Issue 2, 2007   

Civil Society in Brussels. More than a fig leaf excuse?

Ludger Volmer: A fatal accident - the electoral turn outs for the Greens in Hesse and Lower Saxony. FJ NSB 2/2008, pp. 9-15.

Ludger Volmer, former party leader of Bündnis 90/Die Grünen, analyzes the strategic position of the Green Party. The Greens are in a hopeless situation. The party declared to be „ecologic, social, basic democratic and violence free“. Over the years some adjustments on these basic values were necessary. In the process two fundamental mistakes were made. In the unification process only those in fundamental opposition to the political system of the GDR were accepted to join, while the critical but conform people were rejected. As a result the party has only a very slim basis in the east while many people were forced to join the PDS, the former comunist party. Additionally the party lost ist social profile. Voters of the Social Democrats, who are frustrated by their party, used to be an electoral potential for the Greens but now these people turn to the Links-Party (a merger of the eastern PDS and a new West-German party). Overall the Green party is in a fatal stategic situation, which became obvious in the poor turnout for the party in the last three Länder elections.

Matthias Freise: What does Brussels mean when talking about civil society? FJ NSB 2/2008, pp 16-28.

The contribution analyses the various strands of the civil society discourse in Brussels. It points out that the EU institutions discuss civil society in the context of input legitimation by introducing deliberative and participative elements in the process of decision making as well as in the context of a possible enhancement of output legitimacy by involving “organized civil society” in the process of policy implementation. Freise argues that in regard of the lack of a European public sphere and other typical problems of control and accountability in multi level systems, deliberative procedures run the risk of merely hiding an elitist system of European governance behind a democratic fig leaf. At the same time the author is in favour of unifying several empirical and normative strands of EU research under the umbrella of civil society.

Gudrun Eisele: Walk and Talk: Perspectives of the European Economic and Social Committee. FJ NSB 2/2008, pp 29-41.

To act as a bridge between the European institutions and civil society – that is the claim of the European Economic and Social Committee. Against this backdrop, the increased interest in civil society and participatory democracy provides the Committee on the one hand with the opportunity to strengthen its profile and back its legitimacy, but this inflicts on it on the other hand the essential challenges of representativeness and visibility. Three different reactions to these challenges are analytically distinguished and critically evaluated: the formalizing approach, the liaising approach and the forum approach.

Matthias Dembinski/Jutta Joachim: From Cooperation between EU Member States to EU Governance? Non-Governmental Organizations and European Foreign Policy. FJ NSB 2/2008, pp. 42-51.

This article discusses the role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), in general, and the adoption of the European Code of Conduct on Arms Exports in 1998, in particular. Contrary to state-centric approaches which dominated CFSP-related research until recently, we show that the second pillar is no longer an interest and civil society group free zone. Instead, NGOs provide information and expertise to decision-makers and monitor decision-making processes. In the case of the European Code of Conduct on Arms Exports, they exerted influence following its establishment. They contributed to the tightening and specification of the Code’s rules by taking advantage of the ongoing institutionalization in the CFSP, entering into alliances with both supranational actors as well as smaller states, and by making use of growing interdependencies between the European and the national level.

Kristina Charrad: Participants or Observers? Lobbyists from East Central Europe in Brussels, FJ NSB 2/2008, pp 52-63.

The chapter focuses on the framework conditions under which advocacy organizations from the new Central and East European member countries of the European Union are operating in Brussels. It points out that the expected run of lobbyists from these countries did not take place as yet. In contrast to their West European pendants only very few interest groups from Europe’s East have opened an own office in the EU capital. They are facing several challenges which complicate their access to the formal and informal networks of European policy making. Currently they are no more than observers of European politics. Equally professional participants with similar access to the various policy fields and networks of European governance are a long way down the road. This worsens the democratic deficit of the European Union.

Thorsten Hüller: Democratizing the EU via Online-Consultations? FJ NSB 2/2008, pp. 73-82..

Online-consultations are one of the most important Commission’s instruments to democratize EU decision-making. But are they really fostering EU democracy? Political equality/reciprocity, publicity and accountability are introduced as three normative principles. Their realization is indicative for the democratic quality of the EU. Online-consultations might democratize the EU via involving ‘ordinary’ citizens or civil society organizations. But neither of the mechanisms works effectively. A participatory strategy fails due to convenient habitual dispositions and competences of EU citizens, which are not fostered by the online-consultations. An associative democratization is hampered by the missing of any agenda setting options, the lack of working accountability structures, and possibly ineffective processes of opinion and will-formation within associations.

Kathrin Glastra: Public Affairs Management in Brüssel. A practitioner’s view. FJ NSB 2/2008, pp. 83-90.

The bad image of lobbying in Brussels is contrasted in this article with a correcting example of the Brussels day-to-day seen from a practitioner’s view. Public Affairs Management (PAM) is still a quite unusual phenomenon in Europe which has however more and more become an inherent, democratically legitimate and – against the background of growing competences and members of the EU – also necessary part of the European decision-making process. The practical work of European lobbyists is illustrated by the example of a politically sensitive Anti-Dumping-Proceeding of 2007 in which successful PAM has made a significant contribution to the decision. The following analysis of strengths and weaknesses concludes that public affairs agencies can well be “eyes, ears and voice” of a client in Brussels, but are limited in their role and act rather as well informed “networkers” and mediators to both sides.