European Governance:
Participation, Democracy and Efficiency

A Report of a Dialogue held by
The European Policy Centre
with its members on 17 May 2001

The purpose of the Dialogue was to assess the perspectives on European governance in view of the forthcoming White Paper by the Commission. The Dialogue was organised in close collaboration with the ESRC  "Devolution and Constitutional Change" research programme.

REPORT OF THE MEETING

As underlined by Stanley Crossick, Chairman of The EPC, in his introductory remarks, the work on governance in Europe initiated by the European Commission is of interest to every citizen and to all representatives of civil society because its aim is (to quote President Prodi) “to draw up proposals for a new democratic partnership between different levels of governance in Europe”.

The Dialogue with EPC members, ahead of the White Paper announced for July, was introduced by Jérôme Vignon (Chief Adviser at the Commission responsible for European governance), and led by a panel consisting of Maria João Rodrigues (Chief Adviser to the Portuguese Prime Minister), Charlie Jeffery (Director, Economic and Social Research Council, UK Devolution programme), Rory O'Donnell (University College Dublin) and Simon Wilson (Policy Officer, European Platform of Social NGOs). Several explanations of what governance actually means were offered. According to Jacques Delors, “It is helping those who govern to govern in a proper way”. A more “bottom-up” approach defines governance as the processes by which a society makes, implements and controls its rules or, in other words, the way it organises itself to shape its own future. In both cases, the very concept of governance challenges the distinction between a rule and its application and thus the traditional separation between executive and legislative power. If the purpose of a rule is to be achieved, the need for feedback must be acknowledged.

The discussion on governance is complementary to the debate on the composition and role of the EU institutions and on the balance between them, which will shape the framework to which the principles of governance will apply.

Governance and government

The models of “multi-level governance” or “network governance” have been forged to overcome the risk of a “no-bridge situation” between the design of a rule and its implementation. By sitting together, all stakeholders are able to bridge the gap from the onset so as to ensure coherence and effectiveness. However, such a method of governance leaves open the issue of accountability: to whom is a network accountable? What is the role actually played by each level in a multi-level structure?

This in particular raises the question of the role of democratic institutions within the process. In a traditional hierarchical system of government, laws are the result of a clear decision-making process. The status of a law does not change within a system of governance: the distinction between law and any other kind of agreements should in any case remain essential. In this perspective, the structures of governance do not challenge the responsibilities and powers of political bodies. But can governments retain pre-eminence and be able to decide against the agreement reached by stakeholders? Does the concept of governance describe an institutionalised system of consultation or a new decision-taking model?

The “open method of co-ordination” (Luxembourg and Lisbon processes) has recently developed in the EU as a model of governance that is able to ensure coherence while allowing for diversity. Based on a political agreement on precise goals at EU level, open co-ordination offers flexibility for implementation at national level – and can be combined with other instruments (legislation, social dialogue).

The debate on governance revolves about processes. However, structures of government and the way competencies (i.e. empowerments or restrictions) are defined and allocated will determine how creative and how flexible these processes can be. Thus, the reflection on governance should be carried out in parallel to the ongoing debate concerning the distribution of power within the EU.

Governance and transparency

Depending on how governance is defined, the role of stakeholders in the decision-making process may vary. They may be involved only in a consultative process or become parties in the decision-taking. In any case, however, the debate on governance underlines the need for transparency.

If it is conceived as a way to enhance the involvement of civil society and to complement the political process, some institutionalisation of the consultation process is needed. This would allow it to go beyond personal relations and to make positions and influences visible. But the political process itself – usually regarded as a “black box” – must become more transparent as well to improve its procedural legitimacy.

Dialogue with organised civil society is not enough to ensure real openness. A genuine transparency of the political process cannot be achieved, unless the process, the issues at stake and the possible outcomes are intelligible to the stakeholders. The participation of many different actors (with a diversity of interpretations) in the new models of governance tends in itself to make the understanding of issues at stake more complex.

For this reason, the issue of communication is of utmost relevance for all actors. In a multi-level system where decisions cannot be easily attributed, institutions have to be able to explain to the public what they are responsible for. In the EU, Member States have used the Commission as a scapegoat mainly because the Commission has virtually no access to national media. The problem is compounded by the increasing flow of information that blurs the understanding of what is at stake. Thus, a huge communication effort is a preliminary requirement in order to make a new system of governance work.

Governance and legitimacy

There are different types of legitimacy. This may be based on ‘inputs’: citizens accept the system because they are able to shape the agenda and contribute to the debate. Legitimacy may also be based on ‘outputs’: the outcome of the decision-making process being widely recognised as appropriate, citizens accept it without questioning the mechanism that produced it. As for the procedure, a distinction could also be made between two very different methods of securing legitimacy: consensus (unanimity) and contradiction (democratic debate and majority rule).

The debate on governance in the European Union sheds light onto the situation of the Union and takes place at a crucial time. Historically, the legitimacy of the whole process of European integration was based on outputs, which are still recognised as impressive achievements: peace, prosperity and stability in Europe. This legitimacy wobbles when European policies are challenged by the general public (such as the Common Agricultural Policy). Similarly, consensus has always been the rule within the Union. However, given the perspective of enlargement and the increasing political relevance of the issues to be addressed, consensual decision-making does not seem sufficient to ensure efficiency and deliver the policies that citizens expect. This poses the question whether EU institutions are mature enough to handle the transition to a new kind of legitimacy, based on participation and democratic debate.

Input-based legitimacy can rely either on the involvement of the “organised civil society” or on the direct involvement of citizens. Thus, including NGOs or pubic actors at the regional and local level in the system of governance does not automatically lead to more legitimacy. It only happens when citizens participate fully and directly or when they feel that the participation for organised civil society makes their voice better heard. This means that intermediary bodies have to operate in a transparent manner and to demonstrate their legitimacy as well – by showing that they are valuable interlocutors.

Conclusion

Stanley Crossick, in his concluding remarks, emphasised the underlying diversity and complexity of the EU and its Member States and the need to think through carefully the governance exercise; only then should we look at institutional reform, which is the means and not the end. It is neither easy to reconcile European coherence with national diversity; nor democracy with efficiency. But the challenge in seeking to create a more participatory and networked society and to get away from a hierarchical one is worth the effort. There is a communication deficit as well as a democratic deficit. However, despite the openness of the process, the intention to promote a participatory society would have been better served if the forthcoming Paper on governance were "Green" and not "White".

The EPC will hold a further Members' Dialogue to discuss the contents of the White Paper after it has been published.