreed that the
ECI needs to be made more impactful by creating a greater obligation for EU institutions to act.
Other ideas included having a
successful ECI trigger a European
Citizens’ Assembly (ECA) where
the proposal’s merits and drawbacks could be debated by citizens or a binding EU-wide referendum where all EU citizens
would collectively decide whether it should become law.
“There are some
excellent ideas about
how to participate
coming from the bottom
up. It’s not just about
the mechanisms that
the Commission or
other EU institutions are
looking at. But a lot of
this dynamism is coming
Online crowdsourcing tools are
now used by some DGs (e.g.,
Futurium for science and innovation) to gather policy proposals from citizens. These
could be used as part of a participatory process to reform the
EU treaties, including adding
new direct democracy tools.
“Upscale the ECI. Raise the hurdle to five million signatures
then put forward an EU-wide
referendum. (This will result in)
better feedback for and against
(the proposal).”
– Sophie Hatzfeldt, Democracy
International
Speakers and participants were
however divided in their support
for referendums. Several Member States currently have national referendums that have been
7
from society itself.”
– Conference participant
Democratic Participation in a Citizens’ Europe: What Next for the EU?
Page 8
CHARTING A COURSE FORWARD
As the conference progressed, the focus turned from specific public participation methods to how to
combine them in order to expand and institutionalise participatory democracy in European Union
policy making. Several potential paths forward were proposed. Some could form the basis of future
collaborative or pilot projects involving both universities and civil society organisations.
We can use what already exists to begin to build an EU participatory
democracy infrastructure.
It is clear that we don’t necessarily need to redesign EU governance from scratch in order
to better incorporate citizens in
decision-making. Existing EU
public participation methods,
such as the ECI and stakeholder
consultations, could be better
implemented and promoted.
Parts of the EU institutional
“Need to scale
infrastructure that have become
redundant could be modified
or replaced. Methods that
have proven effective at local
and regional levels, such as epetitions and participatory
budgeting, could be adapted to
the EU level – perhaps by
starting with pilots to prove
they work transnationally.
Involve citizens in treaty reform.
Significant treaty changes are
necessary if the EU is to survive long-term. Given the high
levels of distrust of politicians,
treaty reforms dictated by
elites would likely be rejected
by citizens. Now could thus be
the ideal moment to replace
the “behind closed doors”
model of treaty design with a
good ideas
and create
networks
around them.”
– quote on
Twitter
more transparent process that
actively involves citizens. Different participatory methods could
be combined, such as online
crowdsourcing to gather ideas
and a citizens’ deliberative assembly to explore proposed
changes.
Use treaty reform to institutionalise citizen participation.
The fact that EU treaty reform
is needed provides opportunities to both improve existing
participatory democracy tools
and add new ones. For example, the ECI could be made
more impactful and expanded
to include future treaty amend-
ments, the petition right could
be expanded into a tool that
strengthens the European
Parliament and citizen deliberative forums could be institutionalised as part of policymaking. The possibilities are
many.
Reimagine the EU as an agreement between people vs. states.
The 21st Century requires different models of governance than
those put in place after World
War II. This could perhaps even
mean replacing EU treaties
(agreements between states)
with an EU constitution
(agreements between citizens).
“What is the source of legitimacy
for what they (EU leaders) are
doing? To what extent are we
able to re-found Europe (with)
sovereignty derived from the
people directly…or a more participatory Europe?”
– workshop discussion
8
Another idea is to create an EU
tax payable by each citizen vs.
contributions from Member
States. This would symbolically
give each citizen a direct stake
in the EU.
Build a social movement for EU participatory democracy around a
unifying issue or event.
Given elite opposition to citizen
involvement
in
the
EU,
significant grassroots pressure
will be needed if any reform is
to take place. However, citizens
only engage around issues that
directly impact their lives, not
EU governance. The 2008
financial crisis which continues
to impact government services,
taxation
and
employment
continent-wide could be such
an issue. A worsening or repeat
of this economic crisis could
provide a “unifying moment” to
redesign the EU. Another
opportunity is to build on the
movement
created
in
opposition to the TTIP which
has at its core threats to
democratic decision-making on
labour and
environmental
issues.
“We need to talk about things
that matter Europe-wide rather
than talk about Europe.”
– workshop discussion
CONFERENCE AGENDA
I. The Context for EU Democratic Participation –
III. Applying Citizen Participation to EU Challenges
- Speeches and table discussions
Welcome: Amandine Garde, University of Liverpool
Host: Anthony Zacharzewski, The Democratic Society
– Collaborative workshops
Writing public participation into EU law:
James Organ, University of Liverpool
Carsten Berg, The ECI Campaign-Citizens for Europe
Speakers:
Alberto Alemanno , HEC Paris – citizen lobbying supported by
transparency
Rebecca Baron, WeMove.eu- transnational social movements
facilitated by technology
Graham Smith, University of Westminster – deliberative citizens’
assemblies
James Organ, University of Liverpool – legal tools of direct and
participatory democracy
Victoria Kupsch, European Democracy Lab – a new vision for a
Europe of citizens
Designing an EU public participation infrastructure:
Janice Thomson, The ECI Campaign-Citizens for Europe
Oliver Escobar, University of Edinburgh
Creating a European public space from the ground up:
Anthony Zacharzewski, The Democratic Society
Niamh Webster, The Democratic Society
IV. Diving Deeper and Planning for Action
Host: Mumta Ito, Rights of Nature Europe and The ECI
Campaign-Citizens for Europe
II. Approaches to Participation
– Collaborative workshops
Direct democracy and crowdsourcing:
Bruno Kaufmann, Initiative and Referendum Institute Europe
Sophie Hatzfeldt, Democracy International
Deliberative forums and consultation:
Raphael Kies, University of Luxembourg
Kaela Scott, Involve
Social movements and campaigning
Louisa Parks, University of Lincoln
Rebecca Baron, WeMove
SPECIAL THANKS TO EVERYONE WHO MADE THIS CONFERENCE SUCH A REWARDING EVENT, ESPECIALLY:
James Organ, Janice Thomson, Niamh Webster, Carsten Berg, Bruno Kaufmann, Beth Wiltshire, Anthony Zacharzewski, Alberto Alemanno, Graham
Smith, Rebecca Baron, Victoria Kupsch, Sophie Hatzfeldt, Raphael Kies, Kaela Scott, Louisa Parks, Oliver Escobar, Mumta Ito, Patrick Butchard,
Alvaro Oleart Perez-Seoane, Qiang Ren, Katy Sowery, Andy Woodhouse, and Rachel Heah
9