European Democracy 2: A Voice

Follow-up EUdemocracy 1 – The Amsterdam workshop (see previous post) was the last of a brainstorming and consultations of Green activists that started a year ago with an extended Supporters’ team meeting in Liège, which leads to an inevitable conclusion:

  • if the Supporters’ Network wants to answer the growing eagerness of individuals to be part of the European Green project, and
  • make it part and parcel of that projects’ future,
  • it needs at least an agenda-setting voice in the arena where the decisions are made.

The consultation has been very broad indeed. It encompassed meetings of grassroots greens and party officials, dedicated Europeans and Euro-sceptics, party conferences and international gatherings (like the two fringe meetings the Supporter’ Network organised during EGP conferences), and an online call and many Skype conferences. From them two quite clear pictures emerge:

  1. There is a growing eagerness to have a platform to connect across borders

  2. Quite a few people also have an additional democratic ambition: to turn the EGP from a federation, a party of parties, into a party of people. But when talking about structures for this ambition, opinions diverge – which has everything to do with the image people have of party democracy and the fledgling stage of European democracy.

Ad 1. The borderless platform shouldn’t only facilitate and encourage debate, exchange of practices and common action, it should also serve as a temporary perspective for countries where the Green party is in distress, and as an international meeting- and action place for migrants.

Ad 2: The Party-of-People picture is more like a Tower of Babel. During the summer university of Europe Écologie/Les Verts in Nantes, some wanted the future EGP to be a big community of individuals provided that it would allow for ‘sensibilities’ like in Les Verts, whereas others found direct participation incompatible with the federal structure in which members only have access to the party mechanisms through their regional branch. In Germany many follow a similar reasoning: party democracy must be rooted in the local branch, but are quite happy to extend their national hierarchy with an extra top floor called ‘Europe’. Others, persuaded hat this hierarchy in fact limits European politics to the happy few, have developed alternative structures, like the German-Dutch initiative Borderless Green and Social in which all individuals can vote.

Little Englanders

In England and Wales there is a divide between ‘little Englanders’ and world citizens, we noticed during a workshop on the EGP future during the GPEW’s autumn conference in Birmingham. Some opted for direct European membership, others ‘just about can manage Sussex or the South-East’. And one member of our very Europe-minded team feels that a democratic accountability that is not rooted in local democracy is uncontrollable.

Conclusions:

 

3. No Party of People yet – it is far too early days to picture what such a party would look like – but the need for experiments is obvious, so the Supporters’ Network should take up the challenge.

 

4. But surely a Voice - If the EGP wants the growing European-mindedness at the grassroots level to be reflected in its future course, it should challenge the Network to bring the results of its work to the decision-making body.

But what sort of voice? Within the Supporters’ team two options have been discussed:

  • One or more ‘quality votes’ in the council.

It would be, within the existing possibilities, the clearest recognition of the ‘transversal’, borderless approach. Towards individuals it would be a signal that the European Greens value their participation and see it as a way to proceed. For parties it would be an incentive to participate in the supporters’ scheme. And for the Network it would be a challenge to develop new, transparent ways of consulting its members and to account for its deeds.

But it puts the Network on the same level as the parties and therefore could be met with opposition from parties not yet convinced of the cross border approach’. And it could lead to all sorts of debates: is the Network already representative enough (and will it ever be?); is the status compatible; don’t individuals get two votes, one through their respective parties and one through the Network?

  • The right to put issues on the EGP agenda and to give asked and unasked advice.

Such a right would still be a recognition – at the moment the Network has to go to member parties or the EGP committee, even for a proposal about its own functioning. It would also be a signal to the members and an incentive for transparent decision-making, although this signal would not be as strong as the right to vote. And it would challenge the Network to live up to its promises and propose ways to a table But it would not really affect the current federal character of the EGP.

During the Future working group meeting on November 14, we have defended the first option. But so many party delegates were opposed to the vote-option that we have, after several internal debates, decided to go for the agenda option during the conclusive meeting on December 5.

Please feel free to comment – and share your views with us.

FacebookTwitterDeliciousHyvesShare