European Democracy (1): A Platform
report Heerlen 9 seminar, 5-7/11/2010 Amsterdam
What individual Greens want from their European party, Greens, is a platform to discuss, exchange and act across borders. A formal place in the decision making process is only interesting for those who are familiar with the party’s internal kitchen. See also: EUdemocracy 2.
Report Lin Tabak
Talking expectations was, as usual, a nice way to share very different dreams without putting them into competition. EGP secretary general Jacqueline Cremers’ dream is a map of Europe from which the white and pale-green spots, countries without a Green party or one in distress, have disappeared. Jos van Dijk, a long-time advocate of a European Union of citizens, dreams of a super size Green Group in the European Parliament, supported by national parties that talk European politics on a daily basis, from the grassroots level right to the top.
Most participants though, want a platform for what a participant from Amsterdam called ‘to meet, share, learn, and get inspired by politicians from other countries’: to ‘co-operate with Greens from neighbouring border regions’ (Friedrich Foerster, Kleve), ‘collect new ideas for my town and build channels to exchange urban strategies’ (Birgit Weiss, Castellon), ‘discuss, in a European context, transnational issues and problems that are on the agenda everywhere’ (Mellouki Cadat, Amsterdam), to ‘find a Green perspective for people from countries where no Green party exist, like mine’ (Ramon Linaza, Madrid) and ‘a meeting-point for Rumanian migrants like myself’ (a Rumanian participant from Rotterdam).
Fundraising
That platform already exists in several ways: each member of an EGP member party can attend EGP-councils and congresses; can give, through the Supporters’ Network, ‘input on our proposals’ (Cremers) and help to increase the possibilities for exchange the Network creates. And because the EGP board now is aware of the advantages of having direct activists’ support – in case of fundraising campaigns, for example, for parties in need, said Cremers – it is happy to help out the Network with staff capacity in its office.
But what about a role in the decision making process? This question from moderator Inti Suarez, was a lot less consensual. Many newcomers weren’t particularly keen to fight for more than facilities in an organisation they hardly know. One or two even feared that a vote for the Network would risk conflicts with party delegates or turn it into a party like the other ones instead of a transnational platform. And Jos van Dijk reminded the audience that making the national parties more Europe-minded is equally important if the European participation project wants to get off the ground.
Most who have been active in the Supporters’ Network for longer however, who know how marginal the individuals’ voice still is after eight years of existence – a large majority of the parties hasn’t even bothered to tell their members about the possibility to register as an EGP supporter – wanted to seize the opportunity of the Future project to claim a more substantial presence.
European Lists
But which? Jacqueline Cremers said that for her it is too early for anything more than being invited by the EGP board to give advice. ‘I want the Supporters’ Network to become a tiger that bites. But at the moment you are not representative enough, you should expand your network first.’ Network members however, want at least ‘some clout’ (Greet Goverde, Nijmegen), a ‘right to set the agenda’ (Luc Lamote), ‘a voice in the council and the possibility to influence the EGP through proposals’ (Lin Tabak, Amsterdam) such as ‘a plea for European lists, a proposal which national parties would never propose (Nacho Lopez Bayon, Liège).
To draw conclusions from this workshop alone would be impossible. One and a half hour isn’t enough for such a diverse congregation to even find common ground. But it was part of a yearlong process from which, as you will see in report 2, a quite clear picture emerges.






