The European Citizens’ Initiative : giving European citizens a voice : participatory democracy in the European Union

(1)

1

The European Citizens’ Initiative Giving European citizens a voice

Participatory democracy in the European Union

Thesis

Msc. Political Science: International Relations

Name: Julia Robeer

Student number 10127534 Supervisor Mr. A. F. Voicu

Second reader: Ms. Rosa Sanchez-Salgado Date of Submission June 23, 2017

(2)

2

Abbreviations

EC = European Commission

ECAS = European Civil Action Service ECI = European Citizens’ Initiative ECJ = European Court of Justice EU = European Union

(5)

5

1. Introduction

In 2016 only 38% of the European citizens argued that their voice was heard in the EU (European Union) and that their interests were taken properly into account (Eurobarometer Report 2016: 126). The European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) offers since 2012 the opportunity to bridge this gap between the EU and its citizens by enabling them to propose a legislative initiative on a subject necessary for improvement or adjustment in the EU. In this way, European citizens are offered the possibility to have their voice heard more directly .

However, Boussaguet (2016: 108) argues that participatory tools often remain at the discursive level instead of actually having a practical impact. Institutions can offer these tools but citizens should also be willing to take this opportunity to influence policymaking in the EU. This study aims on addressing these notions in the context of the EU as a transnational institution trying to increase its legitimacy through the involvement of citizens. The research question will be as follows:

What is the contribution of the European Citizens’ Initiative to participatory democracy in the European Union

Commissioner Šefčovič argued the implementation of the ECI was a major step forward in the democratic life of the Union providing a concrete example of bringing Europe closer to its citizens and enhancing cross border debate (Šefčovič 2012). After being implemented for five years 78 ECIs have been submitted, of which 20 ECIs have been rejected by the Commission and 3 ECIs have been successful in collecting the necessary million signatures (European Commission 2017). ECIs have dealt with a whole variety of topics from big issues such as the improvement of education and European citizenship to smaller, still burning issues such as a proposal for the legalization of weed to the prohibition of the practice of leaving the lights on in shops when closed.

As such, stakeholders generally agree on the opportunity of the ECI as a tool to promote dialogue between citizens and EU institutions, but different views exist on whether this organised dialogue is enough to bridge the gap between citizens and decision-makers (Atanassov 2017: 2). This research aims to add to this debate by examining the contribution of the ECI as a

participatory tool to bring the EU closer to its citizens. In the literature proponents of participatory democracy are portrayed as utopian dreamers only concerned with how things should be, instead of how things can be in the real world (Zittel 2007: 10). The ECI, as the first transnational tool of participatory democracy, is an opportunity to wake up these utopian dreamers and show what the real contribution of this tool is to the EU.

(6)

6

1.1 Structure of the thesis

In this paper the ECI is examined as a case-study of participatory engineering by the European Commission in order to study its contribution to bring citizens closer to the European level. To be able to give a comprehensive answer the earlier defined research question three sub-questions are distinguished that will lead to a comprehensive answer. First I will analyse the design of the ECI regulation in order to distinguish the possibilities and limitations the ECI has in making a contribution to participatory democracy at a transnational level. This analysis is enriched with qualitative data from interviews held with former and current ECI organisers. Their perspective shows what motivates organisers to start an ECI and moreover analyses what was hoped for when the ECI was first implemented. The section with limitations difines the possible ‘threats’ that can limit the functioning of the ECI as a transnational participatory tool aiming on bringing EU closer to its citizens through participation.

Henceforth, an analysis of the criticisms towards the ECI will be made from the

perspective of ECI organisers. At the different stages of organising an ECI organiser experience difficulties hindering them in their work. Qualitative data provide the main themes that have emerged among organisers that will be necessary to improve in the announced revision.

The first two chapters take a look at the ECI from an organisers perspective. But in order to analyse the contribution of the ECI to participatory democracy in the EU chapter 6 will focus on the motivation of citizens to make use of the ECI and especially on its potential to be a tool for critical citizens to show their dissatisfaction and attempt to change ongoing issues in the EU. This chapter addresses the concept of Euroscepticism in relation to the willingness to make use the ECI. As such, the ECI could be a suitable tool for Eurosceptic citizens because of its ability to directly influence the Commission. Earlier quantitative research by Kentmen-Cin (2014) showed the opposite effect. Kentmen-Cin (2014: 301) found that citizens who are more critical about of EU tend to be less likely to be willing to make use of the ECI. Her results imply that cynicism at EU level results in more alienation from European politics, instead of a higher motivation to use the ECI (Kentmen-Cin 2014: 301). However, it is important to note here that Kentmen-Cin used data from 2010 from when the ECI was not in practice yet. There is a possibility that after the implementation of the ECI, citizens have got to know more about the instrument and its benefits which has influenced the relationship between Euroscepticism and likelihood to make use of the ECI. Therefore I conduct a replication study with data from when the ECI was in practice in order to analyse whether the implementation of the ECI has caused a difference in this relationship. Furthermore I analyse the relationship between Euroscepticism

(7)

7

and the likelihood to make use of the ECI from a qualitative perspective based on interview data. I extend the analysis of the potential of the ECI to contribute to the debate on Euroscepticism.

After using a triangulation of methods, through qualitative and quantitative research to examine the research question the argument of this paper follows. As a tool to bring the EU closer to citizens the ECI is not yet sufficient enough in its contribution to participatory democracy. High requirements make it unlikely that ‘ordinary’ citizens will be motivated to organize an ECI. Furthermore the organization of an ECI brings a number of challenges that potentially lead to dissatisfaction with the functioning of the EU and thus contradicting its goals to bring the EU closer to its citizens.

1.2 Academic relevance

The ECI has been studied with different approaches by scholars. Monaghan (2012: 285) perceived it as a move to a more radical model of participatory democracy. Moreover, De Clerck-Sachsse (2012: 299) and Sangsari (2013: 6) observe the ECI as a crucial instrument to improve the democratic quality of the EU. Furthermore, Greenwood and Tuokko (2016: 2) see the potential contribution of the ECI to a European public sphere. Kentmen-Cin (2014: 314) argues after analysis of the willingness to make use of the ECI that the ECI is not the most effective tool for changing people’s view of the EU’s democratic deficit. However, little research is available on the effect organising an ECI has on organisers themselves and their perception of the ECI and the EU as a whole. In its short history an extensive amount of ECIs has been organized. Moreover, we have to be aware that organisers have more power as they are the ones communicating to the public. Therefore my approach adds a valuable dimension to the research on the ECI.

This research is academically relevant, because it contributes to the literature of participatory democracy at a transnational level. Participatory democratic theory is criticized for its lack of practical evidence (Zittel 2007: 10). While at first participatory democratic theorists have focused on building theory on the local and national level, there is limited research on the addition of participatory instruments at the transnational level due the lack of empirical evidence. Moreover this study analyses the determinants of citizens to be supportive of participatory tools through quantitative research.

1.3 Social relevance

The social relevance of this research is its potential contribution to the in April 2017 announced revision of the ECI regulation. Following my research I propose recommendations to the

(8)

8

Commission in order to improve the ECI in its potential to contribute to participatory democracy in the EU.

Moreover my analysis addresses the concept of Euroscepticism that has become a mainstream way of thinking and concern of EU institutions (Brack and Startinn 2015: 242). My study provides an argument whether the ECI is a useful tool imposed by the Commission. As Euroscepticism has become a This research analyses whether the ECI and potentially more participatory tools are valuable tools to involve citizens at EU level in order to challenge Euroscepticism and promote transnational debate.

1.4 Structure

In order to provide an answer to the research question, this paper proceeds as follows. The next section will lay out the theoretical framework in which the main concepts relevant to this research will be outlined. Following, the methodological chapter will elaborate on the different methods I will use to examine the research question. These will consist of interviews, document analysis and a quantitative analysis in order to shed light on the ECI from different perspectives. The results of this study will be analysed in three chapters. Finally, the conclusion gives a thorough answer to the research question.

2. Theoretical framework

In the theoretical framework the relevant theories applied to the topic of the European Citizens’ Initiative and its contribution to participatory democracy will be discussed. Firstly the concept of participatory democracy will be examined with an emphasis on the potential benefits of citizen participation. Then the debate on the value of participatory instruments is put in the transnational context. Finalle, the determinants for citizens to make them willing to participate are outlined.

2.1 Definition of participatory democracy

This section elaborates on the concept of participatory democracy, its implications on the

transnational level and the position of the ECI in this context. Theorists of participatory democracy focus on the relationship between individuals and the

governing authority and the way in which they interact with each other (Pateman 1970: 103). Moreover, proponents of participatory democracy see a great democratic advantage for the society when a large number of citizens engages in in political decision-making, sharing a sense of responsibility for their social environment (Zittel 2007: 9).

(9)

9 2.1.1 Conceptualization

In order to understand the concept of participatory democracy it is important to take notice that this concept developed as a critique towards liberal democracy and elite democracy where both perceive only a limited role for citizens in political decision making (Bang et al. 2015: 206). Bollen (1993: 1208) defines liberal democracy as the extent to which a political system allows political liberties and democratic authority. These political liberties are defined to the extent of which citizens are able to express their opinion and to what extent they are able to participate in a particular group (Bollen 1993: 1209). The meaning of participation in liberal democracy is limited to the extent that it contains participation in a political party and the ability of citizens to vote (Bollen 1993: 120). Moreover, Schumpeter (1976: 269-270) defines an elite democracy as an institutional understanding where individuals have the power in decision making as a result of a struggle for the vote of citizens. Both these visions consider the question of through which means it is possible represent citizens and having an effective government.

Pateman’s (2012: 15) conceptualization of participatory democracy evolved as a direct critique towards Schumpeter who views citizens as consumers that are able to evaluate the products they are provided with, but do not have the capacity to influence decision making. In the vision of Schumpeter participation of citizens in society is empirically unrealistic in complex societies. Furthermore, he sees participatory tools as attempts to obtain power, to undermine leadership and importantly, to destabilise democracy (Monaghan 2012: 287). Pateman (1970: 104-105) challenges these assumptions arguing that participation leads to the self-development of citizens, an increase in political efficacy and thus contributes to the political system and democracy. In her view citizens should have the right to participate in decision-making and the political system should offer the means to make this possible (Pateman 2012: 15). By stating this she does not argue that participation should be valued over the importance of stability or effectiveness of governance (Monaghan 2012: 286). Participation of citizens leads to a more effective form of governance. Additionally Pateman (2012: 15) argues participatory democracy can strengthen the legitimacy of the political system. In her view political participation is about being confident about somebody’s ability to influence political decision-making and public life. It does not imply that all individuals do always participate (Zittel 2007: 12).

2.1.2 Individual effects of participation

Kaufman is considered one of the theoretical founders of participatory democratic theory (Mansbridge 1995, Hilmer 2010). He argued that the largest asset of participatory politics is its contribution to development of the human power of thought, feeling and action (Hilmer 2010: 45).

(10)

10

The core of a democracy is that it contributes to the development of a common sense of awareness about collective action problems. This idea motivates citizens to develop themselves which results in an increase of political efficacy (Monaghan 2012: 286). Pateman focused on the individual benefits of participation and by promoting participation, aiming at obtaining democracy in society (Mansbridge 1995: 6). Through participation individual development takes place and political skills develop. An essential assumption here is that civic skills and participatory options enforce each other (Pateman 2012: 15).

2.2 Participatory engineering by political elite

The previous paragraph outlined the advantages of the participation of citizens in democratic societies. As a result of these advantages political elites see the importance of providing the tools to citizens to participate through institutional reform (Zittel 2007: 9).

Zittel (2007: 11) developed the concept of participatory engineering to examine attempts by political elites to advance political participation through institutional reform. He distinguished three strategies of participatory engineering used by political elites. The first he mentions is the strategy of integrative democratization that argues that institutions are an important element of shaping behaviour and ways of thinking by citizens. It has an elitist approach stating institutions should contribute to the education of citizens in order to let them become active citizens (Zittel 2007: 11). As a consequence of the expansion of the rights of citizens to influence political decision-making a process of political socialization and personal development occurs that is beneficial for the individual citizen and society as a whole (Zittel 2007: 12). The second strategy Zittel (2007: 16) distinguishes is expansive democratization which aims on increasing usage of political participation through expanding rights and by increasing the benefits of participation. This strategy assumes that political alienation may occur as a result of a negative outcome of a cost-benefit calculation (Zittel 2007: 21). According to participatory democratic theorists, the expansion of rights must be viewed in a qualitative sense rather than in a quantitative sense. Rather to have fewer effective participatory possibilities that actually can do something. Furthermore governments must enable choosing from different forms of participation and influence decision-making (Zittel 2007: 17). This strategy regards the citizens’ initiative as the most far-reaching measure because it offers citizens the opportunity to propose the issues and alternatives of the policy-making agenda instead of only reacting on policies developed by political elites (Zittel 2007: 19). The final strategy distinguished by Zittel is the strategy of efficiency-oriented democratization which argues that a reduction of the costs of participation can lead to a more positive cost-benefit analysis by citizens (Zittel 2007: 21).

(11)

11

Cost reduction can be established by using the internet and a network society. However, in reality the internet does not yet offer a secure tool for e-voting and online elections (Zittel 2007: 22).

The emergence of the ECI regulation meant an important innovation of the Lisbon Treaty in order to improve the democratic quality of the EU (De Clerck-Sachsse 2012: 299). The implementation of the ECI fits in Zittel’s strategy of expansive democratization by making it possible for citizens to propose alternatives to decision-makers at EU level. Through the implementation of the ECI the EU expanded the benefits for citizens to participate as this was the first transnational tool that gives citizens the means to directly influence EU policy making through the mobilization of citizens. Furthermore this development has elements of the strategy of efficiency-oriented democratization because the ECI was revolutionary in the sense that it offers the possibility for citizens to sign online in support of an initiative.

Concluding, this section has outlined the advantages of participation of citizens in a democratic society. Participation leads to self-development, an increase in political efficacy and an rise in the legitimacy of the governing entity. Consequently, political elites implement strategies of participatory engineering in order increase their legitimacy. Imposing participatory instruments on the transnational level in order to involve citizens is more complex on the transnational level. Consequently the following section will analyse the concept of participatory democracy in the context of transnational governance.

2.2.1 Participatory engineering at EU level

As a consequence of globalization the debate on the functioning of democracy includes nowadays discussions on the notion of democracy beyond the nation state (Nederveen Pieterse 2001: 408). A key issue in this debate is the importance of reforming the public sector to make public institutions more accountable and effective (Nederveen Pieterse 2001: 409). Larger political systems such as the EU are able to develop policies that go beyond the capacity of smaller systems (Dahl 1994: 28). This has implications for the ability of citizens to participate in decision making and discussions at this level. The emergence of the internationalization of governance has led to the fact that many important decisions are made without the political participation of citizens (Dahl 1994: 29). This could become a problem if only a minority of people exercises control over the agenda of transnational policy-making, directly affecting the lives of citizens (Dahl 1994: 31). Bohman (2005: 298-299) states that the internationalization of a political authority like the EU results in an increase in segregation of elements in policymaking and in less transparency. Monaghan (2012: 294) adds the importance of MacPherson’s contribution who had a positive view on participatory democracy arguing that this was possible to function even in larger and complex

(12)

12

societies. According to him the political system could be made more open and enriched with more tools of participation. Therefore participatory tools are seen as important tools.

The EU is considered as a representative democracy in a highly indirect way (Conrad 2013: 304). In order to make the EU less indirect Hüller (2010: 78) argues that it is part of the strategy of the European Commission to apply different forms of participatory engineering which try to educate and inform European citizens about the EU. Possible forms are an increased involvement of civil society and consultation rounds of the Commission. By doing this a transnational debate is enhanced and this may contribute to the development of a European public sphere.

The emergence of the Lisbon Treaty of the EU meant a shift of the notion of citizen participation from a political and sociological concept to becoming a constitutional norm (Kutay 2015: 804). It states that the EU institutions offer citizens and representative associations the opportunity to make known and publicly exchange their views in all areas of Union action (TEU Article 11). The institutions also shall maintain to be open and transparent in their functioning and the Commission will carry out broad consultations with various parties to ensure that its actions are coherent and transparent (TEU Article 11).

Despite this so-called participatory turn, Pateman (2012: 15) questions the effect of participation in improving the level of democracy of the EU. According to her most of the expansion of participation does not disturb the functioning of existing institutions. It appears there is a lack of political will of the EU institutions to pursue democratisation despite an increase in participation. She concludes by observing an expansion of participation and citizenship but sees no increase in democratization nor the creation of a participatory society (Pateman 2012: 14). Crespy (2014: 86) agrees by contradicting the assumption of policymakers that the EU is a deliberative political system because it does attempt to involve and inform citizens. She criticizes this view because the level of involvement of citizens has been fairly low and the decision making process is seen as elitist and remaining within EU institutions instead of involving citizens (Crespy 2014: 88). It remains a big challenge to give a clear and useful role for citizen participation at EU level that satisfies both institutions and citizens. Kutay (2015: 803) underlines this by stating that more participatory tools do not necessarily lead to a better level of democracy. It depends on who participates and why they choose to do so. Boussaguet (2016: 108) suggests that at current stage participatory tools in the EU seem more important at the discursive level than the practical level due to lack of an effective outcome . Additionally, the basis for a proper functioning level of participatory democracy is weak because of the weak notion of a European public sphere, the number of citizens and nationalism (Hüller 2010: 101).

(13)

13

Moreover Hüller (2010: 88) agrees with the positive effects of participation on society but argues that these effects can mainly be observed when citizens participate actively and regularly in political life. Only through more active participation, citizens will be able to use the political tools more effectively (Hüller 2010: 88). Active participation does not always have a positive effect on the level of trust in the political system. Hüller (2010: 88) takes the example of participation of citizens in radical or sceptic movements which most probably does not enhance trust in the political system. In order to let the ECI be a functioning tool with added value to the democratic system of the EU it should be used efficiently and on a regular basis. If not the contribution of the ECI is only symbolic.

Scharpf (2000: 311) argues the legitimacy of the EU can be based on input-oriented government by the people through participatory democracy and output-oriented effectiveness and government for the people. Sangari (2013) sees in the ECI the possibility to contribute to both these notions as the ECI involves citizens on the input side but also on the output side as policies are more effectively shaped through the inclusion of citizens. Furthermore participatory tools as such can contribute to the legitimacy of the EU through their involvement of citizens by making them knowledgeable about the EU.

This paragraph showed the function of the ECI as a tool of participatory democracy in the context of transnational governance. The next paragraph focuses on the debate on the relationship between the willingness to participate in political life when people are not satisfied with the political system.

2.3 Determinants of political participation

Institutions can provide the tools for participation but citizens should be willing to participate. Citizens might not decide to participate because they are not informed well enough about the purpose to participate or because they favour other goals more and therefore are reluctant to participate (Zittel 2007: 16). The paradox here is that political apathy, as a consequence of governance based on formal procedures and low inclusiveness of citizens, develops but that this apathy is complicated to overcome when governments already function in this way and participatory tools are implemented in a later stage.

Hüller (2010: 89) argues it is rather impossible to develop a theory explaining European political participation. He does provide a framework under which circumstances citizens do participate in the political process. He distinguishes two categories of motivation for citizens to participate. The first category argues that skills and resources available to citizens play a significant

(14)

14

role in their decision to participate. When for example income and education tend to be lower, citizens are less likely motivated to participate. Citrin (1977: 382) agrees with this notion arguing that political disaffection is linked to a citizen’s individual cognitive and political skills, age and opportunities for protest behaviour. There is a possibility that this certain level of skills and resources ‘necessary’ for active participation differs on the European level from the national level (Hüller 2010: 89).

The second category proposed by Hüller is the level of rational motivation and civic virtues. This category focuses on the actual motivation of citizens to participate. Having a certain level of skills and resources does not directly lead to active participation. This actual motivation relies on the potential political influence of participating, specific interest in the subject and the relevance of it and how demanding the participation is (Hüller 2010: 90). Citizens are more likely to participate when the act is less demanding. Following these categories Hüller assumes that citizens mostly participate in political affairs for instrumental reasons to influence politics (Hüller 2010: 90). In other words, there should be a clear positive effect for citizens as a result the effort.

This categorization by Hüller has its implications on the willingness of citizens to be in support of participatory tools such as a citizens’ initiative. Literature shows, based on empirical studies that there is a disagreement about the willingness of citizens to participate when they are not satisfied with the political system. This is relevant for the contribution of the ECI to participatory democracy because it defines whether the ECI is able to be a tool inclusive to all citizens and thus a valuable contribution to democracy in the EU.

Dalton et al. (2001: 142) examine the tension between representative and direct democracy in the attitudes of European citizens. Direct democracy aims at providing influential incentives to citizens to participate. Referendums and citizens’ initiatives are considered as forms of direct democracy (Zittel 2007: 18). They argue that the motivation to be a supporter of reforming direct democracy is often linked to the willingness to protest against an inefficient government or the political biases of a ruling party (Dalton et al. 2001: 149). These ideas are often seen in the policies of protest parties. Furthermore individual citizens who are unhappy with the policies of their government can have a more positive opinion about direct democracy. Bengtsson and Mattila (2007: 1045) found empirical evidence in Finland that citizens who are not satisfied with the political system are the ones most in favour of change and in support of direct democracy. They also found that right-wing citizens are greater supporters of efficient decision-making through non-elected experts while left-wing citizens on the contrary are more likely wishing citizens to be more involved in the political system (Bengtsson and Mattila 2007: 1045).

(15)

15

On the contrary, literature indicates that people who tend to be more cynical towards the political system, are less interested in politics. This implies that they are less motivated to influence policy, to vote in elections and to support citizen initiatives. For example Muller et al. (1982: 241) state that a negative view of the political system provides an incentive to take part in antisystem behaviour. This antisystem behaviour of people who are not satisfied with the political system can result in less support for democratic institutions that require more effort from citizens (Donovan and Karp 2006: 683). Moreover this indicates that the willingness to participate in initiatives and referendums is most likely affected by the level of political interest of citizens (Donovan and Karp 2006: 683-684). Donovan and Karp (2006: 671) also found that younger citizens and people with a higher level of interest in the political system tend to give more support for direct democracy. Dissatisfaction with the political system has less impact. The scholars do not find much evidence on the positive effect of direct democracy on involving people with less interest in politics or the idea that direct democracy is supported by far right groups (Donovan and Karp 2006: 684). This suggests that a tool of direct democracy like the ECI does not lead to more involvement of people critical of the European system.

2.3.1 Implications for the ECI

The ECI has been implemented as a tool for all European citizens to participate at EU level and to take part in the public debate on decision making. Following the debate on citizen support for tools of direct democracy, it can be assumed that people who are already interested in politics and more positive about the EU institutions are more likely to participate and make use of the ECI. In contrast, citizens that are more sceptical about the EU would be less motivated to use the tool to influence the political decision-making. Although, the debate shows that empirical evidence implies different results on this notion. I agree with Hüller that the EU faces an even bigger challenge regarding motivating citizens to participate actively in its participatory tools. It appears that for citizens to participate in an ECI, especially the level of resources and to some extent also the skills, needs to be higher. Furthermore Hüller’s theory implies that in order to be motivated to participate, citizens need to feel that they can actually achieve something.

2.4 Conclusion

This chapter has outlined the theoretical framework for this research. First the concept of participatory democracy is explained, second the advantages of citizen’ participation are presented. Consequently the complexity of participatory democracy is examined at the

(16)

16

participate or not. The next chapter will outline the methodological design I use to answer the research question.

3.Research methodology

The main purpose of the empirical analysis of this research is to study the contribution of the ECI to address the democratic deficit of the EU. In order to do this in a comprehensive way I use a method of triangulation to look at the phenomenon conducting qualitative and quantitative research. The following sections will define the selection of data and methodology

3.1 Case selection

In order to analyse the ECI as tool of participatory engineering in the EU the ECI is selected as case-study in order to give a comprehensive examination of the notion (Gerring 2011: 5). A single case-study is more useful when a topic is being encountered for the first time like in this research because this is the first transnational tool of participatory democracy (Gerring 2011: 9). This case-study can be seen a s ‘typical case’ as it is a specific representative of the phenomenon of participatory engineering that has been outlined in the theoretical chapter (Gerring 2011: 16). As I apply the theory of participatory democracy to the concept of the ECI Gerring (2004: 346) argues that case studies are useful to form descriptive interpretations. Furthermore they have an advantage in research of an exploratory nature (Gerring 2004: 349).

The case of the ECI distinguishes itself from other cases of participatory engineering because it is the first transnational tool of direct participatory democracy promoting the active participation of ordinary citizens in contrast to other participatory tools at the EU level. This unique transnational tool of participatory democracy gives citizens the same right as the European Parliament and Member States to propose legislative measures for the EU (Sangsari 2013: 5). Other forms of participatory engineering are the possibility of citizens to participate in the set of consultation rounds the Commission holds with civil society during the agenda setting phase before the formal process of making legislation starts (Conrad 2011: 13). Moreover citizens have the right to petition the European Parliament and draw attention on an issue they are concerned about. Conrad (2011: 13) argues that this right differs from the ECI because it can be solely proposed by one citizen and because its approach is more indirect than the ECI. This indirectness is due to the limited power of the Parliament to request a proposal from the Commission, while a successful ECI obliges the Commission to act which can eventually lead to change in legislation. Furthermore via the European Ombudsman citizens have the possibility to submit a complaint on any EU topic.

(17)

17

Additionally Monaghan (2012: 290) draws attention to the possibility for citizens to become a member of an interest group and political parties, vote in elections for the European Parliament and attend public hearings organised by the European Parliament.

Furthermore the ECI is an important case in the context of participatory engineering because it was introduced in the Lisbon Treaty in order to contribute to address the democratic deficit of the EU (Conrad 2011: 5). There was a clear signal that the European institutions felt the need to bring European politics closer to citizens by involving them more and the ECI was implemented as a tool to contribute to this.

3.2 Selection of data

I have chosen to use a triangular approach to examine the research question. By using different methods a comprehensive examination of the ECI is made. This triangulating methods consist of document analysis, interviews and quantitative research.

3.2.1 Interviews

By conducting interviews with former and current ECI organisers I take a bottom-up approach through highlighting the perspective of ECI organisers on the ECI. Their view enables me to distinguish themes relevant in the organisation of the ECI and what these implications mean in answering the research question. Moreover the strength of these primary data is that they provide an understanding of the perception of ECI organisers on the ECI (Gerring 2012: 723). However, the context of every ECI organiser is different and they have experienced the procedure of an ECI differently. A limitation of the interviewing method is that it is important to be aware of this context and to keep this in mind when analysing the data. In order to overcome the

possibility to portray a biased view on the ECI, I aimed on interviewing a variety of respondents to be able to outline their perspective more comprehensively.

I selected my respondents on the condition they have or have been actively involved in the organisation of an ECI. Interviews were held through Skype as the respondents resided in different countries across Europe. Two of my respondents were part of an ECI that has finished. Giovanni Melogli was organiser of the ECI Media Pluralism1_{that did not succeed in collecting}

the necessary million signatures. André Menache was involved in the ECI Stop-Vivisection2_that

1_{ECI Media Pluralism 2012-2013 organised with the purpose of an increase in the protection of media pluralism in}

Member States.

2_{ECI Stop Vivisection 2012-2013 with the purpose to use of animals in scientific research}_._{This was a successful}

ECI that collected more than a million signatures. After the public hearing the Commission decided not to act upon the proposed ideas. The organisers sent a complaint to the European Ombudsman but she decided after inquiry that the reasoning of the Commission not to act was valid.

(18)

18

reached the threshold of the million signatures. Three other respondents were involved in an ongoing ECI. Frank de Boer is part of the organisers of the ECI Minority Safepack3_{that in 2013}

was rejected by the Commission to register and in 2017 after a decision by the European Court of Justice was registered eventually. Joanna Pankowska represents the ECI More than

Education4_{. Ed Alvarado is the initiator of the currently ongoing ECI Flock Brexit}5_{. Annex 2}

provides a more detailed description of the interviewees. Annex 3 displays the interview design. In my chapters I define multiple categories to analyse of which different typologies are the result. In order to be able to do this in a systematic way I transcribed four out of five

interviews. Moreover the transcription of these interviews allow me to add quotes to my analysis that illustrate my arguments.

3.2.2 Document analysis

In order to make an in-depth analysis of the ECI I use a wide variety of documents from actors in the field of the ECI. This analysis of documents contributes to the primary data from interviews and helps me to analyse the approach of EU institutions towards the ECI. Furthermore these documents provide me with information about the development of the tool and perspectives throughout the past years. In annex 3 a list of the used documents is provided. A disadvantage of my document analysis is that I have to be aware that some of these documents from civil society and websites of organisers can be biased and have to be seen in their context.

3.2.3 Participant Observation

I attended the ECI day on April 18th_{2017 in Brussels at the European Economic and Social}

Committee (EESC). During that day stakeholders organisers and academics came together to discuss the current state of the ECI. I took notes from the discussions and workshops that I incorporated in my research. Furthermore I compared my observations with the report written about the ECI day and made comparisons with reports from earlier years. By taking part in the

3_{ECI Minority Safepack organised with the purpose of improving the protection of persons belonging to national}

and linguistic minorities. This ECI is open for collection of signatures since April 2017 and campaigning actively. The ECI Minority Safepack has a history of being refused to register by the European Commission in 2014. After the rejection the citizens’ committee challenged this decision to the European Court of Justice in parts of the legal requests judged to fall within the consequences of the Commission and therefore accepted by the Commission in 2017 when the campaign was able to start.

4_{ECI More than Education organised with the purpose of more promotion of civic education in European member}

states. This ECI is currently ongoing.

5_{ECI Flock Brexit organised with the purpose to separate nationality and citizenship in EU legislation in light of}

(19)

19

ECI Day I was able to distinguish the different stakeholders involved it the ECI and furthermore could get a sense of the general attitude to the ECI.

3.3 Quantitative analysis

In chapter 6 the relationship between Euroscepticism and the likelihood of citizens to intend to make use of the ECI will be analysed. To study this relationship and its implications I build on earlier research by Kentmen-Cin (2014). She conducted quantitative research with data from the Eurobarometer Survey No. 73.4 from 2010. Her findings were that when the degree of Euroscepticism is higher, the willingness to use the ECI decreases. However, these findings are speculative because they are based on data from when the ECI was not in practice yet. In this chapter I study whether the implementation of the ECI had a significant impact on this relationship between Euroscepticism and the willingness to make use of the ECI by doing a replication of this research using Eurobarometer 80.1. An advantage of this method is that I can compare my findings more easily with earlier research. Moreover the Eurobarometer Survey is a representative tool because its research contains data of a minimum of 1000 respondents in all EU member states (European Commission 2107). In chapter 6 a detailed explanation of the methods of this research is provided.

3.4 Conclusion

Concluding this thesis will evaluate the effectiveness of the ECI as tool of participatory engineering to contribute to participatory democracy in the EU. Through a single case study using different methods like document analysis, interviews, quantitative research and participant observation a comprehensive answer to the research question will be provided. The chapters that will analyse the possibilities and limitations of the ECI design and the criticisms towards the ECI will be more of a descriptive nature able to define an understanding of the contribution of the ECI to participatory democracy. The quantitative analysis adds a component of a causal examination of the relationship between Euroscepticism and the likelihood to make use of the ECI. Limitations of this approach is its low level of generalization and the decision to only interview ECI organisers which can give an biased view on the ECI. All of these together contribute to the provision of an in-depth answer to the research question about the contribution of the ECI to participatory democracy in the EU.

(20)

20

4. The possibilities and limitations of the ECI design

The potential of the ECI can be seen as a mixture of optimism and doubt. In this chapter the possibilities and limitations of the design of the ECI will be analysed. This overview of elements is composed of data from respondents and analysis of documents released at the time of the implementation of the ECI regulation.

4.1 Possibilities of the design of the ECI

The possibilities of the ECI design go along with the arguments of the proponents of participatory democracy arguing that citizen participation leads to more informed citizens, rise in the legitimacy of the political system and a contribution to a public sphere in which discussion is fostered (Patemen 1970: 104-105). Furthermore the ECI shows the intention of the EU to improve and respond to the needs of its citizens (Ghergina and Groh 2016: 376-377). According to the Green Paper on the regulation the ECI would add a new element of democracy, contribute positively towards the building of a European public sphere and motivate involvement of citizens and civil society in EU politics (Commission of the European Communities 2009: 3). The following sections will address these possibilities with additional plausible effects of the ECI regulation.

4.1.1 Raise awareness about an issue to put in on the agenda of the Commission

An ECI is an invitation to the Commission to propose a law or an adjustment of legislation in which the Commission has the capacity to act (European Commission 2015: 4). Citizens are encouraged to be informed about topics the EU deals with. In order to invite the Commission to put the proposed idea on its agenda, organisers must collect a million signatures within a year in support of the initiative. By organising a campaign on an ECI, public awareness is created which contributes to the possibility that the proposed initiative will be put on the agenda of the European Commission.

‘By that time we thought the ECI was the right tool because it was a way to rise the public opinion on this problem and through a process of awareness to put the EU institutions under pressure to be able to say: Listen, there are EU citizens aware of this problem, and we made them aware of it, explaining, and you have the competence but you don’t want to use them. This is a possibility to mobilise, and to deblock the current situation.’ (Giovanni Melogli)

Moreover, organisers see the ECI as one step in the process of changing something at EU level. By raising the level of awareness the first step is made which will create debate and deepens the discussion.

(21)

21

‘We see it as an exercise to raise awareness about civic

education and use it as an excuse to organise activities around it. Also as an excuse to contact people about the topic.’ (Joanna Pankowska)

Furthermore, the added value of the ECI compared to other participatory tools within the EU is that a successful ECI shows there is a large group of European citizens in support of the proposed issue. By showing this, organisers can put more pressure on the Commission to take notice. However, since an ECI is only agenda-setting, the Commission keeps the power to decide to act or not. This implies that the ECI is a tool with the potential to involve a big group of citizens at the EU level and able to influence policy-making.

‘The Commission has to take an initiative seriously. You can give them a million signatures, but it is still up to the Commission to decide. Even though you have a million signatures, there are still 500 million other European citizens who did not sign the initiative.’ (Frank de Boer)

4.1.2 Involve citizens at EU level

The ECI is especially intended to invite ordinary citizens to participate given its requirement that the citizens’ committee, responsible for the organisation of the ECI, is not allowed to consist of an organization (European Commission 2011: 3). By requiring this the Commission shows its dedication towards involving ordinary citizens more and act beyond the already existing involvement of civil society (Conrad 2011: 17). However, any organisation is allowed to promote or support initiatives when it acts with full transparency (European Commission 2010: 4).

‘Ideally it is the goal to bring citizens closer to EU. The potential is there. This can be a first step to learn about the EU.’ (Joanna Pankowska)

When functioning best, the ECI would attract citizens who before did not intend to act at EU level due to a lack of willingness, knowledge or resources. Their involvement brings fresh and different ideas to the EU complementing the common actors (Bouza Garcia and Greenwood 2014: 264). In relation to this the ECI is a valuable alternative bottom up tool where the mobilisation of the ordinary citizen is necessary to put an issue on the EU agenda. Respondent Giovanni Melogli affirms that his ECI brought new citizens to the EU level.

‘That was one of the main difficulties. On the one side explain what we can do or cannot do at EU level, explain ECI, of course these organisations did not know anything about it. So the idea to use this kind of tool to create a European public opinion is good.’ (Giovanni Melogli)

(22)

22

Through the possibilities of online campaigning politics have become more accessible to citizens (Greenwood and Tuokko 2016: 4). The relative ease to support an initiative and to follow campaigns makes it easier for citizens to stay involved and informed about an ECI. Furthermore it reduces the costs of campaigning and costs of potential supporters (Carrara 2012: 358). However, as a result of this feature the ECI can be put in the same category as other online petition tools. The main difference here is that these petition tools only raise awareness while the ECI can directly influence EU policies.

‘Yes so that’s it from the one side you have to ease the process of signature collection, on the other side you need some formality to communicate to citizens that they do not just sign an online petition but it is something that can become a European law. That is the balance you need to find.’ (Giovanni Melogli)

Concluding, the ECI has the potential to bring citizens up to the EU level through its requirements, accessibility by the online option to sign the initiative and because it can be organized on many different topics of interest to a variety of citizens. As outlined in the theoretical framework the core of democracy is that it develops common sense of awareness about collective action problems that motivates citizens to develop themselves resulting in political efficacy (Monaghan 2012: 286). The ECI has the potential to contribute to the development of this common sense as it invites citizens to raise awareness about issues they find important.

A distinction must be made between the citizens who become more involved at the EU level through signing in support of an initiative and citizens who organise an ECI. If you argue citizens are brought to the EU level by signing an ECI the impact of citizens involved is larger since more than six million people have signed an initiative, than when only counting the citizens who were actively involved in the organisation of an ECI (European Economic and Social Committee 2015: 1).

4.1.3 Institutionalizing critical groups

One of the pitfalls of a tool of participatory democracy is that it excludes citizens from participating who have ideas not in line with the governing authority implementing the tool. The ECI can be seen as a means for groups or organizations that are critical about the EU to express their opinion. Because of its agenda setting function critical groups can put an issue they are critical about on the agenda of the Commission in order to change it or at least draw attention to the topic. To be able to organize an ECI critical groups must organize themselves intensively. By doing this organisations can increase their level of professionalism. Such a development would benefit the public debate and include citizens in this through showing their signature.

(23)

23

Looking at the recent history of the ECI, examples of ECIs directly critical about EU policies are the ECI Let’sfly2Europe6_{and the ECI Climate&Energy Package}7_{. Both these initiatives}

did not reach the million signatures. In the list of refused ECIs for registration an ECI to hold a referendum on the public confidence in European Governments and an ECI to insert a legal basis of the self-abolition of the European Parliament spark attention. Since these proposed adjustments in EU legislation fall outside the competences of the Commission, these campaigns were not organised. In that sense the ECI limits the possibility of contestation and critical thougts because of its legislative structure. However, the ECI was not meant to foster self-destruction of EU institutions, but as a tool to foster discussion through participation about EU issues with a possibility to change legislation. Moreover the regulation invites citizens to submit proposals based on rational arguments instead of proposals based on fake facts.

An important example of an ECI directly criticizing the EU is ECI Stop TTIP, organised in order to cancel the negotiations on the TTIP agreement. This ECI was rejected by the Commission because it argued that its imposed goal was beyond the competences of the Commission. After its rejection, a transnational petition was organised individually and this movement became a large player in the debate on the TTIP agreement. Eventually more than three million signatures in 26 member states were collected (Zalan 2015). As the campaigners contested the Commission’s decision to reject the ECI at the European Court of Justice (ECJ), in May 2017 the ECJ judged that the ECI Stop TTIP was unconditionally rejected by the Commission to register (General Court of the European Union 2017). As a result a critical group became institutionalized, but they were left with a bittersweet feeling about the ECI and the Commission. Consequently, a refused ECI like the ECI Stop TTIP, mobilizing a great number of citizens hinders the credibility of the ECI as a participatory tool contributing to a public sphere.

Concluding the ECI can be an incentive for critical groups to mobilize and become included in the European debate. The refusal for registration does not necessarily have to be a stop of the initiative as is shown with the example of the ECI Stop TTIP. However, until thus far this has been the only example of an individual initiative after refusal by the Commission.

4.1.4 Personal development

As Patemen (1970: 104-105) argues, active citizen participation leads to self-development and an increase in political skills. Greenwood and Tuokko (2016: 7) argue in line with this that citizens through an ECI develop skills in communication, public campaigning and online networking.

6_{ECI Let’sFly2Europe with the goal of allowing refugees to come to Europe by plane} 7_{proposing to suspend the 2009 Climate&Energy Package and further climate regulations}

(24)

24

Consequently, even without organising a successful ECI, there are valuable outcomes at the individual level. Furthermore the organisation of an ECI can contribute to the widening of the personal network.

‘Well personally of course there was a way to create a big European network to work on this kind of issue. In the end we created a big organisation based in Brussels. An international association to defend these kinds of issues.’ (Giovanni Melogli)

‘But in general it gave us more knowledge about the EU and also positive feelings about what is done there in Brussels.’ (Joanna Pankowska)

Because of the large role of the internet in the organization of the ECI, the tool is most likely to be of interest to student groups which also gives them the ability to express themselves politically (Greenwood and Tuokko 2016: 13). This can be seen in the Commission report showing the average age of ECI organisers.

European Commission 2015, p. 5

4.2 Limitations of the ECI design

The success of an ECI depends on the costs of organising in comparison to the benefits it brings. The benefits seem rather clear for a citizens’ committee; namely to put an issue on the agenda of the European Commission in order to eventually change legislation. The costs can be categorized in financial costs but the required effort also plays a determining role. For the Commission the benefit of the ECI is its possibility to foster transnational debate and increase its legitimacy. The potential costs are the loss in credibility if the ECI regulation does not function well and decreases

(25)

25

the level of satisfaction of citizens towards the EU. The following sections address the limitations of the ECI from the perspective of organisers and stakeholders.

4.2.1 Transnational requirements

According to the Green Paper on the ECI regulation the leading principle for the proposal was that the total procedure of an ECI should be simple and user-friendly (European Commission 2010: 2). When measuring the level of user-friendliness of its requirements, I observe difficulties for citizens to organise an ECI. The main challenge organisers encounter is to collect one million signatures within a year. This difficulty shows its direct effect in the low number of three ECIs that have actually reached the million signatures at the time of writing. The organisation of most ECIs is based on volunteers which implies the amount of work people can put in the organisation of the ECI is limited. The online voting system contributes to making the collection of signatures easier but Glogowski and Maurer (2013: 18) argue that in order to collect signatures organisers should also focus on campaigning offline because a personal approach helps increasing the likelihood that citizens will support the initiative.

‘You can collect signatures online and offline. In some way if you try to collect signatures online you end up in this black hole of the web where nowadays it is really impossible to create an impact. Or if you go offline on the streets to get signatures then you need 1 million euros to continue. So there is a paradox of managing the initiative. You need too much effort for not sure result.’ (Giovanni Melogli)

In every Member State a different threshold of the minimum amount of signatures necessary is set according to the number of Members of the European Parliament elected in a member state, multiplied by 750 (European Commission 2011: 11). The threshold must be reached in at least seven member states. This contributes to the transnational component of the ECI regulation to prevent that the million signatures will be collected in one member state. However, Andre Menache highlights that the transnational character of the ECI Stop-Vivisection is limited given that 750.000 signatures came from Italy as a result of the campaign of a popular Italian animal welfare movement.

The paradox of the at first sight great number of one million signatures is that it eventually represents 0.2% of the European population which is fairly low. Bouza Garcia and del Río Villar (2012: 319) argue therefore that one million signatures is difficult to collect, but this amount is easy to disregard because this number is not representative for the European population. From the perspective of the organisers a smaller number of signatures is favoured to increase the possibility to succeed.

(26)

26

‘I would say half a million I think is just about doable by an NGO that doesn’t have a lot of money. I think a million is already out of reach for normal NGOs.’ (Andre Menache)

Concluding, the transnational requirements of organizing an ECI make it an unique participatory at the EU level. However, these obligations make it more difficult for organisers to be successful in order to achieve the goal of changing legislation.

4.2.2 Financial costs

The Commission does not provide ECIs with any financial resources. Organizers will have to rely on volunteers and donations of supporting organizations. The three successful initiatives so far that have managed to collect the million signatures, also received the highest amount of money for funding and support; namely ECI Right2Water8_{140.000 euro, ECI One of Us 159.219 euro and}

ECI Stop vivisection 23.651 euro (European Commission 2015: 13). With more financial support a bigger campaign is possible which leads to an easier process of collecting signatures. ECI organisers are aware of this and therefore often have to rely on online campaigning and are also encouraged to be creative with few resources.

‘So what I am saying to you is that ordinary groups of citizens or ordinary NGO will not normally have the money to organize an ECI and campaign. It is very expensive..’ (Andre Menache)

Joanna Pankowska from ECI More than Education does not think their ECI will reach the million signatures and this is mostly due to the lack of funding. They were not able to have someone working fulltime on the ECI and have to rely on cost-friendly campaigning activities.

The high financial costs hinder ‘ordinary’ citizens from organising a campaign and make the tool in that respect less valuable as a participatory tool. However citizens are encouraged to take part in an ECI through volunteering and smaller activities which could contribute to the participatory potential of the ECI.

4.2.3 Agenda setting function of the ECI

The effects of participatory tools are determined by the legislation around them (Boussaguet 2016: 118). The suggested possible change in legislation of an ECI needs to fall within the competences of the Commission and the proposed actions have to be within the areas in which the Commission has the right of initiative to propose new laws on (European Commission 2011: 8). Consequently

8_{ECI Right2Water argues there should be general EU legislation on the right to water and sanitation as a public}

(27)

27

the ECI is a legislative tool and cannot change the European treaties or make fundamental changes to the EU system (Conrad 2011: 11). In the current design a detailed analysis of the proposed initiative by the Commission only takes place after an ECI has been successful. Before registering the Commission first analyses if an initiative fits within its competences but after collecting the million signatures a thorough examination follows. Consequently it may happen that an initiative will be registered at first, but after the campaign the Commission decides not to act upon the proposed issue (Bouza Garcia and del Río Villar 2012: 319). However, the Commission is obliged to examine the initiative and present a formal response on what it intends to do (European Commission 2011: 12). Yet, it is still possible that the Commission does not intend to take action.

This determining element of the ECI regulation implies that the Commission plays a large role in the whole design and process of the ECI regulation. Bouza Garcia and Del Rio Villar (2012: 316) even call the ECI a weak tool because of its limited agenda setting function because it does not require the Commission to at least discuss an initiative when it does not collect the required signatures. Respondents argue to be aware of this but at the time of campaigning they were convinced of their ECI that would be able to become influential at EU level.

It can be questioned to what extent the democratic benefits of participation can be realised through the ECI because of the limited agenda setting role. However, this form of participatory democracy seems to be the highest that can be achieved at a transnational level, especially given this is a legislative tool. The paradox here is that citizens who start an ECI most often do this because they actually want to change EU legislation, while the chances appear to be small to achieve this due to the difficulties of collecting signatures and legislative restrictions. Therefore the benefits of participation through an ECI are mainly the contribution to a public sphere and a potential higher involvement of citizens to strengthen the imposed argument. Moreover respondents acknowledge an instrument of direct participatory democracy is not feasible at the transnational level.

‘I do not believe in the idea a tool of direct democracy but I believe in it as a tool of European public sphere. A small help.’ (Giovanni Melogli)

Nonetheless, when citizens would be given the direct means to change EU legislation chaos will most likely occur. Yet, because of the limited power of an ECI there is a fear that it will cost more bureaucratic effort than result in policy change (De Clerck-Sachsse 2012: 308). Organisers draw attention to achieve their goals not only through the change in legislation but also by raising awareness.

(28)

28

‘So even we do not get a lot of signatures, we get attention. There is not many of them but they are noticed. So in that sense it is not just about putting something on the agenda of the Commission, but also on what people here in Brussels are talking about. In that sense I do believe that some of them probably influence much more than we see.’ (Joanna Pankowska)

In this respect organizers must be aware that the ECI is only an agenda-setting tool and henceforth see the value of their campaign in increasing public awareness that could eventually be influential. 4.2.4 ECI used by CSOs instead of citizens

As previously outlined interest groups or organizations are not allowed to start an ECI because a citizens’ committee must be composed of citizens. Paradoxically, respondents agree that it is almost not possible to organise a successful ECI because of the necessary resources and high amount of work. Therefore it limits the ECI as a participatory tool to involve citizens at EU level.

‘The costs of running an ECI are very high. Therefore it is not very likely that in the future ECIs will be used by many Europeans but it will stay mainly a tool for organisations (Frank de Boer).

When asking ECI organisers about their strategy to collect a million signatures, all of them approached organisations and advocacy groups that are concerned with their topic.

‘Right now I am trying to contact all organisations I know across Europe that could be able to support me financially or through exposure.’ (Ed Alvarado)

Commission representative Šefčovič addressed the concern of the ECI becoming ‘hijacked’ by powerful lobby groups and organisations (Šefčovič 2012). In his opinion there is nothing wrong with that if the purpose of the ECI is beneficial for all European citizens and because there are still one million citizens needed to sign (Šefčovič 2012). When looking at the ECI from this perspective Bouza Garcia and Del Rio Villar (2012: 316) argue that the ECI provides civil society with an extra tool to influence EU policy-making. This tool has for them an extra dimension as they are obliged to directly involve citizens which increases their credibility as CSO.

‘But I do believe that eventually if the legislation and things like the registration and data requirements hopefully is now planning to revise and change, I hope that it might become more user friendly and also more accessible to everyone.’ (Joanna Pankowska)

Concluding at first sight it seems that the idea that CSOs will make use of the ECI contributes negatively to the ECI as a participatory tool. Nevertheless, because they must reach a million