[FR] Citizen consultations: an ambition and a method to be clarified

In September 2017, the President of the French Republic called for the holding of ‘democratic conventions’ aimed at ‘identifying the priorities, concerns and ideas [of European citizens] that will shape our roadmap for the Europe of tomorrow’. Renamed ‘citizen consultations’ in December 2017, these will be held between April and October 2018 so that analyses, recommendations and conclusions can be drawn at the European Council meeting in December 2018. On the eve of their launch, 26 European Union countries decided to hold this debate on their territory. To date, only Hungary is missing from the list.

Subject to modifications by these 26 States, these consultations should take the form of a digital consultation common to all States, which would be managed by the European Commission; debates open to all citizens in each participating country, conducted by both European and national public authorities and civil society, with a certification process in place; experiments in participatory democracy with citizens selected at random and debates organised in a public forum.

The process remains intergovernmental, however, and is therefore obliged to respect the specific characteristics of each country that has agreed to conduct consultations. However, if we want to be able to draw conclusions about the opinions and ideas of European citizens on and for the European project, it is necessary for the 26 states to agree on shared principles and ensure that the methods of consultation and analysis are comparable.

Although these principles are still under discussion, it would appear that the common principles are clear: transpartisanship, accessibility and transparency must be ensured if these consultations are to be truly citizen-led and allow all points of view to be expressed. It remains to be seen whether the consultation methods will be able to prevent any political exploitation, whether by pro- or anti-European forces. This risk exists and would compromise the entire process, which must not be a pro-European propaganda campaign or an attempt at political exploitation, nor should it allow only Eurosceptics or even Europhobes to express their views.

Finally, the comparability of the results will inevitably depend on the involvement of each Member State in this process. However, the resources, particularly financial, that would be made available to the actors supposed to take charge of this process have yet to be defined. As the initiative remains intergovernmental, it is possible that different financing methods will be adopted in each State, which would mean very unequal resources depending on the country, undermining the comparability of the analyses.

These issues raise a more general question about how debates should be conducted in the territories. The aim is to learn from decades of attempts to hold debates on the future of Europe throughout the Union in order to enable citizens to express their views freely.

In particular, it will be necessary to clarify who will organise these debates and whether they will be citizens’ meetings with facilitators or debates with European experts or politicians. The first option allows for freer and more spontaneous expression, but may require more work on the part of the organisations hosting the debates in order to put in place the tools and methods needed to encourage citizens to express themselves and to report back on their views as effectively as possible. The second option, which is already more common in Europe, may lead to more informed but also more constrained discussions. The risk would then be that citizens wishing to participate in this type of event would come from a more restricted and aware circle, but also that spontaneous contributions would be met with frustration if ideas and proposals were too easily dismissed as unfeasible given the EU’s powers or already implemented. However, it is essential that these points be included in the feedback so that we can take stock of the ideas that citizens consider good and which are in fact already in place, with the aim of ensuring better communication and dissemination.

Finally, beyond the issues of methods and means, it is in terms of objectives that the most crucial challenges lie.

With the exception of European election campaigns, in which Europe is increasingly absent, it should not be forgotten that it was in 2005, when the Constitutional Treaty was proposed, that the future of Europe was last a daily topic of debate among European citizens. These debates caused immense frustration for many Europeans, partly because the project proposed to them often seemed incomprehensible, but also because many of those who had spoken out against it felt that their views had been ignored in 2007 with the Treaty of Lisbon. Whether or not one shares all or part of these ideas and feelings, those who had this perception thirteen years ago are likely to be wary of the current process. It is therefore necessary to clarify what the conclusions drawn from these consultations will be used for.

The process proposed here draws, in a way, on the lessons learned from this episode by stating that it is not a prerequisite for renegotiating the treaties. But specifying what these consultations are not does not clarify what they are and what they are intended to achieve. Now more than ever, it is time for the European leaders who have committed to holding these consultations to provide assurances about how they will be conducted and the impact they may have on European policies and the direction of the European project. This demand will come not only from the citizens who are being sought to engage in this process, but also from civil society. In order to mobilise civil society, in addition to the resources that each Member State will devote to events related to the consultations, it is imperative that the associations and organisations involved in the process are convinced that they are working to enable citizens to have their say, which will be echoed by European leaders and in the agenda for the future of Europe. This exercise, like the reporting back on these consultations, is inseparable from the upcoming European elections: both can provide an excellent basis on which to build the analyses, debates and proposals that will animate the entire Union during the 2019 campaign, provided that the requirements of transparency, transpartisanship, trans-European analysis and commitment to their real impact are met.