Citizens’ Initiative: Direct influence at last?

Brussels, 12 May – The European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI), already proposed in the European Constitution Treaty of 2004, will be operational by the end of this yea, after a vote by the European parliament. It’s success depends on how far the door will be opened for those who collect a million signatures, was the conclusion of a public hearing organised by the German Green MEP Gerald Häfner. Not all Greens proved equally keen on letting this little brother of the popular vote have too much space.

World History

Expectations were surprisingly high during the event, attended by over sixty Greens and representatives of ngo’s. A ‘fantastic instrument’, someone called the Initiative. The ‘very first tool of transnational direct democracy in world history,’ said someone else, which ‘will fundamentally change the way we do business in Brussels’. But then, Häfner hadn’t invited just anybody. On the panel were commissioner for institutional affairs Maroš?Šef?ovi?, author of the last quote; and prof. Jürgen Meyer, a specialist in international penal law, long time advocate of direct democracy and member of the European Convention that drafted the legal text for the Initiative, which survived the French-Dutch rejection of the Constitution to end up in the Lisbon Treaty that came into force last December.

Originally Meyer had asked for a referendum, he said, but when that proved incompatible with the legislation of too many member states, he had ‘pushed for an alternative that gives citizens at least the same right as the Parliament to influence the agenda of the European Commission’. On the panel was also Bruno Kaufman, director of the Initiative and Referendum Institute Europe (IRI) that, ‘supported by activist networks from across Europe’, finally came up with this Initiative ‘the development of which is watched by the entire world’.

Volksentscheid

And there was Häfner himself, a long-time fighter for direct democracy, which is, he believes, necessary to keep representative democracy alive and is all the more needed when borders are involved. ‘The fall of the Berlin Wall was the doing of the German citizens, who said Wir sind ein Volk – We are one People. Compare Belgium and Switzerland, two countries with several language groups. Across Belgium runs a deep gorge, across Switzerland there doesn’t. Because the Swiss have a referendum, which forces the groups to co-operate at least four times a year.’ Direct democracy isn’t the answer to all problems, he said, ‘and one can make many mistakes. The Weimar republic had a Volksentscheid, a Referendum. But the threshold was so high that it never was passed, so more and more people turned against democracy because ‘one didn’t have a say anyway’.

Abusive

The scene thus having been set, most participants proved quite critical towards the Commissions’ proposal of 31 March.

Especially the large number of restrictions to what the Initiative can be about, many objected. If the Commission has its way, proposals that are ‘abusive’ or ‘devoid of seriousness’ won’t be registered, nor those that are ‘manifestly against the values of the Union’. ‘But who decides what is silly and what abusive means?’ said Häfner. Those notions should at least be specified, most agreed. And the decision should not be taken by a civil servant behind closed doors, but through an open, transparent procedure with a right to appeal.

No Limit

The Commission also excludes proposals that require a change of a treaty. ‘That leaves us stuck with the risk that 80 % of the proposals will be rejected’, said Häfner, ‘because most citizens don’t know the details of European law’. Meyer was more optimistic. ‘When one analyses what the legislator meant with the text’, he said, ‘a very broad interpretation is possible. Although one cannot ask to change a treaty, one can ask to ’further develop’ it. Which means there is no thematic limit.’ The only difference with proposals that leave existing treaties untouched, he added, is ‘that decisions addressing calls for further development have to be ratified by the member states’.

Turkey

As to the issues that should be admitted, the members of the Green Group don’t agree. Advocates of direct democracy like Häfner or the Finnish Green MEP Hautala want as little limits as possible, but others have become more sceptical over the years. Like Ulrike Lunacek from Austria, who proposed to exclude issues in which peoples are involved because, they might be used to keep or push minority groups out. ‘If the admission of Turkey will be addressed’ said Ulrike Lunacek from Austria, ‘it will almost certainly be in a negative sense. And who knows what happens if someone launches an initiative about whether the Czechs or another small nation should remain?’

For Hautala on the other hand, ‘much of the resistance sprouts from fear.’ To which Häfner added after the conference: ‘this is about control, which many politicians – and the Greens are no exception – are afraid to lose.’

Colonised

Other concerns proved less controversial. Like that of the threshold being put so high that most citizens’ won’t even start. Putting the number of member states the signatures have to be collected in at one third, like the Commission proposes, might have that effect, most feared.  They opted for one fourth or one fifth, because, as Belgian Green MEP Isabelle Durand said, ‘if the threshold is put higher, the Citizens’ Initiative will be colonised by the big ngo’s’.

The same might happen, Bruno Kaufman fears, if citizens don’t get enough support from the EU. ‘Too little support can even kill the process’, he warned. ‘And in this respect, the current proposal ‘looks like a desert; ‘no more than two EU officials are redeployed to deal with the procedure, there is not a word about services or advice. Just imagine having a European Parliament with no paid office space, no assistants and no travel reimbursements.’

Double check

The Commission has built in quite a few unnecessary hurdles, many felt. Like

• The threshold for having the right to sign. Whereas the Commission proposes to limit that to people having the right to vote for the EU, the Green Group prefers a minimum age of 16. And quite a few participants wanted to include all non-EU citizens living in the EU.

• The kind of data required from signatories. The Commission wants passport or social security number. Asking those would, many think, frighten people off.

• A double check: one to exclude from registration proposals that are silly, abusive or against the values of the Union, and a second, ‘legal’ check after 300.000 signatures have been collected that excludes proposals that require a change of treaty, or propose something the Council, not the Commission, decides about. Just one check would be better, most think, after 10.000 to 50.000 signatures at most, so people won’t be collecting too many signatures in vain.

• The maximum time span for collecting the million. The Commission has set that to one year. Most felt that 18 months or even longer should be the minimum, because ‘you don’t know on beforehand in which member states you will succeed’, as a representative of an ngo said, ‘and you might have to start from zero several times’.

Dogs

Crucial, many stressed, is what happens to the initiatives that pass. As comprehensive as the Commission is about the requirements for citizens, as concise it is about its own part in the play.  It will publish those initiatives on its official website, and within four months it will transmit its conclusions to initiators, Parliament and public, and will let them know what actions it intends to take – if any.

‘The Commission isn’t obliged to accept a proposal’, Meyer said. ‘But if it rejects it, citizens should have the possibility to appeal.’ ‘The commission should at least be obliged to organise a public hearing about the proposal’, said Häfner. ‘And in that hearing the Parliamentary commission on petitions should participate, so in case the Commission doesn’t take action, the European Parliament has its turn.’

In short, the battle is far from won. ‘The citizens’ initiative is a difficult area’, Häfner concluded, ‘on a soil on which many things still have to be anchored. But I can guarantee that, if Citizens’ Initiatives are treated behind closed doors, they will only add to peoples’ concerns and fears. And I can guarantee that we can feed the Union to the dogs.’