We alone regard a man who takes no interest in public affairs not as a harmless, but as a useless character; and if few of us are originators, we are all sound judges of a policy1.
If democracy in classical Athens continues to serve as a role model, one can only welcome the recent adoption of the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) by the European Union (EU). The first turning point in the development of democratic governance at the EU level was the introduction of direct elections for the European Parliament (EP) in 1979. Thirty-three years later the EU is entering another important phase deploying a participatory democracy instrument, in order to bridge the gap between citizens and the EU.
The reasons behind the launch of the ECI are easy to imagine. The continuous decline of the voter turnout in the European elections (from 63% in 1979 to 43% in 2009), the persistent difficulties in ratifying the EU treaties (especially the Maastricht Treaty and the European Constitutional Treaty), and the rise of anti-EU sentiments and rhetoric signify that popular consent for the supranational venture can no longer be taken for granted. On the one hand, citizens are more aware than ever that European integration is a process with far-reaching implications and that it affects their daily lives; on the other, they feel that there is little they can do to shape the outcome of EU decisions.
This sense of disempowerment is the result of many reasons, but three in particular stand out. First, EU policies and procedures are complex, because they are the outcome of painstaking compromises between, and within, supranational and national bodies. Second, people’s daily life becomes increasingly more sophisticated and demanding ever larger parts of their time and attention; thus, leaving little room for following or getting involved in EU politics. Third, those citizens who would like to play a more active role have been left with few choices beyond voting in the European elections at regular intervals.
As regards the first cause, complexity in EU decision-making is unlikely to give way to simpler procedures while the EU remains the odd amalgam of federalist and intergovernmental structures and its policy scope encompasses so many areas (and quite likely even more in the future). Similarly, the majority of people will always prioritise the taking care of their private affairs. Hence, EU politics will continue competing with other activities for their attention. For those, however, who wish a more active involvement in the EU affairs the ECI is no doubt a positive development.
The ECI is a first step in giving more powers to the citizens in influencing the agenda of the EU. Article 11. (4) in the consolidated version of the new Treaty on the EU gives the right to European citizens to ask to the European Commission to submit a legislative proposal to the Council of Ministers and the EP. That is, the same right the EP and the Council have is now extended to the citizens of Europe, introducing the latter as a new player in the democratic politics of the EU.
In terms of democratic innovation this is a move comparable to the establishment of the first direct EP elections. Its significance is not merely symbolic but substantive as well: only one million signatures are needed, that is, less than 0.25% of the EU-wide electorate, from a quarter of member states (with the minimum number of signatures currently ranging from 4,500 for the smaller Members to 74,250 for the largest) to set the EU decision-making system in motion.
Political philosophy teaches us that enabling and encouraging citizen participation advances democratic governance2. First of all, giving citizens the chance for greater participation in the decision-making process brings them closer to the ideal of self-rule. Having the right to vote for one’s representatives is a fundamental democratic right, but limited nevertheless. If ideal democracy amounts to direct democracy, then enhancing participation is a step in the right direction. Secondly, participating in the decision-making process can have an educative function. Participation means deciding and deciding requires reflection, deliberation and responsibility. It also means that citizens have to engage with questions that are likely to exceed the narrow sphere of their private interests and concerns. Since a successful ECI demands support from at least seven EU member states, citizens will be asked to focus on matters that have a transnational dimension, helping them not only to think beyond the confines of the national interest, but also to acknowledge what they have in common with other Europeans. Finally, granting citizens greater participation rights celebrates the “moral and intellectual worth and dignity of the individual”3. It is precisely because of the belief that a citizen is something more than a passive subject, and that ordinary people can judge properly what is good and right for themselves and their communities, that popular participation in decision-making is an end in itself and, therefore, commendable.
But democracy means also giving people the power to shape and change decisions, and the ECI offers little in this respect. The conditions prescribing the use of the ECI rule out initiatives that go against the values of the EU, initiatives that are “manifestly abusive, frivolous or vexatious”4, or initiatives that fall outside the Commission’s formal mandate5. In other words, ECIs cannot touch upon policy areas that fall outside the scope of the EU treaties or where the so-called Community method does not apply (e.g. foreign and security policy, fiscal policy). Likewise, ECIs cannot be used to dismantle the EU or reverse European integration. More importantly, a successful ECI does not imply that the European citizens will be taking legislative decisions themselves. This remains the prerogative of the EU institutions. The Commission will continue to draft the legislative proposals and the EP and the Council will continue to amend, accept or reject them. Consequently, the influence of the European citizenry on the outcome of the EU decisions will remain limited and channelled indirectly via the elections at the national and European level.
Participatory democracy in the EU, therefore, will complement rather than replace representative democracy. This is not a negative prospect and it does not undermine the value of the ECI as a democratic instrument. The size of the EU and the complexity of the matters it deals with render a fully fledged participatory democracy impractical. A man with no interest in the public affairs may have been perceived as useless by the ancient Athenians, but proper engagement in modern democratic politics demands more than one’s interest. It requires much effort, time, skills and often technical expertise, that is, valuable resources which are distributed, to a greater or lesser extent, unequally among citizens. Thus, the ECI cannot and should not replace the work of the elected representatives, at least not completely. It can, however, inform and influence it. An ECI supported by large numbers of European citizens will demand the attention of all the institutionalised decision-makers, whether at the national or European level. Before the EP rejects any legislative proposal resulting from an ECI, it will have to think twice. Can it provide sufficient and convincing justification for opposing the will of at least one million European citizens? How will this affect the result of the next European elections? Inevitably the spotlight will also turn to the national governments and political actors. They too will be asked to take a stance and this may trigger a series of political developments. In short, the ECI reinforces the influence of European citizens in the decision-making process without placing excessive demands on them.
The ECI advances democracy and as such it is a welcome development, even if it does not solve all the democratic legitimation problems of the EU. Like all democratic instruments, however, its value will be determined by its actual use. The European Commission and the EP try to alleviate any fears that it will be used by lobbyists to pursue their sectoral interests. They argue that the EU has other, less expensive channels in place to take into account the views of the various industries and interest groups. Perhaps they are underestimating the determination of powerful interest groups and the resources the latter are willing to mobilise to achieve their ends. Legislation, however, can always be improved, and this is no reason why the participation of ordinary citizens in the democratic process has to be confined to voting in elections.
The greatest challenge for the ECI is not to prove that it is immune from abuse, but that it can make a difference to EU politics. To make a difference by putting forward important policy proposals, by mobilising citizens across countries, by uniting Europeans for a common cause, and even by challenging previous EU decisions, if deemed appropriate. A successful ECI demanding the review of an important piece of EU legislation may result in policy shift, and if not it may succeed in triggering a greater public debate than European election campaigns usually do. Thus, in theory the ECI has the potential for triggering important political changes and may not be a fig leaf, as some fear. What will happen in practice remains to be seen.
1Thucydides, Peloponnesian War, 2.40, http://classicpersuasion.org/pw/thucydides/jthucbk2rv2.htm (accessed: 19.04.2012)
2 Some of the arguments in this paragraph draw on Jack Lively, Democracy, Colchester, ECPR Press, 2007
3 Op. cit., p. 106
4 Article 2(c) of the Regulation No 211/2011 of the EP and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on the Citizens’ Initiative
5 Article 2 of the Treaty on the EU states: “The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail”