We
welcome the inclusion of this Article: the principle of participation
is essential to democracy. This Article goes some way towards
meeting the challenge of the Laeken Declaration ‘to bring
the Union closer to its citizens’. However, we have the
following concerns:
1.
In paragraph 2, the ‘appropriate means’
referred to are ambiguous. In the Presidium’s notes, it
is of concern that this paragraph is explained as referring to
‘the forums, opportunities for Internet chat and other
similar mechanisms with the institutions have now put in place’.
In the case of the Convention, it was a disappointment for NGOs
that the Forum envisaged in the Laeken Declaration turned out
to be virtual. While there is a role for interactive internet
technology, this cannot be a substitute for real engagement with
civil society.
2.
In paragraph 3, the wording should be strengthened:
“The
Union institutions shall guarantee an open, transparent,
regular and structured dialogue…”
The
current situation with regard to civil dialogue is problematic
because of the ad hoc nature of dialogue. Rather than maintaining
the status quo, this Article should be much more ambitious and
guarantee a structured civil dialogue. An example of how to do
this can be seen at the Council of Europe, where organisations
are granted ‘consultative status’: this is soon to
be upgraded to ‘participatory status’, giving civil
society a stronger role.
3.
There is confusion and ambiguity in this article and in the attached
comments about what civil society is, and who the article refers
to. This should be clarified:
Non-governmental
organisations (NGOs) should be mentioned as one of the
major components of civil society. Citizens’ associations
play a key role in the design, implementation and evaluation of
EU policies. Through NGOs, citizens can actively participate in
European processes, meeting the goal of bringing citizens closer
to the EU. NGOs are vital in representing the interests of citizens
who are unable to participate themselves: citizens associations
in Europe represent the most disadvantaged sectors of society.
NGOs also represent citizens’ concerns for the common good:
a key example is the environmental NGO sector.
The
social dialogue should be mentioned specifically:
this already has a legal basis in the Treaty and must be included
in the new Constitutional Treaty. In the notes, social dialogue
is said to be consigned to Part 2, but at the same time employers’
and employees’ trade unions are mentioned as coming under
‘associations’, and are thus included in Article 34.
This adds to the existing confusion about what is meant by civil
dialogue: to avoid this there should be a separate Article in
Part 1 dedicated to dialogue with the social partners.
Regional
and local authorities have a key role to play in a strong
democracy. However, these authorities are formally represented
in the EU system through the Committee of the Regions: their envisaged
inclusion in this Article once again throws confusion on the definition
of civil society and on the concept of civil dialogue.
Faith
communities are an important part of civil society and
dialogue with these communities is of course, a necessary part
of the civil dialogue. This dialogue could more logically be included
as part of Article 34, rather than in Article 37 (see below for
substantive comments on Article 37).
We
recommend a more detailed description of civil society, specifying
in particular that the EU institutions will engage in dialogue
with non-governmental organisations and associations that represent
citizens and citizens’ concerns.
This
Article must use language which is inclusive of all faith groups,
and not favour the Christian church. We recommend the use of ‘faith
communities’ rather than ‘churches’,
to make clear the multi-faith nature of today’s European
society.
We
feel that paragraph 3 of Article 37 would be more appropriate
in Article 34. As the draft currently stands, it appears that
the dialogue with churches is given greater weight than the dialogue
with other organisations of civil society. All citizens and citizens
organisations must have an equal right to engage with European
institutions and be given an equal opportunity to do so. Faith
communities could instead be mentioned in Article 34 as one of
the sectors of civil society which will be involved in the civil
dialogue.
In
Article 37 the dialogue referred to must be ‘open
and transparent’ as is the case in Article 34.
